- Bidding for Black Bess development? Read More
- BEHIND THE HEADLINES: The case for a Caribbean debt initiative Read More
- Pakistan on top Read More
- Cameron defends axing of Simmons Read More
- FLYING FISH & COU COU: People fearful of next step Read More
- SATURDAY'S CHILD: Pros, cons and pseudos Read More
- Bashment ‘part of we culture’ Read More
AS I WRITE this letter, a heated debate is taking place in the United States of America about gun control. This debate (long overdue) was sparked by the horrific event of December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut. Most Americans that I know sincerely believe that it is their individual right to “bear and keep arms” for their own protection as stated in the second amendment of their constitution. They also contend that “guns do not kill people, it is people who kill other people”. They are right in stating that a gun cannot kill anyone or anything unless and until someone uses said gun to kill someone else, but they seem to be missing a salient point in that argument. The relevant point is that it is far easier and safer for the assailant to shoot someone dead than it is to stab, chop, bash or choke that person to death. It is the prospect of possible reactive violence by the intended victim during a “close combat” attempt at killing that deters the assailant from choosing same, and opting to use a gun instead. That seductive choice seems to demand severe restrictions being placed on a carte blanche availability of guns to any civilian population. Leave the protection of the general populace to those specially trained for that purpose, that is, the relevant protective services.