Lawmakers’ actions don’t match up with realities of crime

Dear Editor,
Serious crime continues to wreck Guyanese families daily and lawmakers seem to be out of options for addressing it. Lawmakers have not publicly acknowledged that crime has spiraled out of control, but recent announcements suggest that it has earned their attention. However, proposed interventions by the Government are likely to worsen serious crimes instead of reducing it. Also, questions about the exact nature of the proposed interventions need to be clarified.
Question 1. Do the Police know whether the murders originated from the guns of licensed firearm holders? The Police should know from simple ballistic tests whether the guns used in these killings belong to civilians. I am assuming that the Police have the tools and resources to conduct timely and accurate ballistic tests. In fact, the ballistic tests would identify the exact owner of the firearm if it was used in a crime. These are basic tests of any murder investigation. If the Police have this information, the normal course of justice would then take its course. That is, they would be able to issue arrest warrants and then prosecute the identified firearm holders. But to date, the Police have not made any statement that suggests the majority (or the exact percentage) of serious crimes involved the use of licenced firearms.
Question 2. What does “clamping down on the issuance of gun licenses to civilians” mean? While this seems straightforward, it is difficult to imagine how much more difficult the process of acquiring a firearm licenced can become. Currently, it takes anywhere from three to six years for the average Guyanese to get a firearm licence – based on the account of countless individuals who have been through the process. The time taken for businessmen may be shorter since they have the connections and resources to grease the system. But even businessmen who have unquestionable reasons for wanting a licenced firearm complained about the process. So exactly what does clamping down on the issuance of gun licenses to civilians mean, and exactly how this move would help stop the senseless killings and robberies remain unclear.
Question 3. Would the Government seize licensed firearms from law abiding citizens? The government signalled the possibility of revoking licensed firearms from law abiding citizens. This course of action assumes that the government knows exactly which guns are used in the killings (question one). If the Police have evidence of licensed firearm holders being involved in criminal activities, which include renting their firearms to criminals, such individuals must be prosecuted, not just have their firearms seized.
As we already established, the Police have not indicated it has evidence even suggesting licensed firearm holders are involved in criminal activities. What we know for a fact, however, is that there are incidents where licensed firearm holders managed to save their lives as well as their families’ by defending themselves.
While I do not support civilians taking the law into their own hands, pursuing such course of action without the necessary evidence is equivalent to the ‘abuse of power’ and ‘violation of citizens’ rights to life’ and ‘the right to defend themselves and their families’. Moreover, it signals to criminals that they now have a free pass to murder families.
Question 4. Why would businessmen and farmers rent their weapons to murderers? The Government’s assertion that licensed firearm owners are renting their weapons to criminals; without evidence, this is a direct accusation, ill-informed and off-base. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most of the estimated 10,000 licensed firearms belong to businessmen and farmers. Businesses have been equally targeted, as well as their families in the recent murder and robbery spree. The survival of their businesses and farmers depend on the safety and security of families and a growing economy. Exactly why businessmen and farmers would rent their licensed firearms to criminals is beyond comprehension.
It is critically important for the State to bring crime under control. However, this course of action is unlikely to bring crime under control. It is more likely to increase the number of illegal weapons into communities.
When people feel their lives are threatened and they cannot rely on the State to protect them, naturally they will be forced to defend themselves, despite the consequences. If the State allows society to reach this point – some would argue we are already at this point – the consequences on both society and the economy would be severe. The Government should re-think its approach in tackling crime to return public safety and security to families.

Sincerely,
Dhanraj Singh