Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

[Dr.Dudd]

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

You take us all for idiots here eh!!

I mean if you think that anybody reading your above post really believe That.

We born at home in our mothers absence.

our mother went to the market and she found us at home When she return too.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The facts are that gang members and others DO get into shootouts with the police on a regular basis.
the gunman may have a wild cowboy mentality but even they aren't going to go up against an armoured car when there is a very, very small chance of success

I'm talking about home invasions, robberies of shops, shootings on the street, the everyday killings. Possession of a weapon by the victims does not deter the yahoos, the crazed, the macho gunmen.

You can give every citizen in Jamaica a weapon and the killings will not go down but up as long as the economy is as it has been since independence.

Throwing more guns into the equation is like throwing gasoline on a fire. </div></div>

[johnnycakes]

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

You can believe that you were born in your mother's absence if you'd like.
Some people will believe anything.
like: more guns, in the absence of any change in the social conditions, will lower the murder rate.

[quodlibet]

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">...
the gunman may have a wild cowboy mentality but even they aren't going to go up against an armoured car when there is a very, very small chance of success

I'm talking about home invasions, robberies of shops, shootings on the street, the everyday killings. Possession of a weapon by the victims does not deter the yahoos, the crazed, the macho gunmen.
... </div></div>

Based on your statement above, wouldnt you say that a home invasion would have a <span style="font-weight: bold">decreased</span> chance of success if you <span style="font-weight: bold">increase</span> the chance of armed resistance?

Bonus Question: Why should you totally depend on the state for your security?

[johnnycakes]

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

Based on your statement above, wouldnt you say that a home invasion would have a decreased chance of success if you increase the chance of armed resistance?

Bonus Question: Why should you totally depend on the state for your security?


To the first question:
Yes but the home invader does not know that the homeowner is armed so he will attempt the crime regardless.

To the second question:
Because that is what a government is supposed to do.
The problem isn't that criminals are armed and others are not.
The problem is that there are armed criminals.
There are armed criminals because there is widespread poverty, no jobs, no hope.

The government is supposed to take care of those problems since it is a representative government and I would assume most people want these problems solved.

Obviously the government does not serve the people.

You do not then run out and call for everyone to arm themselves and worsen the problem.

You fix the government.
You deal with the problem and not just the symptoms.

[quodlibet]

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">Based on your statement above, wouldnt you say that a home invasion would have a decreased chance of success if you increase the chance of armed resistance?

Bonus Question: Why should you totally depend on the state for your security?


To the first question:
Yes but the home invader does not know that the homeowner is armed so he will attempt the crime regardless.

To the second question:
Because that is what a government is supposed to do.
The problem isn't that criminals are armed and others are not.
The problem is that there are armed criminals.
There are armed criminals because there is widespread poverty, no jobs, no hope.

The government is supposed to take care of those problems since it is a representative government and I would assume most people want these problems solved.

Obviously the government does not serve the people.

You do not then run out and call for everyone to arm themselves and worsen the problem.

You fix the government.
You deal with the problem and not just the symptoms.


</div></div>

If the home invader is not aware that there is a gun on the premises - we can solve that easily - post a sign &quot;The owner of this house is armed and dangerous to home invaders&quot;

I do disagree when you state &quot;There are armed criminals because there is widespread poverty, no jobs, no hope&quot; -- are you saying that if there was less poverty, more jobs, and more hope - the criminals would NOT be armed?

[johnnycakes]

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

I do disagree when you state &quot;There are armed criminals because there is widespread poverty, no jobs, no hope&quot; -- are you saying that if there was less poverty, more jobs, and more hope - the criminals would NOT be armed?
_________________________
---------------------------

Quodlibet,

You are missing the obvious. If there were ENOUGH jobs, poverty yes, but with the chance, the REAL opportunity to do better, yes with more hope that there is something a whole lot better than having to resort to crime, drugs and violence.


Of course you can only do this sort of thing in a socialist economy.

Cuba has a very ,very low crime rate for the reasons stated above, no drug problem of any size and a whole lot fewer crimes of violence.
Yet Cubans make about US$1000.00 less per capita than do Jamaicans.

It is all in what the respective governments do with the wealth of each country.

[quodlibet]

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">I do disagree when you state &quot;There are armed criminals because there is widespread poverty, no jobs, no hope&quot; -- are you saying that if there was less poverty, more jobs, and more hope - the criminals would NOT be armed?
_________________________
---------------------------

Quodlibet,

You are missing the obvious. If there were ENOUGH jobs, poverty yes, but with the chance, the REAL opportunity to do better, yes with more hope that there is something a whole lot better than having to resort to crime, drugs and violence.


