Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

[Sofisa]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not so Dr Dudd,

Evidence the United States. <span style="font-weight: bold"> It is a violent society with a very high murder rate involving the easy to obtain firearms.</span>

Adding more guns to an already violent society does not, never has lowered the murder rate.
Canada has more guns per capita than does the United States but they have a very low murder rate comparatively. The Canadian society is less violent so the higher number of guns does not matter but add more guns to an already out of control murderous society and you naturally wind up with more killings.

The same gun that is bought to protect a family often winds up killing a member of that family and not in the defense of the family from a criminal attack

No ...more guns are not the answer.
<span style="font-weight: bold">The answer is a society that has no reason to murder which is always tied to poverty and despair which abound in Jamaica..</span> </div></div>

I do not believe it is easy for the law abiding &quot;citizen&quot; in Jamaica to access firearms, and yet you see it as a violent society. So who is creating the (gun related) violence?

By sheer numbers, if the same percentage of citizens were armed as that of criminals, pretty soon there would be a reversal of the number of murders. Citizens are already law abiding so they wouldn't be murdering anyone, anyways, but no longer would they be victims either.

The knowledge that a major bulk of the populace is armed may be deterrent enough. The criminal is firstly, unsure if the intended victim is armed, and secondly, unsure if bystanders are armed. The armed society would obviously discourage violent crimes such as robberies and assaults.

If the government were to make a wholesale effort to make firearms readily accessible to law abiding citizens, it would be the single greatest and least expensive effort it would have undertaken to reduce crime. Posses don't have to be lynch mobs, but their local knowledge of the community is an invaluable resource that remains untapped, largely out of fear.

With such a society, there is a great economic benefit. If the odds of being murdered, robbed and assaulted has been reduced, it would create the environment that attracts investments. Personally, I made investments in Jamaica, and upon being found &quot;undeserving&quot; of having a <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">legal</span></span> firearm, I closed up shop and left. I also personally know of a number of ppl who decided not to invest there, based on my experience. Additionally, Jamaica could be/ should be a retirement haven. But we know what is keeping many in the diaspora away from the shores. There goes more potential jobs, the opportunity to reduce poverty, and the reasons to stop murdering.

Finally, interviews with criminals, aired on national tv in America, and also done by me personally, show that criminals want nothing to do with ppl who may be armed. They would rather burglarize an empty house. I see no reason to think those in jamaica would be any different. So don't try to make it that guns dont play a huge part in the making and continued support of what some may call the American Dream.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

Sorry Sofisa,

But Jamaica is a poor country with a large percentage of unemployed, undereducated, unskilled youth for whom crime; drugs, violence are the only way they see to make something of themselves.

The capitalist economy forced upon Jamaica by the United States DOES NOT WORK for well over 25% of the people in any given Third World country.

The way to stop the crime and the violence is to end the poverty not by attempting to stop the unstoppable gun supply nor by increasing the number of weapons available to the public.

Your economic system ensures that you will always have a permanent underclass that will forever take to crime, having no access and no hope for a successful living wage career .

This especially so in Jamaica where the machismo, cowboy mad dog style of gun play is so popular among young males who couldn't care less if prospective victims have guns or not. They revel in the make believe romanticism so often featured in the violent movies they watch and emulate.

In the commission of their crimes they do not take the time to think through the fact that their victims may or may not be armed and I would wager that the thought of a wild west shoot-out is more of an incentive to these wild youth than it is a means of stopping their actions.

Sure, interview them when they're just sitting and having a beer and any criminal would say that they would rather that their proposed victims don't have a weapon but I defy you or anyone else to show me where an increased number of weapons in an already violent society has reduced killings.

You're repeating self-serving NRA claptrap.

Show me some proof and I'll change my tune


And to repeat myself, Cuba used to be as violent as Jamaica before its revolution. It was the whorehouse for the United States. It was run as a partnership between the Mafia and Batista. There were drugs, gambling, murders and all the ills of a corrupt society.

When the revolution provided meaningful jobs, complete social security in health, education, diet and the other necessities of life all the drug use, crime, violence and all the problems that Jamaica has today, went away.


The solution for Jamaica is no different and without a revolutionary transformation of the economic and electoral systems in Jamaica there will be no solutions.

I would have thought that 50 years of Jamaica's downhill slide to where it is would have proven that to any thinking person.

The problem? Jamaicans want change but have been led by those in command of the economy, the government, the media (same thing) and by the U.S. involvement in the overthrow of Michael Manley, to fear any change.

The result is that most Jamaicans way of thinking is fairly represented in these fora. All that people seem willing to discuss is addressing the symptoms of the disease and not the reasons for it.

There's all this blah-blah-blah while all the while, the elephant in the room is being ignored.

[Sofisa]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

I am with you on the capitalism thingy, but realistically, even if you hope for, you cannot expect an unarmed populace to overthrow the current economic structure. So scrap that idea. At least for now.

America had its wild west, and am sure most other G whatever country. Wars, civil and otherwise have forged their now great civilization. Well Jamaica have its turm.

&quot;the machismo, cowboy mad dog style of gun play is so popular among young males&quot; only exist so far, because not enough people is shooting back at them. If that is the case, why aren't they robbing money filled armored trucks by the hour?

Do not pretend to know the mind of criminal sitting around. After all, at that time, he has nothing to lose in stating what he truly feels.

I know of no violent society where the government ever introduced more weapons to the citizens to help stop the violence / killings. Period. Do you know of any where the government tried that and it failed? If not, then I say let Jamaica be the the first.

I am not affiliated with the NRA.
Since 2006, after Jeb Bush <span style="font-weight: bold">expanded the laws governing use of deadly force and self defense</span>, the number of violent and personal crimes has been lower every year.
<span style="font-style: italic">http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/.../UCR-Home.aspx</span>

While I cannot tell you that each instance is related to the law and the ease of which Floridians can get guns, I know just brandishing my firearm halted a possible attack at 2 a.m. at a stop light. Again, I have friends and acquaintances related similar stories.

So until someone actually utilize this option, what data hav you got to say it is not viable either?

[Sofisa]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

And of course participating in the revolution was armed, no?

[johnnycakes]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sofisa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And of course participating in the revolution was armed, no? </div></div>

Ah yes Sofisa,

But consider that fewer people died in Cuba's revolution than had died from poverty and violence at the hands of the successive dictatorial governments and the revolution saved the lives of those who would have died from those things for ever after.

If you believe in democracy ; that is, rule by the consent of the people governed then you have to believe in revolution these days.
This is so because it is impossible to change either the form of government we have and the economic system that corrupts it into being a tool of the wealthy through the ballot box.

I can break down why I believe this to be true if you'd like although it takes a bit of time and I've explained this several times in the past.
I would be glad to do it again.

But if you would, for the sake of argument, accept that what I say is true; that any significant, meaningful change in either the economic system that corrupts the democratic process and that (now not democratic) process itself is not possible through peaceful means, then armed revolution becomes the only alternative to continuing bad government and an economic system that maintains a permanent and ever growing poverty level in Jamaica.

I can think of no examples of countries where the vote has been able to change the entrenched electoral or economic status quo.

The United States was founded through a revolution and that only changed the people at the top. Instead of a king we get a president. The economic system remained the same. Those with the money run the whole show.

If I am not mistaken either the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States or the Declaration of Independence clearly states that when a government fails to serve the interests of the people it is the people's right and duty to overthrow that government. I'll check it out once I post this but even if it doesn't say that, it should.

If you believe in democracy: rule by the people governed and not the capitalist Golden Rule ( They who have the gold rule) then you are forced into believing in revolution. You have no choice.

[quodlibet]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

There is a question sign at the end of the subject - and no claims that this is in the Constitution.

The discussion is about the value of a law that seems to be only successful at keeping law-abiding citizens from acquiring the means of protecting themselves, when it does not seem to be an equal barrier to those who wish to break the law.

Do try to keep up.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Faithfull</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is obvious to even the careless observer that Jamaica is not short of weapons, even though general possession is supposed to be illegal.

Lets discuss the opinion that &quot;IF HAVING A GUN BREAKS THE LAW, THEN ONLY LAWBREAKERS WILL HAVE THE GUNS&quot; </div></div>

Jamaica has a &quot;right to bear arms&quot; in it's Constitution? Which amendment?...wha yuh chrying fi seh?


