There are a wide variety of reasons, but few we can actually apply here. We have a Supreme Court which has ruled on our right to possess and carry firearms. Singapore does not seem to have that as a "right," per se'.
But here's the thing, you see:
Arms Offences[sic] Act
The Arms Offences[sic] Act regulates firearms offenses[sic].[19] Any person who uses or attempts to use arms (Section 4) can face execution, as well as any person who uses or attempts to use arms to commit scheduled offences[sic] (Section 4A). These scheduled offences[sic] are being a member of an unlawful assembly; rioting; certain offences[sic] against the person; abduction or kidnapping; extortion; burglary; robbery; preventing or resisting arrest; vandalism; mischief. Any person who is an accomplice (Section 5) to a person convicted of arms use during a scheduled offence[sic] can likewise be executed.
Trafficking in arms (Section 6) is a capital offence[sic] in Singapore. Under the Arms Offences[sic] Act, trafficking is defined as being in unlawful possession of more than two firearms.
[25/84]
(3) Where any person at the time of his committing or at the time of his apprehension for any scheduled offence[sic] has on his person any arm, he shall be guilty of an offence[sic] and shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be punished with caning with not less than 6 strokes.
(4) Where any person convicted of an offence[sic] punishable under subsection (1) or (2) is proved to have been previously convicted of a scheduled offence[sic], he shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years and shall also be punished with caning with not less than 6 strokes.4.
[25/84]
—(1) Subject to any exception referred to in Chapter IV of the Penal Code (Cap. 224) which may be applicable (other than section 95), any person who uses or attempts to use any arm shall be guilty of an offence[sic] and shall on conviction be punished with death.(2) In any proceedings for an offence[sic] under this section, any person who uses or attempts to use any arm shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have used or attempted to use the arm with the intention to cause physical injury to any person or property.
[30/93]
In short, if you use a weapon illegally in Singapore for almost anything criminal, you're liable to be executed for it. Sentences are, essentially, automatic.
"Arms," as a definition, could also include knives and other weapons besides guns: garrotes, screwdrivers, blow torches, ice picks, chain saws.... you name it, the law could be used broadly enough to cover anyone who would use any instrument of any kind of criminal harm to another.... or anyone who knowingly assists them in the act to include selling them the weapons in question.
Kind of removes the incentive. Kind of reduces the upside potential.
As a nation, our crime rate continues to drop overall. Well, unless you live in the "gun free" zone of the City of Chicago.
Imagine what would likely happen to even Chicago's homicide rate if laws like these were enacted around the country.
What I never forget is that the plummeting crime rate seems to be in direct proportion to the implementation of more "Three Strikes" laws.
To that end, I would advocate an American interpretation of Singapore's gun laws that would result in the life sentence of anyone carrying a weapon during a crime, and the execution of anyone who uses a weapon, in any way, to commit a crime.
Further, I advocate the reduction of the "Three Strikes" law to a "TWO Strikes" law.
EVERYONE knows the difference between right and wrong. Everyone should be entitled one "mistake."
But only one.
I would call the weapons violations laws "One and Done," And I would call the Three Strikes changes what they are: "Two Strikes and You're Out."
Democrat heads would explode all over the country. Naturally, leftists would oppose this sort of thing. It's "racist," you see.
I don't care if it is: oddly enough, a gun doesn't give a rat's ass what color the finger on it's trigger is.
But regardless of color, under this law, if you're going to use a gun to commit a crime, you are GOING to get hurt.
This law, enacted, would have the benefit of shifting attention from the increasing regulation of those of us who follow the law, to those who actually BREAK the law.
An approach that might work well in dealing with illegal aliens, come to think of it.
That said, like so many other things in our lives, they are there, or not there, because of government.
Our economy is an ongoing train wreck because the Obama Gang and Congress seemingly know about as much on how to fix this as they do brain surgery. In the end, it's both the president AND Congress, including the establishment GOP, who are the reason we have his mountain range of debt being dumped on our children's... and additional generations.... heads.... the ultimate game of kicking the can down the road.
Simply put: if Obama and Congress didn't want there to be a debt.... there wouldn't be one.
Likewise, gun violence continues to be a problem because government continues to look in the wrong direction: they continue to punish the law abiding for the acts of the law breaking. And it's the same thing with gun violence.
The gun-grabbers toy around the edges, making a lot of moves that accomplish nothing, doing their best, apparently, to keep the focus off those who need it the most.
The impact of laws such as this would be immediate. Politically, the left would freak and then have to defend their efforts to derail such a move. They would be forced to either hop on to the train or get run over by it.
That, by itself would be a thing of beauty, politically. But if saving lives is the goal, I have yet to see anything from anyone that would do more, faster, and I would love it if someone had a better idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment