The Rising Gun Culture in Britain

Gun culture in Britain today is on the rise and fast becoming a major problem. The news makes for grim reading. Today, crimes committed through the use of firearms are on the rise. The number of deaths from the use of firearms is also on the increase. But perhaps more worrying is the proliferation of gangs, many of them consisting of teenagers, acquiring and using firearms with no remorse. We have to ask ourselves why is this the case. Why is it that today, we seem to be witnessing an increase in teenage crimes involving the use of lethal weapons?

The reason for this it turns out isn’t so difficult. Society today gives every indication that it glorifies the use of extreme violence as a means of meting out justice. By society, I mean the government since it embodies the system responsible for maintaining and preserving societal structure. The British government, on the one hand, passes decrees and bills and what have you outlawing crimes committed through the use of firearms and yet on the other hand, it is responsible for sanctioning the manufacturing of these weapons and using them to invade other nations under the guise of meting out self-appointed justice. It is impossible to have your cake and eat it. If the government is responsible in any way, either directly or indirectly, for promoting or perpetuating acts of aggression for whatever reason, then it has no moral right to ask its citizens to desist from carrying out the same acts against each other.

Natural law demands that every individual answers to a group ideology and structure. This is at the heart of evolution. It is how we develop, not only as a unit but also as a group. Consequently, the thoughts and actions of any individual are strongly influenced by group ideology, especially in the most formative years of adolescence. And so, structures like the family, school, peer group, local community and the government are groups that each exert an influence on the individual. However, all groups within society answer to the master group - the government. Being the master group, any ideology it propagates will percolate down through all levels of society. For example, it is no mystery that in a family unit where both parents have graduate degrees, the likelihood that their offspring will get a university degree is very strong. The reason being that throughout its formative years, the offspring will be exposed to an ideology that promotes the acquisition of university education. This is simply the law of averages combining with group influence. Similarly, it is no coincidence that since the British government went to war in Iraq, under assumptions that were later proved to be false, gun crime has seen an increase, especially amongst teenagers. Why is the significant? Well, the government has admitted that it was a bit too hasty in rushing to war and sanctioning the use of lethal force that brought death to thousands. And yet, no one has been held to account for this. Instead, the war is still ongoing, getting messier by the week and doesn’t look like finishing anytime soon. This must mean that it is okay to go to war and bring death to thousands of men, women and children. Thanks to media exposure, the gory details of war are there for all to see.

To justify its decision to use lethal force on men, women and children of errant nations, the government uses phrases like threat to national security followed by unilateral decisions to eliminate the perceived threat. This ideology has ingrained itself in the minds of every Briton, especially the impressionable teenagers. It tells them that it is okay for them to shoot people in reaction to any perceived slight that is interpreted as a threat to ones well being.

How can the worrying problem of gun culture be solved? Well the best way is to start from the top down. The rest should then take care of itself automatically. By this I mean that unless the government reviews its own policy with respect to the use of weapons, aggression or lethal action against adversaries, real or imagined, the gun crime in Britain will keep on rising. The government needs to stop the production and distribution of any weapon of war. Only then can it have the moral mandate to enforce a ban on gun crime. In fact, it will find that with the passage of time it will be increasingly unnecessary to enforce the ban. This is because a ban on the production, distribution and sale of weapons will automatically result in a decrease in crime committed with weapons. This is the only foolproof way to eradicate the rising gun culture in Britain today.

It should be noted that eradicating gun culture does not necessarily mean an end to the problems that led to the act of violence in the first place. The weapon is simply a tool. Take it away and the problem will find an outlet through the use of another tool. Examining the source of the problem will be the subject of another post.

Transparency in Government

The importance of transparency in any government is an issue that cannot be overemphasised, not least because it is probably the only litmus test of democracy. Therefore, a truly democratic government should be one of total transparency. Unfortunately, we do not live in a truly democratic society. If we did, the government would be totally transparent it all its activities. It isn’t. One could argue, very strongly, that majority of the policies that have been implemented by the British government over the years that have gone awry were due to a lack of transparency.

Transparency of and in government is necessary for two reasons:

• 
  It is necessary to build trust between the people and the government.
• 
  It is necessary to give members of the public the opportunity to decide their own future, which is theirs by right.
  

The public had and still has no idea of what the government is doing. The government on the other hand makes, takes and implements decisions that have the potential to affect the lives of millions of people without appropriate consultation with the public, probably because it is of the opinion that the masses would not understand the pros and cons of policy making. Or perhaps because it feels that the mandate of the public grants it the authority to carry out such decisions. Both assumptions are wrong! The public is made up of intelligent individuals, majority of whom are literate and well educated. Surely if properly presented with the pros and cons of a policy that is to be implemented, such persons could be trusted with the capability of judging whether it would be in their best interests of not. No individual has the right to take unilateral decisions on behalf of an entire people, which have the potential of adversely affecting their well-being.

With regards to the issue of mandate, the only authority it confers to the incumbent politicians is the right and privilege of articulating and presenting to the people, the arguments – for and against, of any issue that is to be implemented in the service of the people. A mandate to run government does not give any individual the authority to decide the fate of millions. A mandate does not give politicians, or any government, the authority to act unilaterally. The reason for this is that in a system that is composed of numerous elements, uniform growth can only be possible with equal contribution from all elements. It is worth noting that the key word here is uniform growth. This is because the system as a whole can still grow even with contribution from only a few elements, but the growth will be non-uniform and to the detriment of some elements within the system. Extrapolating this analogy to the human society, if government implements any decision that has not been approved by consensus of the public, this would result in growth that will be non-uniform. In other words, the growth that occurs will favour a few and neglect the rest, and will give rise to discontent, which is itself the starting point of many of the ills we observe in society today – for example, non-uniform distribution of wealth, poverty, crime, war and so forth.

In fairness, it is necessary to point out that the human race has come a long way. This is due in no small measure to its innovative spirit and ability to adapt. In the great cauldron of creation, the results of all experiments, of which humanity is one, are valid. Therefore, one could argue that the world we find ourselves in today is what it should be, since from an absolute point of view, there is nothing wrong with it. However, from humanity’s perspective, not all results are desirable, no doubt because humanity would like to see that it evolves to its highest potential. This will not happen if it annihilates itself courtesy of implementation of decisions that are counter-productive to its uniform growth. This is the impasse humanity finds herself rapidly approaching. And which is reflected in all the societies of the world – especially in the so-called developed societies, of which Great Britain is one. Therefore, it behoves us to begin to find ways to correct for this. The fostering of a transparent government is one such way. It is crucial if this nation is not to implode under the tension caused by the ever-widening chasm between the haves and have-nots. The elimination of the dominance of the financial industry over all other sectors of society is another important solution.

So how can transparency be implemented in government – any government? Well there are two approaches to be considered: the practical approach and the ideal approach.

The ideal approach

In this scenario, transparency will be total. In other words, any decision that concerns the potential implementation of policy that could affect the lives of millions of people must be put to the people for their approval through voting. When it comes to the well-being of the masses, no decision or policy can be regarded as minor. They are all major. And should be treated with respect. The issue of voting for every major decision by the public cannot be the logistical nightmare that some dissenting voices might be quick to point out. The reason being, thanks to technology, we live in a digital age today where everyone has access to computers. Voting could easily be done at the touch of a single button, for as many times, and in as many days without detracting from routine duties. All that is required before hand is that the politicians in government do what their mandate requires them to do. And that is to provide full disclosure on the main arguments, for and against the implementation of the policy for which a vote is being asked. For example, in a policy proposing the implementation of a Bill to cut tax, the public would need to know who benefits and who will not, will it be the poor or the rich, the middle class or the upper class. Will businesses fail, will commodities become more or less expensive? Another example could be the implementation of a Bill to build, say, a new airport. The public will need to know who benefits, how many will lose their homes to make way for the runway, what will be the effects of increased pollution and noise levels on local inhabitants, how will the residents of the area benefit form incoming revenue, how will the rest of the country benefit, etc. These are just a few examples of policies that have the potential of affecting the lives of millions. People must be allowed to vote and have a say. The majority can never be wrong, in the sense that they accurately reflect the best possible progression for the Group.

This is the ideal approach, which is unpractical in the society we find ourselves living in today for the simple reason that it requires full disclosure on all the secrets being sat on by the government. Exposure of some of these secrets could result in breakdown of the governmental system. With no government, there’ll be anarchy. The high level of risk means that probably the only feasible approach is the practical approach.

The practical approach

This approach does not require immediate total transparency in all affairs of government. Taking into consideration the fact that the duties of government fall into two main departments: domestic and international, total transparency could be reasonably expected in all domestic related affairs while transparency in international affairs could only be expected for situations that do not compromise national security. The only condition under which total transparency may be expected in international affairs would be if all nations of the earth were to adopt the policy of total transparency. Such a situation would be ideal but impractical in the short-term as time would be needed for all other nations to join the transparency bandwagon.

It is unfortunate that the practical approach has to be given more weight than the ideal approach. This is due in no small measure to the web of lies, spin and deceit spun by the government for decades. Deception is a vicious cycle that has no corrective antidote. The only solution is exit with full closure. For a societal system that has its foundations built on deception, the only way out is to implement a strategy of exit in parts. This could take years, but in the end would be worth it because humanity would have put itself in a better position to remove the threat of self-annihilation.