...an how yuh get fram dis &quot;Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms&quot; to diss?

<span style="font-weight: bold">It is obvious to even the careless observer that Jamaica is not short of weapons, even though general possession is supposed to be illegal.

Lets discuss the opinion that &quot;IF HAVING A GUN BREAKS THE LAW, THEN ONLY LAWBREAKERS WILL HAVE THE GUNS&quot;</span>???

Yuh waan discussion outtah diss? *DUH*


mi surprise seh summuch fell fi dis tuh. </div></div>

[britisha]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

...a whey yuh did deh so long? chrying to cum hup wid wan response?

...do try to express yourself not only succinctly but<span style="font-weight: bold"> clearly</span> soh dat hiff one wants to join di discussion, there is no doubt..annuh heverie boddie haff time fi spell an guess....why get ruffled over a simple kwestian or kwestians?...now gwaan go answah di kwestian; and be<span style="font-weight: bold"> original,</span> throwing baits naah goh attrack annimore to a nonsensical point attempting to come off as worthy of debate..*cho*...noh chry too haawd doah.<span style="color: #3333FF">

...it IS a new day, thank you for your countless blessings Lord...have a great and bless-ed day!!!</span>

[quodlibet]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Faithfull</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...a whey yuh did deh so long? chrying to cum hup wid wan response?
...
</div></div>
Living my life outside of Jamaicans.com - is that succinct enough?

[franksterr]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

Just like how you lock up the <span style="font-weight: bold">Drugs lords</span> and Drug growers sellers and manufacturers do the same with the <span style="font-weight: bold">Gun lords</span> Lock up the Ceo and Chairman of the board for Gun makers and bet you, they will be a sharp reduction in illegal guns all over the place.
Anyway I am for the right for all citizens to own a legal gun.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just like how you lock up the <span style="font-weight: bold">Drugs lords</span> and Drug growers sellers and manufacturers do the same with the <span style="font-weight: bold">Gun lords</span> Lock up the Ceo and Chairman of the board for Gun makers and bet you, they will be a sharp reduction in illegal guns all over the place.
Anyway I am for the right for all citizens to own a legal gun. </div></div>


The United States is one of if not the biggest arms manufacturer in the world.

Selling guns is big business.

Big business runs the United States.

There will be no outlawing of guns.

And since the United States also enforces the world order which includes mandatory capitalism, we will always have the poverty that drives gun crimes.

Outlaw capitalism and you won't need guns.

[quodlibet]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

How does one get to the point of outlawing capitalism?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just like how you lock up the <span style="font-weight: bold">Drugs lords</span> and Drug growers sellers and manufacturers do the same with the <span style="font-weight: bold">Gun lords</span> Lock up the Ceo and Chairman of the board for Gun makers and bet you, they will be a sharp reduction in illegal guns all over the place.
Anyway I am for the right for all citizens to own a legal gun. </div></div>


The United States is one of if not the biggest arms manufacturer in the world.

Selling guns is big business.

Big business runs the United States.

There will be no outlawing of guns.

And since the United States also enforces the world order which includes mandatory capitalism, we will always have the poverty that drives gun crimes.

Outlaw capitalism and you won't need guns. </div></div>

[johnnycakes]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

[quote=Quodlibet]How does one get to the point of outlawing capitalism?


Quodlibet,

You do what the preamble to the U.S constitution says which (paraphrased)
is when a government ceases to serve the best interests of the people, the people have the right and the duty to replace that government.
In this case you have to replace the capitalist economy at the same time.

You can do this incrementally as is being done in Venezuela and risk being invaded or subverted by the United States or go the Cuban route and get rid of the opposition as did the United States.

The two big questions are how bad do things have to get for enough people to make the move for change, support a third party that does represent change and if and when the Jamaican people do make that move how will they respond to the inevitable U.S intervention ?

.

[quodlibet]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

And if the people see capitalism as (to paraphrase Churchill) the best choice out all the bad choices - then this wont change.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=Quodlibet]How does one get to the point of outlawing capitalism?


