An editorial in one of our dailies appears to have missed the core issue concerning the increasing demand for licensed firearms among citizens in general and business people in particular.
I believe that this demand is triggered by the failure of our uniformed services to effectively deal with crime and more especially violent crime and the use of unlawful firearms by the perpetrators. In this scenario, the real issue to be addressed is the efficacy of our uniformed services in the discharge of their duties and not, as headlined, Who Should Get Firearms. This construct brings us to consider the following:
Prevention–based on demographic data, how effective are they ?
Detection–statistical information related to population, location & other sociological parameters
Apprehension–not only simple percentages but with relevant correlations with advice from our behavioural scientists
Conviction and reformation–both these parameters require detailed study of court and incarceration records.
There is need to examine the statistics and identify where our uniformed services have consistently failed.
In responding to the failures, I am absolutely certain that the unprecedented demand for firearms will be effectively addressed and perhaps lead us to a conclusion on the question: "Is there a need for a Firearms Review Board?" or should we not review our uniformed services more critically? Hitherto our solutions have all been based on finances and so far have not been effective.
The editorial also alluded to the US law of the right to bear arms but neglected to mention that that right was premised on the now discredited belief that every white (Caucasian) held the inalienable right to defend against runaway slaves. In a society that has respect for law and order, there is no need for law abiding citizens to bear arms.
Samuel B Howard
Maracas/St Joseph