Sat navs, guns and macho posturing

Hi, Fricka here. Just filling in :-)

He got an email from the 'real Malcolm Goodson' this morning. Among the usual funnies, and unusually for him, he was lamenting the increasingly sad state of the place where he lives. An increase in knife crime among teenagers is starting to make the place just a little more dangerous. They even had a drive by shooting last week!

Now the UK has never really had a 'gun' problem. True, armed robbery takes place and criminals still carry guns but most of the police don't and generally there aren't too many shootings, unlike in the US. Perhaps this reflects a more sedate pace of life, even in inner cities? Or maybe that the Brits are just plain scared of anything that goes 'bang'! (See Gunpowder Plot 1605, Blitz 1940, V1s, V2s 1944, IRA, 1969-2000, London Tube 7/7)

However it did get me thinking about the US's perenniel problem. The second amendment. Now just so you don't think I'm misinterpreting, here's the second amendement:

"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."

Now this was, I think, slightly modified by Johnson in the sixties which meant that a few categories of individuals, certain criminals, the mentally unstable etc did not have the right, although it's unfortunate that in most cases the individual is only found to be mentally unstable after they have got a gun and shot half a dozen of their classmates.

Now the second amendment is vehemently defended not just by the NRA but by the Supreme Court. Why?

The second amendment has a real historical context. Having won independence from a country which imposed its will on the colonies by force of arms, the argument goes that the new republicans were not going to allow circumstances to arise where their own Government might decide to try strong arm tactics against the population using a 'standing army' or 'standing militia'. (Such things are actually a fairly recent invention, 19th century). That's why such emphasis is placed on a well regulated militia (of ordinary people) being necessary to a free state.

However that isn't really the case any more. The US now has a standing army. It could be used against the civilian population. Is anyone seriously trying to argue that the American military would not be deployed against its own population solely because that population has the right to arm itself? With the kind of weaponry available to the army, airforce? Do you need another amendment to enshrine the right of the population to wear body armour in public. After all, the average US citizen isn't going to last long against the kind of assault rifles used by the military if everything they shoot back bounces off a few layers of kevlar. I don't see the argument about the militia being credible at all.

Of course one can read the second amendment in quite another way, which is that the right of people to bear arms (their own) was necessary in order to be able to put together a militia quickly in defence of the US homeland, ie raise an army quickly against an invader. Since the formation of the 'standing army' that is no longer the case. However that is another quite different argument about another question, perhaps.

The question that's often posed, especially by the anti gun lobby, is whether the availability of guns in general affects the rate at which shootings occur in the US. I think it's safe to assume they think it does.

Now I think it might increase the number of people shot in, say, domestic arguments. The gun's there, you might be tempted to use it but then the same could be said for the kitchen knife or the baseball bat in the den. I don't think that anyone would seriously think about trying to limit those.

To me, the real issue is, if you do not have a criminal record, and lots of criminals don't, especially at the beginning, you can legally obtain a gun, or two, or three. Just as importantly, given the large numbers of firearms in circulation, it must perforce be easier to acquire a gun illegally if you have to, there are so many more people you can steal one from.

So why this obsession? Can it really be about 'essential' freedoms or is it just macho posturing?

On a lighter note, do we really need all this technology? A couple of years ago, sat navs in the UK were directing traffic across a ford in (I think) South West England which was frequently under 2 metres of water. Even worse, there is now some poor woman living on a tiny rural lane which is being listed as a 'short cut' in sat navs. Only trouble is, her house has now been hit 10 times by lorries/trucks unable to navigate the lane! Now I know it's not the technology really, merely the humans inputting the information but.........

Ah well, as Frank Zappa said, "Never underestimate the stupidity of the human race!" How true, how very true!

PS - found this as someone's signature on a forum "Don`t steal - the Government doesn`t like the competition".I am starting to like this computer access to the internet :-)