Quodlibet,

You do what the preamble to the U.S constitution says which (paraphrased)
is when a government ceases to serve the best interests of the people, the people have the right and the duty to replace that government.
In this case you have to replace the capitalist economy at the same time.

You can do this incrementally as is being done in Venezuela and risk being invaded or subverted by the United States or go the Cuban route and get rid of the opposition as did the United States.

The two big questions are how bad do things have to get for enough people to make the move for change, support a third party that does represent change and if and when the Jamaican people do make that move how will they respond to the inevitable U.S intervention ?

.
</div></div>

[johnnycakes]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

Quodlibet:
And if the people see capitalism as (to paraphrase Churchill) the best choice out all the bad choices - then this wont change.


That is the basis of democracy.
That said, Since Churchill, the people in power have learned a great deal about the power of propaganda, the media has been concentrated in the hands of fewer and more powerful corporations who work hand in glove with the people that they put in power with direct campaign contributions and by promoting those parties who in return support them.


They do not tell the truth about capitalism. They do not tell the truth about the actual lack of democracy in the multi-party electoral systems we have and perhaps worst of all, they will not allow a voice to those who will tell the truth beginning with some elected officials like Dennis Kucinicz (sp?) to whom they give short time and then say that he's crazy or in some other way marginalize him very quickly to the point that he has no chance to get elected and change things.

The following actually happened and is so very important in understanding why the people prefer capitalism when it clearly does not work, why they support U.S. foreign policy when it is clearly murderous, imperial.

Jeff Greenfield who produces &quot;Frontline&quot; or one of the other hour-long so-called &quot;serious&quot; news shows that carry just one big story in each of its programs was asked why he never had Noam Chomsky on the program.
He replied: &quot; Noam Chomsky is from Pluto&quot; meaning that Chomsky's thoughts were really far out from what is accepted.
The questioner went to Noam Chomsky and told him that Greenfield said that he was from Pluto and Chomsky replied: &quot; He's absolutely correct '

He went on to explain; 'Were I to tell you that Moammar Quaddaffi (sp) was a madman and a danger to the world and should be brought to trial and jailed or executed, you would immediately understand what I meant since the newspapers and the media in general is full of stories that back that claim. We've all been taught that he is an unstable madman etc etc.

BUT... were I to tell you that George Schultz (The then Secretary of State/foreign minister) was a murderer of millions of people and should be brought to trial and jailed or executed you'd look at me and think &quot;This guy is from Pluto&quot;

&quot;It would take me about half an hour to explain U.S. foreign policy to you in which George Schultz was responsible for killing far more people than Khaddaffi could in a hundred years in order for you to understand that what I said is true about bringing Schutz to trial, execution.
Those shows only allow five minutes at most for answers to questions&quot;
That's why I cannot be on those shows&quot;

So Quodlibet, people think that they prefer capitalism but nowadays only because they have no idea of what it is, what it has become what evils it makes happen.

Capitalism is the George Schultz of the account above and we few on the actual left ( socialists/ communists and NOT liberals) are the Chomskys.

The people who believe in capitalism as a good thing have been successfully indoctrinated by the people who own the media and the country. To get the truth they'd have to go looking for it on the net and they have neither the inclination, the intellectual curiosity , the time to do so.

Further, as I have discovered, when you argue with a true believer in the system and present websites and articles that show what they have always believed to be false (such as how good capitalism is) they will not read what is presented or they run from it as soon as what they believe is challenged in the first few paragraphs.
This is because it is easier to believe comfortable lies than to learn the unpleasant truth.

Ignorance is sometimes bliss but usually it just makes horrendous things bearable.

I mean, does anyone want to learn that their father is a serial child molester?

And it's far worse than that.

Those who want to learn the truth CAN find it on the web but it's like trying to take a sip from a fire hose. You have to find the right sites so you don't waste your time.

I always suggest beginning with ZNET and Tomdispatch as well as many of the links to be found at the right side of Tom dispatch's website.

I'd also welcome anyone who'd want to PM me for private one on ones but the people who write at Znet are the people from whom I learn.

