Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

[evanovitch]

Re: Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

dem already kidnapping peeps from di supposed poor ranks...people know who ha access to money a yaad...is not all dem cases mek di news cause a one no wan all fi know whe dem ha...but cases gwane wid dat...

u eva drive some place an ovah di zinc fence u see lexus an tractor trailer rig park up...money deh weh u leass expek fi find it a yaad u know...

dat is why my lady a portmore di ha up to 1 million US eena har deep freeze

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

Well by then the stupid majority will wake up and realize that legal firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens is the better of all choices for security of the whole country.
No private security system is capable of securing a country.

they mere need for such an extensive cadre of private security is the admission that the majority of the population is not important enough to be protected.

The only difference with a safe country and a lawless one is the absence or presence of protection for the majority.

As I have been saying for so long. It will be on us in no time. Then none of us will be able To go home even for funerals due to the security reasons.
And all thisis to be blamed om the stupid educated who believe that they can do selective security. That is like using a basket to carry water. The basket will only carry enough to keep it wet for a while, but not much more.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xavier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the are following the Trinidad model they may start with the &quot;wealthy&quot; but eventually the kidnappings will trickle down. The &quot;middle&quot; and &quot;poor&quot; who have families abroad will be next once the cannot get to the well protected &quot;wealthy&quot;. The perpetrators will ask these family to contact their &quot;rich&quot; relatives abroad for the ransom. </div></div>

[evanovitch]

Re: Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

Doc mek mi ask u dis n is a serious question

given dat yaad ha di mentality whe people fr a long time , tek western movie fi gospel, u really tink dat arming the whole populace gwine to be di ansa

consider it fi awhile before u come bak wid u ansa

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovich</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doc mek mi ask u dis n is a serious question

given dat yaad ha di mentality when people fr a long time , tek western movie fi gospel, u really think dat arming the whole populace gwine to be di ansa

consider it fi awhile before u comeback wid u ansa </div></div>.
How would that sound if a white foreigner state that Jamaicans on a whole.
Meaning the majority of the population, is not socially responsible,morally morally balanced, or emotionally mature enough to be trusted with firearms without murdering themselves?
The Way we evaluate others.

Especially a whole population,say a lot about our insecurity than them. I am never insecure amongst Jamaicans. Even when they are armed with firearms.


I realize that it is the only answer. We will either arm under circumstances we chose or wish we had done so in circumstances that are out of our hands.,
Jamaica had it's fair share of sword fighting movies and cinema and although they have always owned machettes, they never use the machetes as a means of population control, or go on wanton murder sprees.
It also endured a history of being promised fire burn and all manner of mortal extinction and they never resort to that.
In addition to the fact that many more presently have firearms, legal and illegal.
Yet it is only the criminal minority that is using it to destroy the country. What does it take for people to lose this mortal fear of firearms??
As a matter of fact I will wager that the majority of people who oppose the equitable legal ownership of firearms, by law abiding citizens, will not be willing to tell any citizen to their face that 'they are not qualified to have one'. The fact is that they are more afraid of the weapon, that the people with the weapon. It is all about mental slavery. part of our colonial socialization. Nothing logical to support the decision. It is all about emotions. and not annihilate What special powers does the firearm have eon

[johnnycakes]

Re: Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

Evanovitch,

The problem, of course, is the societal problems and not the number of guns.
Canada has more guns per capita then does the United States but the murder and violence in the US far outstrips that of Canada where people aren't as crazed.


The poverty and despair it breeds create a violent society, creates a crime-ridden society.
The guns just make it more deadly.

If you give more guns to an already violent society the result is more killing, not less.
Someone with that cowboy, superfly attitude you mentioned is not only not deterred by the thought that someone else may have a gun to shoot at him but relishes the thought of a dramatic shootout in which they can play out the tough guy role in their own real life movie and come out unventilated.

Just as the death penalty is no deterrent to murder, more guns or the threat of return gunfire is no deterrent to gunmen with that stupid romantic attitude they have about holding their gun.

[evanovitch]

Re: Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

if a white smaddy seh it mi wud question how dem come to dat based on the fact dat dem no socialise a yaad n it would be coming from dere perspective wich would be from a racist point of view

mine is from being socialised in Ja ala the Rhygin personality and the captioning of said in THTC whe u could hear di correct captioning of di audience in di theatre, viewing di cowboy movie , n saying dat bad man cyan dead till di lass frame

couple dat wid di monikers utilised ala Josey Wales, Clint Eastwood, etc etc n u can see where my question can arise and has merit

an btw, dont form fool wid mi wid dat tenet of response...do betta dan dat...

[evanovitch]

Re: Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

i concur wid u JC an am surprised dat u can fathom thru while Doc is static in his declarations ala arming the general populace despite wat i have highlighted n u picked up on...our infatuation wid westerns ala di shootout ting...our badmen have always held it dear to dem heart n now wid di wholeheap a gun , u see dem acting out dem fantasies even di police ,who fi di most part come from dat way of thinking, do it pon di regula...btw, the surprise bit comes from mi assuming dat u not Jcan...if u r, do forgive di I

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

The first thing is to realize that <span style="font-weight: bold">Jamaica is not a violent society</span>.
Otherwise with the high level of ownership of machetes, we would see a lot more of the effects of that violence.

There there is the myth that guns will make poor people more violent. You want to tell me that the majority of the poor people in rural Us does not own guns?

Or are you suggesting that because the poor Jamaican are black mostly they will be easier to come under the &quot;influence&quot; of gun ownership and be transformed into marauding killers of the neighbors?

Why is it that during periods when the majority of the population of countries have been armed the incidence of violence are always lower.
And about the wild, wild, west myth.
The west did not nave a higher percentage of gun ownership than the east at ant time in it's history.
Yet the reputation for gun violence didn't seem to affect the east which more guns per person that the west, as it id the west?
Was it the guns, or was it the reputation, given to the mysterious power guns have over ordinary folks.
Of Course the ownership of that voice has always been the wealthy.
And we know that the wealthy have always been against ordinary people being Abel to protect themselves as well as the rich. They still do today.
They even got the educated ordinary so brain washed, that they don't see how it keep them weak economically. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Evanovich,

The problem, of course, is the societal problems and not the number of guns.
Canada has more guns per capita then does the United States but the murder and violence in the US far outstrips that of Canada where people aren't as crazed.


The poverty and despair it breeds create a violent society, creates a crime-ridden society.
The guns just make it more deadly.

If you give more guns to an already violent society the result is more killing, not less.
Someone with that cowboy, superfly attitude you mentioned is not only not deterred by the thought that someone else may have a gun to shoot at him but relishes the thought of a dramatic shootout in which they can play out the tough guy role in their own real life movie and come out unventilated.

Just as the death penalty is no deterrent to murder, more guns or the threat of return gunfire is no deterrent to gunmen with that stupid romantic attitude they have about holding their gun. </div></div>

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

My question is how long ago were these western?
and other than naming themselves as nicknames how did it increase their use of firearms?

I still would trust a Jamaican with a forearm,more than some foreigners, with their socialization that have them believing that my life is not as important as theirs.

As to JC's understanding the social milieu of Jamaica, more than I do. It is all from perspective. On that both of you have a different perspective than I do. It is how we lived with the average Jamaican. You see i grow up with them as equals,and i function with them as employer,manager friend and in cases in opposite sides, but it i done thing i will tell you that firearm in the hands of the majority will only bring back civility to the country. Of course some will use it inappropriately, but they are doing so even now. but the advantage is that even the person that is doing so, is not over armed against the average citizen. So as soon as he is asleep they will get him. Now eve when he is asleep they are afraid to tell the police where he sleeps, because they can't protect themselves after they do. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovich</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if a white smaddy seh it mi wuk question how dem come to dat based on the fact dat dem no socialise a yaad n it would be coming from dere perspective which would be from a racist point of view

mine is from being socialised in Ja ala the Rhygin personality and the captioning of said in THTC when u could hear di correct captioning of di audience in di theatre, viewing di cowboy movie , n saying dat bad man cyan dead till di lass frame

couple dat wid di monikers utilised ala Josey Wales, Clint Eastwood, etc etc n u can see where my question can arise and has merit

an btw, dont form fool wit mi wit dat tenet of response...do betta dan dat... </div></div>

[evanovitch]

Re: Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> My question is how long ago were these western?</div></div>

not as long as slavery and colonialism, both of wich u continually embrace in ur arguments...come awn Doc, do betta dan dat...

n wat he has embraced betta dan u in this instant, is the tenet of the reasoning....ie, people who copy behaviour etc based on scripted movies have failed to embrace the negative realities of doing wat is essentially role playing

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

If i embraced slavery and colonialism, I would never support arming of the general population. after all you can't enslave a firearms owner,and equity in firearms ownership have an uncanny way of creating equals in a society.
As a matter of fact a colony can not be ruled if the subjects are firearms owners. That is what is behind the deprivation of gun ownership to former slaves. In it universal in all colonies and former colonies that did not pose a threat to the colonial masters.
Thoise are the same coliniethat have eiother became failed states, or on th ebroink of becomming so. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovich</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> My question is how long ago were these western?</div></div>

not as long as slavery and colonialism, both of which u continually embrace in ur arguments...come awn Doc, do betta dan dat... </div></div>

[johnnycakes]

Re: Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

D D:The first thing is to realize that Jamaica is not a violent society.

JC: The second thing is to check out the murder statistics for Jamaica.


D.D.:Otherwise with the high level of ownership of machetes, we would see a lot more of the effects of that violence.

JC: Nuff chopping happens but machetes are mostly a rural appliance are they not and the agrarian Jamaican population is usually hard working and normal is it not.

D.D.:There there is the myth that guns will make poor people more violent. You want to tell me that the majority of the poor people in rural Us does not own guns?

JC: I don't know about that myth but I do not believe it but rather that violent societies will make bad use of guns more often. Adding guns to a violent society is adding gasoline to a fire.

D.D.: Or are you suggesting that because the poor Jamaican are black mostly they will be easier to come under the &quot;influence&quot; of gun ownership and be transformed into marauding killers of the neighbors?

J.C; Nope. race has no bearing on violence but poverty, despair and political and social ignorance sure do.

D.D.: Why is it that during periods when the majority of the population of countries have been armed the incidence of violence are always lower?

J.C.: I do not know that this is true. Haven't seen any statistics or talk to prove it At any rate it does not apply when an already violent society is supplied with more weapons. Perhaps you can provide a few sources that show that an armed populace is less violent, just exactly where that has happened and how it relates to Jamaica today.

.
D.D.: And about the wild, wild, west myth.
The west did not nave a higher percentage of gun ownership than the east at ant time in it's history.

JC: Maybe true but the lack of lawmen and the wide open spaces could have lent the air if gun violence to the old west.



D.D.:
Yet the reputation for gun violence didn't seem to affect the east which more guns per person that the west, as it id the west?
Was it the guns, or was it the reputation, given to the mysterious power guns have over ordinary folks.

JC: The east was settled long before and ordinary society was a fact. The wild west was just that at times although I'm sure greatly exaggerated.



D.D.:
Of Course the ownership of that voice has always been the wealthy.
And we know that the wealthy have always been against ordinary people being Abel to protect themselves as well as the rich. They still do today.
They even got the educated ordinary so brain washed, that they don't see how it keep them weak economically.


JC: No matter how many guns the public has , the wealthy could not care less since the rich don't live near ordinary folks and have bodyguards and gated communities to protect then if needed.
If the armed poor get uppity, the rich have the police, the National Guard and the Armed Forces if need be to protect their property and persons. They don't care if the poor shoot each other to bloody pieces. It has nothing to do with who holds the power and the money .

IMO

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

D D:The first thing is to realize that Jamaica is not a violent society.

JC: The second thing is to check out the murder statistics for Jamaica.
<span style="color: #CC0000">Dudd: Just as health care system as drastically reduced the death rate between the Iraqi and Vietnam wars, The difference between murder in Jamaica and the Us is influence by a rate on no less that 10/1, due to the same. No Jamaica is no more violent that the US </span>


D.D.:Otherwise with the high level of ownership of machetes, we would see a lot more of the effects of that violence.

JC: Nuff chopping happens but machetes are mostly a rural appliance are they not and the agrarian Jamaican population is usually hard working and normal is it not. <span style="color: #CC0000">Dr.Dudd:
Now there you go talking what you don't know?
Machetes are as common in urban homes as they are in rural homes. You may believe otherwise, but it is so even in many single women's apartments.

And the incidences of antagonism is more prevalent in urban areas, than in rural, yet the incidences of attacks does not mirror the differences. </span>

D D:The first thing is to realize that Jamaica is not a violent society.

JC: The second thing is to check out the murder statistics for Jamaica. <span style="color: #CC0000">


D.D.:Otherwise with the high level of ownership of machetes, we would see a lot more of the effects of that violence.

JC: Nuff chopping happens but machetes are mostly a rural appliance are they not and the agrarian Jamaican population is usually hard working and normal is it not.

[color:#CC0000] Machetes are equally in the cities, as in the rural areas. not because you don't see them.
City people have no reason to display them.</span>

D.D.:There there is the myth that guns will make poor people more violent. You want to tell me that the majority of the poor people in rural Us does not own guns?

JC: I don't know about that myth but I do not believe it but rather that violent societies will make bad use of guns more often. Adding guns to a violent society is adding gasoline to a fire.
<span style="color: #CC0000"> Dudd: you keep talking about adding gasoline to fire.
well did you realize that usually in forest fires, they first use gasoline to arrest the advance of fires, by creating a controlled burn?? </span>

??
D.D.: Or are you suggesting that because the poor Jamaican are black mostly they will be easier to come under the &quot;influence&quot; of gun ownership and be transformed into marauding killers of the neighbors?

J.C; Nope. race has no bearing on violence but poverty, despair and political and social ignorance sure do.

<span style="color: #CC0000"> Dudd: social ignorance eh??
You still don't know your Jamaican neighbors. </span>

D.D.: Why is it that during periods when the majority of the population of countries have been armed the incidence of violence are always lower?

J.C.: I do not know that this is true. Haven't seen any statistics or talk to prove it At any rate it does not apply when an already violent society is supplied with more weapons. Perhaps you can provide a few sources that show that an armed populace is less violent, just exactly where that has happened and how it relates to Jamaica today.

<span style="color: #CC0000"> Dudd: you are again exposing your bias, that Jamaicans are a violent people. They are no more violent than Americans </span>

.
D.D.: And about the wild, wild, west myth.
The west did not nave a higher percentage of gun ownership than the east at ant time in it's history.

JC: Maybe true but the lack of lawmen and the wide open spaces could have lent the air if gun violence to the old west.

<span style="color: #CC0000"> Dudd: Now that is the missing link in your argument.
The west was a lawless society, of which Jamaica is not. Otherwise, the whole population would have unlawfully possess firearms. </span>



D.D.:
Yet the reputation for gun violence didn't seem to affect the east which more guns per person that the west, as it id the west?
Was it the guns, or was it the reputation, given to the mysterious power guns have over ordinary folks.

JC: The east was settled long before and ordinary society was a fact. The wild west was just that at times although I'm sure greatly exaggerated.



D.D.:
Of Course the ownership of that voice has always been the wealthy.
And we know that the wealthy have always been against ordinary people being Abel to protect themselves as well as the rich. They still do today.
They even got the educated ordinary so brain washed, that they don't see how it keep them weak economically.


JC: No matter how many guns the public has , the wealthy could not care less since the rich don't live near ordinary folks and have bodyguards and gated communities to protect then if needed.
If the armed poor get uppity, the rich have the police, the National Guard and the Armed Forces if need be to protect their property and persons. They don't care if the poor shoot each other to bloody pieces. It has nothing to do with who holds the power and the money .

IMO
<span style="color: #CC0000"> Dudd: So tell me where could the wealthy live where they could prevent the poor from coming in proximity of them? That is another myth.

Of course they have brainwashed the majority into thinking that the laws they preserve their place in society is for the benefit of the middle class.

It is a good think that the majority does not have analytical skills. Good for the powers that rule.</span>

[evanovitch]

Re: Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

awrite mek mi change embrace to reffah to...u overstan now r u still a play obtuse..cho

if not, let mi expand...if u can still refer bak to slavery an colonialism as continued influences on present behaviours, why then do u find the argument of western movies' influence so unpalatable....

[Blackstar*]

Re: Kidnap fear grips the wealthy

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-style: italic">if not, let mi expand...if u can still refer bak to slavery an colonialism as continued influences on present behaviours, why then do u find the argument of western movies' influence so unpalatable....</span> </div></div>
The influence of westerns is not so ingrained, not so long-lasting, etc.