Some of the assertions that are made in
this article by Dr Mick North and carried on the BBC website are so clearly incorrect that I can only imagine that some sort of misplaced sense of "decency" prevents them being more assertively challenged by journalists (whose job it is to do this sort of thing):
If guns were less easily available they would be less likely to be misused, and so everything possible should be done to limit access to such dangerous weapons.
Since the post-Dunblane ban on hand-guns, their presence in the hands of criminals and the willingness of these same individuals to use them has increased alarmingly. Even at an anecdotal level, this contradicts the above statement which itself is merely the starting point to introduce even more stringent legislation governing legal gun ownership while conveniently doing nothing about the number of illegally held weapons that are used in precisely the same kind of way that Dr North is so keen to prevent.
In relation to mass murder and the rule of terror by local warlords in the African continent he goes on to claim:
This terror would be impossible were the Lords Resistance Army not armed with guns.
So, presumably before the introduction of guns there was no terror ergo by removal of guns will bring a removal of terror? Well intentioned but nonetheless incredibly naïve.
Personally, I do not blame Dr North for seeking some sort of vengeance against the implement that was used with such murderous intent to rob him of his daughter and her of her life.
I do think it is important to realise that campaigns such as the
Snowdrop Petition which are fuelled solely by sympathy end up doing nothing or very little at best to prevent the very acts that they seek to eradicate. The media, conscious of the widespread emotional support that such campaigns can generate end up giving the campaigns an easy ride for fear of appearing to be supporting the campaign and so lose readers. A prime example of this was the imbecilic reportage in the Daily Record at the time which was nothing short of pathetic as far as objective journalism is concerned. While the liberties of law abiding citizens are further reduced, the problem remains. This applies equally to any justification for "eroding" liberties at the expense of supposedly reducing the hazards faced by the general population.
I can't help thinking of the following quote which appeared as a recent post at
Samizdata:
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it.
- H.L. Mencken
[edited for numerous mis-spelligns 09/06/06]
