I read with keen interest the article carried in the state owned Chronicle Newspaper captioned “Cops nabbed trying to steal AK-47” and immediately my thoughts ran on the President and his reaction when a criminal was killed by a Licensed Firearm holder.
In that incident The President came out swinging, stating emphatically that all licences for private firearm use would be reviewed with the view that some, or most of them, would be revoked immediately. In fact he went on to elaborate that in his view many of the gun crimes committed were done by criminal elements who got these weapons from licenced firearm holders, a clear case of “guns for hire.”
The nation was shocked, literally petrified by that statement. Because in all the cases where criminals were caught in crimes involving illegal gun possession in not one instance was it found to be the firearm of a licensed holder. So, folks were at a loss as to what The President was saying.
But, we were not totally befuddled by his utterances because, the President is known for these wild unsubstantiated statements that usually comes back to haunt him. The above incident is a case in point.
Why would a President be so overly concerned when a criminal is gotten rid of? Why? It just boggles the mind and this is the main aim of my argument, he was either making a political statement, or, trying to divert our attention from the truth.
I am of the opinion that President Granger knows fully well that there were corrupt elements within the force and as a cover up he was trying vainly to turn our gaze the other way. Mr Granger was living in denial that many of these gun crimes were orchestrated from right within the police force.
Therefore, it would be interesting to know what his position is at this present time? What would his comments be?
Guyana is reeling from the onslaught of gun related crimes and to have heard the President of this country making a statement like that was very callous and cold. He was insensitive to the plight of the ordinary citizens of a traumatized crime infested country.
In it all, he was in essence castigating the victim and tacitly praising the perpetrator, a very reprehensible thing to do. No wonder criminals were emboldened by that statement and criminal activity soared.
I would advise Mr Granger, who is a historian, to do some research before he makes such insensitive and outlandish comments again.