Massacre in Tucson.......

What are we to make of the terrible events in Tucson?

The DT editorial has slated the left and by implication Obama for what they describe as political point scoring about the acrimony introduced into the political discourse of the US. In the same issue, Alex Spillius quotes violent statements by the Right, especially the T Party, which if accurate would have resulted in prosecution in UK for incitement or as ‘hate’ crimes.

I feel that it is stretching credulity too far to suggest that this was a political assassination. If it was, why did the gunman kill six innocent people, including 9-year old girl? The more important question is what kind of polity permits a known nutter to buy a machine pistol?

The DT reports brought all the usual worms out of the woodwork. The majority of those that I read were fiercely defending the right to use lethal force against almost anything that they disagreed with, and the Second Amendment gets almost constant reference.

‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’.

The meaning of the Second Amendment seems to me abundantly clear. It is the right to bear arms as a member of a militia’ in the days before the US had a standing army. It is absurd to imagine that the remarkably astute men who drafted the Constitution had any intention of allowing individuals untrammelled right to arm themselves to the teeth without hindrance.

Regrettably, the US courts do not agree with me. I would quote Oliver Cromwell at them – ‘Thinkest thou in the bowels of Christ, gentlemen, that thou mayest be mistaken’

But surely there should be stringent gun control to prevent the purchase of military-type weapons, such as an automatic pistol designed for use by police, special services and the like. Sensible restrictions should apply to both the person and the weapon.

Personal restrictions should include the need to have a firearms licence subject to:

• No record of conviction of an imprisonable offence;

• No record of serious psychiatric condition;

• Age not less than 21 (the same as for alcohol);

• Training in the use of the weapon applied for (I believe this is so in South Africa);

• Proof of permanent residential address and of immigration status if not a US citizen;

• Life ban if convicted of a crime of violence or a firearms offence;

• One handgun and one rifle or shotgun per applicant;

• Annual renewal;

• Instant cancellation if convicted of any misuse of the firearm;

• Substantial penalties for infringement including bans.

Restrictions on weapons should include:

• No automatics – single shot only, which means that only revolvers and bolt action rifles would be permitted.

• Maximum calibre of .32 for handguns and .30 for rifles.

None of these would conflict with the Constitution. But try telling that to the NRA.