A gun amnesty is being proposed, presumably as a means of reducing crime. The idea is that if there are fewer guns around, there will be fewer crimes of violence, such as, armed robbery and murder. Perhaps, perhaps. I am not in favor of a gun amnesty. These are my reasons.
The possession of a firearm gives one a sense of power and, makes it much easier to commit crimes because, when a gun is pointed at you, an order given by the person holding the gun is like a command performance. This being so, why will a criminal give up his gun when an amnesty is declared? I take it that the purpose of an amnesty is to get criminals to give up their guns, voluntarily, because of the fear of a crackdown, when they will be found in possession of a firearm and severely punished.
The response to previous gun amnesties has not been encouraging. For one thing, the searches for firearms after the expiry of the amnesty period have not been very sucessful. Even when firearms are found, they are not in “anyone’s possession,” for the simple reason that criminals only need to have guns available when they intend to use them. And, for another thing, professionals don’t fear jail sentences: only amateurs do. The pros have a network of friends inside and outside of jail and, they have and continue to exercise power wherever they are. Where has their information come from? Is there a record? Has there been a study? You know there is no record and no study. All I can say is I think it is common knowledge.
Let’s face it: gun amnesties have not resulted in a reduction of crime, which I believe is the ultimate objective.
To take firearms out of the hands of criminals is a laudable objective. If you offer to buy them, as has been done in the past, you will be more sucessful than declaring an amnesty. The criminals will sell you their guns, which gives them some pocket money, then get them replaced by their Provider, who can afford a small loss. We lose because some foreign exchange will have to be paid out by the Provider, which he is happy to pay for a little diversion.
It is really sad to see how ineffective have been our efforts to fight crime, up to now. Perhaps, our failure is due to our approach. I suggest an approach based on the lesson of the Gordian Knot, which follows.
King Gordion of Phrygia had a knot which no one could loose. People came from all over his kingdom and beyond to try their skills. They all failed. The problem was that the knot was so cleverly constructed that there was no loose end. It was a very large and complicated puzzle, like the crime situation in Belize.
Gordion put the knot on a dais in the public square of his capital city and there it remained for many years, until a legend grew up around it. It became known as the Gordian Knot, and the legend was that whoever could loose it would be the ruler over all Asia.
Alexander the Great (the man who is said to have cried when there were no more places to conquer) was passing through Phrygia and someone told him about the knot and the legend. He went to take a look, examined the knot carefully, and then asked his aide to hand him his sword. Alexander lifted the sword overhead with both hands then brought it crashing down, cleaving the knot in two, and it fell apart. Simple. Direct. And effective. That, I think, is the proper approach to deal with the crime situation in Belize.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
There will be little sympathy for the taxi driver who killed Lafayette Lewis by almost decapitating him with a machete, according to the headline story in Amandala of Wednesday, 12th May, 2010. He was out of control, overreacted to someone stoning his taxi and, apparently killed the wrong man.
No one will put himself in the taximan’s shoes to try to understand his motivation because of the nature of the particular incident, as told to the newspaper by an eyewitness. There is no evidence that the one who stoned the taxi man was a juvenile delinquent but, he may have been. I will proceed as if he was and, the circumstances were like the following.
A group of young boys approach a taxi driver, whose vehicle is parked, and ask to be taken somewhere. He doesn’t like how they look, they could be gang members, so he refuses to take them. One of the group members takes a stone and draws a line on the side of the vehicle from bonnet to trunk. The taxi is the most valuable thing he owns. It is the means by which he earns his living and provides for his family. He loses his mind and wants to hurt someone. He chases them with a machete he keeps for defensive purposes. He does in fact kill someone, not the one who damaged his vehicle, and then, he comes to his senses. Too late, he is a murderer. Unfair. Unfair. The law should protect us from the vandalism of juvenile delinquents. For the good of law-abiding citizens and the juvenile delinquents, who if not corrected, are on the road to becoming adult criminals. There is a remedy. The rod. Corporal punishment.
Some years ago, an American boy, the son of a diplomat visiting a city in Singapore, sprayed aerofoam on a car he chose at random, in a parking lot. A boyish prank, he thought, but in fact, vandalism is punishable by the cane in Singapore. He was discovered, reported to the authorities and sentenced to ten strokes of the bamboo cane. Unthinkable, screamed the American press. Barbaric. The President should intervene. After, all no harm was done to the vehicle. Water will wash off aerofoam. The President did intervene and the punishement was reduced to four strokes. It had the desired effect. American children behave themselves when they are in Singapore.
We have a lot of plans to curb crime and restore order in our society, all of which will be helpful in the long term. I am concerned about the short term. Let us start by dealing with juvenile delinquency and change the attitude of these young people, who are on the road to becoming criminals. Ten strokes of the bamboo cane for vandals, youngsters who aid burglars in robbing schools and churches and, anyone sixteen years old and under found with a firearm. You know I am right. What are you going to do about it?
The interest of the Common Good, which, in these circumstances, is more important than individual’s rights, will be well served. If you have any doubt that the state is empowered to take whatever action is required in the national interest, I refer you to the Preamble to our Constitution.