Note: After I posted this I went to Znet as I usually do to read the &quot;Latest Content&quot; articles and found the following article which perfectly illustrates what I was trying to say in the story about &quot;Frontline&quot; and Noam Chomsky.

http://www.zcommunications.org/cuba-and-the-rhetoric-of-human-rights-1-of-2-by-salim-lamrani

[quodlibet]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

Based on your words here, the problem is not neccessarily democracy or capitalism, but rather campaign finance.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quodlibet:
And if the people see capitalism as (to paraphrase Churchill) the best choice out all the bad choices - then this wont change.


That is the basis of democracy.
That said, Since Churchill, the people in power have learned a great deal about the power of propaganda, the media has been concentrated in the hands of fewer and more powerful corporations who work hand in glove with the people that they put in power with direct campaign contributions and by promoting those parties who in return support them.


They do not tell the truth about capitalism. They do not tell the truth about the actual lack of democracy in the multi-party electoral systems we have and perhaps worst of all, they will not allow a voice to those who will tell the truth beginning with some elected officials like Dennis Kucinicz (sp?) to whom they give short time and then say that he's crazy or in some other way marginalize him very quickly to the point that he has no chance to get elected and change things.

The following actually happened and is so very important in understanding why the people prefer capitalism when it clearly does not work, why they support U.S. foreign policy when it is clearly murderous, imperial.

Jeff Greenfield who produces &quot;Frontline&quot; or one of the other hour-long so-called &quot;serious&quot; news shows that carry just one big story in each of its programs was asked why he never had Noam Chomsky on the program.
He replied: &quot; Noam Chomsky is from Pluto&quot; meaning that Chomsky's thoughts were really far out from what is accepted.
The questioner went to Noam Chomsky and told him that Greenfield said that he was from Pluto and Chomsky replied: &quot; He's absolutely correct '

He went on to explain; 'Were I to tell you that Moammar Quaddaffi (sp) was a madman and a danger to the world and should be brought to trial and jailed or executed, you would immediately understand what I meant since the newspapers and the media in general is full of stories that back that claim. We've all been taught that he is an unstable madman etc etc.

BUT... were I to tell you that George Schultz (The then Secretary of State/foreign minister) was a murderer of millions of people and should be brought to trial and jailed or executed you'd look at me and think &quot;This guy is from Pluto&quot;

&quot;It would take me about half an hour to explain U.S. foreign policy to you in which George Schultz was responsible for killing far more people than Khaddaffi could in a hundred years in order for you to understand that what I said is true about bringing Schutz to trial, execution.
Those shows only allow five minutes at most for answers to questions&quot;
That's why I cannot be on those shows&quot;

So Quodlibet, people think that they prefer capitalism but nowadays only because they have no idea of what it is, what it has become what evils it makes happen.

Capitalism is the George Schultz of the account above and we few on the actual left ( socialists/ communists and NOT liberals) are the Chomskys.

The people who believe in capitalism as a good thing have been successfully indoctrinated by the people who own the media and the country. To get the truth they'd have to go looking for it on the net and they have neither the inclination, the intellectual curiosity , the time to do so.

Further, as I have discovered, when you argue with a true believer in the system and present websites and articles that show what they have always believed to be false (such as how good capitalism is) they will not read what is presented or they run from it as soon as what they believe is challenged in the first few paragraphs.
This is because it is easier to believe comfortable lies than to learn the unpleasant truth.

Ignorance is sometimes bliss but usually it just makes horrendous things bearable.

I mean, does anyone want to learn that their father is a serial child molester?

And it's far worse than that.

Those who want to learn the truth CAN find it on the web but it's like trying to take a sip from a fire hose. You have to find the right sites so you don't waste your time.

I always suggest beginning with ZNET and Tomdispatch as well as many of the links to be found at the right side of Tom dispatch's website.

I'd also welcome anyone who'd want to PM me for private one on ones but the people who write at Znet are the people from whom I learn.

Note: After I posted this I went to Znet as I usually do to read the &quot;Latest Content&quot; articles and found the following article which perfectly illustrates what I was trying to say in the story about &quot;Frontline&quot; and Noam Chomsky.

http://www.zcommunications.org/cuba-and-the-rhetoric-of-human-rights-1-of-2-by-salim-lamrani

</div></div>