Tuesday, 17 January 2012

What will your government do today?

From a country perceived to be the freest country in world with regard to firearms and their ownership, despite actually having over 20,000 laws to the contrary, to one of the most oppressed. The difference between the US and the UK would appear to be great but they both have the same anti civilian firearms ownership ethos.

In the UK were certification is required by an individual to own any form of firearm and where the ownership of pistols has been banned to virtually all since 1997 the plan would appear to be that of complacency by the authorities responsible for the administration of the certificates in question. In the recent and tragic mass shootings the authorities have chosen to ignore medical information, information supplied by the public and members of clubs and even official police reports informing them the individuals in question have been to say the least, mentally troubled. In the most recent case we understand that the police removed the shooters certificate and firearms after an attempted suicide and violent behaviour. This is not an isolated case though, the Dunblane murders which prompted the pistol ban was undertaken by an individual who had been reported as unstable by many of the sources as previously mentioned but again the authorities chose to do nothing.

In the US, in an attempt to introduce a more British and European style of firearms ownership the incumbent powers there devised a fool proof scheme to assist in this legislation. The administration assisted by BATFE and other security services in the US appears to have compelled retailers to sell firearms illegally so that they could then be traced back to the US. But thanks to a few honest officers who blew the whistle on the operation many disturbing facts have been brought to light. The operation named "Fast and Furious" has deliberately endangered American lives by illegally arming Mexican drug cartels – all in a shameless attempt to blame law-abiding gun owners, and their Second Amendment freedom, for violent crime in Mexico. As a result of this disgraceful campaign, countless Mexicans, and at least one American Border Patrol agent, are dead

So what is the commonality of these two disturbing examples; well with all laws made by governments it is much easier to get them passed if the mass population of the country is in agreement with what government is promoting. With the case of firearms because those that are in possession of them are overwhelmingly law abiding and responsible members of society, statistical figures just do not add up to give a significant figure for greater control. As an example of this statistical short fall a group often recommend to give a reference when applying for a UK licence are doctors; yet this group has a higher statistical figure for causing deaths in society than firearms owners. Therefore criminal use of firearms by their owners is thankfully low. So, to get more restrictions passed or to completely remove them from individuals all together you need mass media coverage and to stack the deck. This is done by either doing nothing or instigating an illegal venture, then just sitting back and waiting. When it all goes wrong, as it inevitably will do, politicians and governments will then push their agenda of restriction and removal. The current UK government is fairly firearms friendly but in the US, with such a multi-agency operation, it would appear that the agenda is supported right from the top down. To this end a few deaths along the way is acceptable, so long as when you appear in public you wring your hands and come forward with the relevant platitudes, and announce that for the sake of public safety this new law should be supported.

One way or another, governments will do what they need too, too force their agenda but remember they can only do such things if you vote them into office.

No comments: