& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

No guns for civilian citizens!

ABDuLLAH RAKEEB
NOVEMBER 2001, America's First Freedom magazine published a report titled 'Another case of Registration equals Confiscation' which says, "Recent developments in Bangladesh have proven once again that gun registration leads to gun confiscation.
"Bangladesh's caretaker government has cancelled all gun licences issued since January and ordered the owners to surrender their weapons to authorities immediately, according to Reuters. Reports indicate that the move followed allegation made by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) that most of the licences had been issued to activists from its main rival, the Awami League, led by former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.
"Proof positive that when a registry of gun owners is created, governments know exactly who has the guns and where to go to confiscate them."
What we found at the time of
'caretaker government' that ordered (certainly influenced by BNP's aforementioned accusation against Awami League) to surrender arms, later only handguns, to authorities for the sake of peaceful and trouble-free general election? However, there were about 250,000 illegal firearms (in the hands of criminals) according to Justice Latifur Rahman (the then) Chief Adviser of the Care-taker Government. Attempts made by security forces to recover them but a very few were recovered.
According to the above order, all law-abiding gun-owners surrendered their handguns. Later, gun owners got back their guns, only to lose them afterwards in the hands of BNP politicians and bureaucrats who proved to be intelligent enough in curbing and axing civilian citizens' rights.
BNP led government terribly failed to curb the ever-increasing crime, which exceeded all previous records in murder, rape and extortion cases, then ordered for a so-called 'joint forces operation' codenamed 'Operation Clean Heart' to curb the crime
and confiscate illegal arms. During its operation, BNP issued an order to surrender all firearms held legally by the civilian citizens.
Remember the same BNP who alleged during the time of 'caretaker government' that Awami League issued licences to its activists... . This time government's allegation is 'some licence holder gun-owners' are 'active miscreants or criminals or terrorists' and government ordered to form 'committees' to identify those licence holders and confiscate their arms!
More than 100 committees formed according to the order of the BNP led government throughout the country to investigate the above allegations. The result is yet unknown to public after about a year of their formation (investigation?).
However, criminal incidents continue to increase. Murder cases exceeded all previous records and use of illegal weapons especially modern small arms are overwhelmingly sighted. Everyday at least a person is killed but there is no way for citizens to defend themselves. Their
weapons could be deterrent as well.
Nevertheless, the BNP is anti-gun party when it comes to civilian gun rights. In 1991, the same very party was sworn in to run the country. The government stopped issuing gunlicences to civilians for its whole five years tenure. Not even a professional shooter could get a license to buy weapons to practice who might well be a champion in his or her discipline. However, the only exception or lax of law could be found in cases of partisan applicants.
Here I am emphasising about only one of many fundamental rights of a citizen, the right to keep and bear arms to defend himself or herself, to defend property and loved ones. Self-defence is a right recognised by all communities and religions. A weapon is a tool for self-defence (and sport) that might be invaluable in a certain situation and the only means of saving one's life. Taking away weapons from civilians is a dangerous idea and is rather helping criminals conquer our society without any resistance.
Disabling civilians from having
guns or firearms or weapons is not a good or wise decision. Moreover, such a shortsighted decision can jeopardize the safety and security of all members of a given society. Crime rate will rise due to one-sided firepower -- the arms in the hands of terrorists only. This view supported by evidence from around the world, as we can see in an article published in NRA H.Q. Bulletin (May 2001) ILA Report:
" ... that anti-gun schemes have reduced crime and brought about a better quality of life in countries such as England and Australia...
"A new international crime victimisation survey of 34,000 people in 17 industrialised countries puts the lie to such claims. The results of the 2000 International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS) were recently published by the Dutch Ministry of Justice, and anti-gun politicians, including those in Great Britain, are diving for cover.
"... The ICVS reveals that the dubious distinction of leading the world in violent crime belongs to Australia -- not the United States...
". Countries like England, Scot-
land, France and Netherlands (where government bureaucrats are demanding that people turn their baseball bats and anything that can be used as weapon!) have placed severe restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. The result is obvious: Criminals have become emboldened by the knowledge that their victims can't defend themselves, and the result is a more dangerous society.
"Experts have analyzed the data have suggested numerous reasons why certain countries have higher levels of victimisation, but one conclusion remains clear: guns do not cause crime. A case in point is Australia where the percentage victimised by crime has risen since 1988 when politicians began enacting the draconian gun control laws that have resulted in the confiscation and destruction of thousands of personally owned firearms.
"Today Australia leads the world in overall victimisation, burglary and violent crime. This is a gun control "success" story."
Do our government have any such
"success" story to tell? Even exaggerated or false one like some developed countries published? Even though it would be shameful but there is none. Nobody can say that after taking forcibly civilian guns, the crime rate has dropped. Rather, it has been increasing in an alarming rate.
The authorities are blaming each other -- police talking about political interference and political party in power accusing police for corruption as well as blaming opposition party. However, by the time they are busy in such a tug of war (talk-of-war!), we want freedom to exercise our rights, right to keep and bear arms is the one we need most to fight back outlaws and another is a corruption free magistracy.
I am not talking anything about our Laws regarding guns. I would rather ask our lawmakers why do they fear law-abiding armed civilians! I would mention few words from British political leader Mr. Peter Luff MP (article published in the Shooting Times: 10 July 03). My question to our Home and Law Ministers: Is there 'a pack of ill-informed and highly
prejudiced' people behind the government's decision to take away civilian citizens' arms? 'The implication of shooting are serious. But why have ignorance and prejudice come so close to defeating reason and liberty?'
A few last words from a letter by Mr. Scott Whitmore published in the America's First Freedom magazine: "If we don't have freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and redress of grievances, freedom from search and seizure and cruel and unusual punishments, and the right to due process and a fair trial.then merely owning firearms is not going to do us much good."
Can our political leaders start believing (and act) as people's leader? Can they give us back rights that we (the citizens) are entitled to, as mentioned above?
At least, for now, give our guns back, please.
Abdullah Rakeeb is an IT Consultant.