Some of you may have heard about recent events in Colorado
where a psychopath going under the pseudonym of “The Joker” opened fire on a
crowd of innocent civilians, killing a dozen and wounding several more in the
process. Now, an article in The New York Times has revealed that the suspect
was able to purchase ammunition worth $3,000 on the internet. This included
3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, 3,000 rounds for a rifle and 350 shotgun
shells. During the process of acquiring this firepower, not once was Mr. James
Holmes subject to a background check of any sort. His identity remained
virtually anonymous throughout the entire transaction process.
Sources:
1.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/us/online-ammunition-sales-highlighted-by-aurora-shootings.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp
2. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/un-committees-take-aim-at-family-structure-and-morality-analyst-says
3. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/bg1407es-how-un-conventions-on-womens
Since this is the USA in question, organisations called “Gun
Groups” have quickly jumped to the defence of the online system, saying
stricter controls would only limit constitutional rights of individuals. This
is understandable, when you consider American “culture” consists of guns,
pick-up trucks, camping and spending nights everywhere except in one’s house.
The obvious solution would be to regulate the sale of ammunition to ensure it
doesn’t end up in the hands of deranged lunatics. But here, too, there appears
to be an issue. Firstly, Republicans tend to be supportive of gun rights and
secondly, restrictions on ammunition sales constitute a violation of rights (in
the USA).
What is hard to comprehend is this. The USA as a nation has
not ratified the convention on the rights of the child (CRC). This is because
political and religious conservatives believe that the treaty is “Anti-family”
and that the authority of parents is undermined as a result. So are the same
“conservatives” arguing that arms and ammunition are pro-family? Juveniles
should be given life sentences without parole but people should not be restricted
from purchasing enough ammunition to rip the life out of a small city. From the
various sources that are anti-CRC, it seems as if this lobby comprises citizens
who are generally upset that the UN is trying to “undermine” the US’s standing
as the godfather of the world. Why else would they be upset that other nations
have agreed to it? What do US conservatives know about the interests of
countries in Africa when they can’t prohibit people from filling their homes
with firearms?
Agreed that most mass murderers, like Mr. James Holmes, are
mentally “unstable” to say the very least. But that doesn’t mean law-abiding
citizens should be allowed to order .50 BMG from online websites. That would be
like uploading world intelligence data to Facebook and hoping nothing bad
happens. Or leaving a bank vault unlocked because 99% of the customers are
loyal. The only way is trial and error. Everyone needs to be screened before
they are allowed to purchase firearms. This is the only method by which such
tragedies can be prevented. And it is certain that gun owners who feel their
rights are being violated would make the most dramatic of U-turns if they lost
loved ones in such an incident. And if this violates constitutional rights,
perhaps it’s time someone came up with the brilliant realisation that people’s
rights to firearms don’t need to be consistent with their rights to vote or
their right to fast food. Consider Singapore, where people are fined for
chewing gum, drinking Coca-Cola on a bus, riding bicycles through an underpass
and so on. It’s not as if any of these activities are remotely as
life-threatening as a fully-loaded .357 Magnum. So why then, aren’t there
stricter laws regarding firearms? The time has come for this to be changed.
In conclusion, not regulating the sale of ammunition can
only be a bad thing. Regulation will not be bad, only inconvenient. Sadly, it
does seem as if people would prefer convenience at a higher risk of tragedy.
And at the end of the day, firearms are as destructive as explosives on a
plane, for instance. So if people can bear the inconvenience of being frisked
at airports to make sure their flights are safe, why should they complain about
laws that will ensure their children are safe too?
- Chap.
- Chap.
2. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/un-committees-take-aim-at-family-structure-and-morality-analyst-says
3. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/bg1407es-how-un-conventions-on-womens
No comments:
Post a Comment