Freedom can cost lives

The horrific Tucson, Arizona, shootings that took place just over two weeks ago have shocked people across the globe. It also made us realise that sometimes freedom comes at a high price. Six innocent dead and 13 injured because a 'troubled' young man had relatively easy access to a gun and ammunition.

In a White House press briefing, Andrei Sitov, bureau chief of the ITAR-TASS Russian news agency, sniped at a wounded and grieving nation. He expressed his condolences but then asked, "This is America ... the democracy, the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, the freedom to petition your government and, many people outside would also say, the 'freedom' of a deranged mind to react in a violent way ... is also America?"

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was affronted by the blatant attack on the freedoms that Americans bought with their lives. Amid the suddenly frigid atmosphere reminiscent of the Cold War days, a stone-faced Gibbs vehemently disagreed and rebutted with a stout defence of democracy that included " ... agreement on all sides of the political spectrum ... violence is never, ever acceptable ... we have people that died ... we had people whose lives will be changed forever because of the deranged actions of a madman ..." and concluded with, "... that is not America".

With the repeated incidence of enraged, frustrated or deluded people using guns to take as many lives as possible, many are left questioning the need for personal lethal weapons in a society where a powerful, easily mobilised military and efficient policing exist. It appears to me that the right to keep and bear arms remains sacrosanct because it is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (adopted on December 15, 1791) and is, therefore, entrenched, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Weighing right to bear arms

That same Bill of Rights separates democracy from communism, socialism, fascism and totalitarianism. And, because of our proximity to the United States, we are also beneficiaries of the protection that it provides.

Although I don't agree with some of America's policies - the way that it treated Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the way it treated Haiti and the retention of the Cuban embargo, especially given the US's embrace of (communist) China purely for economic reasons while estranging (communist) Cuba simply because "Cuba is in our backyard" (Dr Condoleezza Rice, circa 2008) - I have to agree with defending a Constitution that has kept America and its allies safe over the years, in spite of abuses from time to time by deranged and/or inhumane individuals.

So, what of the specific right to keep and bear arms? What of a right that has handed dangerous people the means to massacre others at will? What about a right that has facilitated the (illegal) exportation of guns and ammunition to places like Mexico, Haiti and Jamaica, where politicians and/orcriminals have employed weapons to subdue, terrorise and prey on the populace for decades? In spite of the powerful and fearsome National Rifle Association (that, by the way, issued a statement of condolences), there is a manifest and urgent need for stricter gun regulation.

The Tucson shooting has some folks questioning whether or not Jamaica also has deranged individuals capable of such perverse acts. We do, however, out of necessity, have stricter gun-control laws and, believe it or not, our criminals practise their own gun 'laws' that minimise the risk of shootings by crazed individuals.

What it therefore boils down to is this: freedom costs; it demands responsibility and control/oversight. There needs to be serious regulation to save lives in America, and in countries like ours.

Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and garthrattray@gmail.com.