Tasing the Opposition

Having grown up with a British Police Force who in those days had the proud boast that they did not carry guns, one wonders about the present Taser debate. One wonders even more why the SA Opposition Leader, Isabel Redmond, is doing anything more than attention-seeking when she is offering to be Tasered herself (here) in order (presumably) to show that it's OK!

There is no doubt that we have a real problem about what to do with armed criminals.

Is it too simplistic to say: Get rid of guns!!! Make it illegal to own them, or use them unless you are licensed, trained, and using them in a full-controlled environment.

Is it all too-simplistic to say the same thing abotu knives also?

In the current hysterical discussion in which the hyperbolic "Gang of 49" language is being used we should all be aware that it is bad to make public policy in the heat of the moment.

The Taser (and there are a number of variants) has a basic problem...and that is that you use it like a gun.

It does nothing to diminish gun violence, and may even provoke it, if we say that you point a gun at someone who is pointing a gun at you.

Most of us here are deeply disturbed by what happens in the US. Less guns seems better than more.

This is a bit of a ramble...but you get the point!

Où commencons nous?

Two unconnected, yet strangely related stories in my mind, make me ask is the world going mad?
None of us were really surprised that the American gun lobby could twist the travesty of Virginia Tech, to their own advantage. So we heard some whacko (or should it be Waco?) saying "This massacre is reason why everyone should be allowed to carry weapons on to a campus.

"You should be able to shoot a maniac who wants to shoot you!"

There is a certain logic about it. But it is just plain WRONG!!!

But I really think the world is going plain loopy when we talk about sending our Sri Lankans to Guantanamo, so they can send their Cubans to us.

Now am I wrong in thinking that our government don't actually want any refugees of any sort. So what is this all about?
On one level it doesn't really make any difference as long as refugees end up in a safe haven. But our nasty government has never before shown such magnanimity to any refugee.

There are other issues. One of the key issues for Cubans, for example, is that it is clear that they will be more dislocated in Australia than they would be in America...since there is an extensive Hispanic network there but not here. So why would we want to cause these people to be more profoundly dislocated?

And have we forgotte D Hicks and suddenly now think that Guantanamo is a more acceptable place to send our refugees than Christmas Island?

There is clearly more to this than meets the eye. But what is it?


so indeed: "dove cominciamo?"