Kristen Gyles | The gun-control debate

The more crime surges, the more the gun-control debate comes to the fore. I always marvel at how much of a tendency we have to swing towards extremes. If it is not “disarm the population”, it is “free up the guns”, but there is a desperate need for us to find an appropriate balance that will not further jeopardise the safety of law-abiding people.

Sadly, over the years, a number of murdered licensed firearm holders have actually been found, with their homes or vehicles raided and their guns missing. It seems that the guns are, in some cases, what makes the individual a target for these cold-hearted criminals. If a criminal has you marked for death for whatever reason, I doubt having a gun will really be of much help. That is, unless you have eyes at the back of your head or the gift of clairvoyance. The gun typically comes in useful in cases where the owner is not a specific target.

Freeing up the guns, therefore, isn’t as simple an answer as is typically explained by its proponents. Our best bet is not in handing out guns for the ‘vulnerable’ to protect themselves. The very same vulnerable people, in many cases, have no interest in operating a gun anyway. So that will not work. Flooding the population with guns only has a net safety benefit if a significant portion of the law-abiding population is armed. The sad reality is that if only a handful of good people have guns, they are more likely to become targets than superheroes.

Does that mean we should just give up the fight, curl up, roll over, and prepare to die? No. Maybe just shift our focus a bit. The harsh reality is that in many parts of the world, citizens don’t have to be clamouring for the ‘freeing up’ of restrictions surrounding firearm licences in a bid to protect themselves. There are security forces that do that.

Miserable, undertrained, and underpaid police officers will only do so much and no more, especially if the force is rife with corruption. The Zones of Special Operations and states of emergency will only do so much and no more, especially if the country is more than two miles long and three meters wide. The systemic issues affecting the productivity of the security forces, such as the need for more personnel and more resources like vehicles, body cameras, and appropriate weapons, need to be addressed. The gun-control debate just shows how desperate we are for protection in this country.

NO ONE SHOULD HAVE GUN

So to get back to the issue, the point is not that no one should have a gun – because that will never be the case. Criminals will almost always find a way to get guns. It is easier to fortify the police force with what they need to fight crime than to expect that we will ever totally eliminate the possibility of criminals sourcing guns. So the bid to ‘disarm the population’ really boils down to disarming law-abiding people. Aside from the obvious folly in such an effort, on a fundamental level, citizens should have the right to protect themselves not only against criminal elements, but also against security forces, especially under dictatorial and oppressive regimes. Yes, I said that. However, I think it’s safe to say it is more likely to die by the hands of savage criminals in this country than it is for the military to turn on us and kill us all.

With all that said, I think the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) may need to decide strategically on what its objectives are. From time to time, the conversation circles back to tightening the measures surrounding granting firearm licences. But why? If that is the approach that is going to be taken, it should be justified so as not to give the impression that there is a deliberate effort to purge the nation of all guns. As I said before, that will never actually happen. The FLA tightening its restrictions has hardly any impact on criminals.

This leads into the argument for a wide-scale prevention of persons with criminal history from being granted firearm licences. This argument must be balanced. 1) All crimes are not equal; and 2) An act of crime today doesn’t condemn an individual to a lifetime of crime.

The truth is, the Jamaican prison system doesn’t seem to have a strong rehabilitative focus. This is why it is so easy to assume that someone convicted of a serious crime 10 years ago cannot be trusted with a firearm. The irony, though, is that a converted criminal who is released from prison is more likely to be targeted than the average citizen, and the State leaves these converted criminals (as hypothetical or few in number as they may be) exposed by putting up a lifetime barricade against them being able to carry a firearm.

It is hard for good people to sit around feeling sorry for themselves amid surging crime rates. But clearly, this coin has, like, fifty sides. As usual, consultation with the general population can help to inform the authorities of some of the idiosyncratic issues that are being left out of the conversation. Balance is key.

- Kristen Gyles is a free-thinking public affairs opinionator. Email feedback to kristengyles@gmail.com.