Of course you can only do this sort of thing in a socialist economy.

Cuba has a very ,very low crime rate for the reasons stated above, no drug problem of any size and a whole lot fewer crimes of violence.
Yet Cubans make about US$1000.00 less per capita than do Jamaicans.

It is all in what the respective governments do with the wealth of each country.
</div></div>

So socialism is again your answer to this... If given the chance, would you live in Cuba - and if so - why wouldn't you live there now?

[johnnycakes]

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

&quot;So socialism is again your answer to this... If given the chance, would you live in Cuba - and if so - why wouldn't you live there now?&quot;



Quodlibet,

The answer to problems that are caused by poverty is to end the problems caused by poverty. You can only end the effects of poverty with either huge and high taxation social programs within a capitalist structure or by ending capitalism and dividing the wealth equitably as is done in a socialist economy.

If you or anyone else has another solution and not one that says &quot;If only we could elect honest politicians&quot; or &quot; if only the rich were more charitable&quot; or other pipe-dream outcome , then come with those solutions.

Half the world lives on US$1-2 dollars a day BECAUSE they live under a capitalist economy. The solution to that does not and cannot lie with capitalism since a widely unequal distribution of wealth is what capitalism is based upon.

Suppose you tell me why the new democratic socialism is NOT the answer.
Why would it not work in Jamaica if it works on an island just a few hundred miles distant?
( for the sake of this argument let us leave out the distinct possibility of a U.S. intervention)




Were I fluent in Spanish, were I a younger man, were my friends and family not where I am, I would likely be a Cuban citizen today WERE the Cubans taking people in.

I could not be a Cuban citizen and come back and forth freely between the USA and Cuba at present. The United States is at war with Cuba.
It is also my civic duty to do what I can to change the United States into a better place to live and to help change the United States from being the most murderous state in the world. Cuba is managing quite well without me and I can do more from here to help both Cuba and the world than could in Cuba.

Of course I would rather live in a society that cares for people, that is respected and not hated by much of the world but things are what they are.
_________________________

[quodlibet]

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

JC, I have taken the liberty of adding numbered notation (example &quot;<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #009900"><span style="font-size: 11pt">{1}</span></span></span>&quot; in the quote so I can address the different areas below in my response.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">&quot;So socialism is again your answer to this... If given the chance, would you live in Cuba - and if so - why wouldn't you live there now?&quot;

Quodlibet,

The answer to problems that are caused by poverty is to end the problems caused by poverty<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #009900"><span style="font-size: 11pt">{1}</span></span></span>. You can only end the effects of poverty with either huge and high taxation social programs within a capitalist structure or by ending capitalism and dividing the wealth equitably as is done in a socialist economy<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #009900"><span style="font-size: 11pt">{2}</span></span></span>.

If you or anyone else has another solution and not one that says &quot;If only we could elect honest politicians&quot; or &quot; if only the rich were more charitable&quot; or other pipe-dream outcome , then come with those solutions<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #009900"><span style="font-size: 11pt">{3}</span></span></span>.

Half the world lives on US$1-2 dollars a day BECAUSE they live under a capitalist economy<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #009900"><span style="font-size: 11pt">{4}</span></span></span>. The solution to that does not and cannot lie with capitalism since a widely unequal distribution of wealth is what capitalism is based upon<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #009900"><span style="font-size: 11pt">{5}</span></span></span>.

Suppose you tell me why the new democratic socialism is NOT the answer.
Why would it not work in Jamaica if it works on an island just a few hundred miles distant?<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #009900"><span style="font-size: 11pt">{6}</span></span></span>
( for the sake of this argument let us leave out the distinct possibility of a U.S. intervention)




Were I fluent in Spanish, were I a younger man, were my friends and family not where I am, I would likely be a Cuban citizen today WERE the Cubans taking people in.

I could not be a Cuban citizen and come back and forth freely between the USA and Cuba at present. The United States is at war with Cuba.
It is also my civic duty to do what I can to change the United States into a better place to live and to help change the United States from being the most murderous state in the world. Cuba is managing quite well without me and I can do more from here to help both Cuba and the world than could in Cuba.

Of course I would rather live in a society that cares for people, that is respected and not hated by much of the world but things are what they are.
_________________________ </div></div>

Okie dokie - here goes...

<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #009900"><span style="font-size: 11pt">{1}</span></span></span>: While the syllogism of your sentence is correct, it again draws an inconclusive line between crime and poverty itself, which I challenge you to show. If it were so, the very poor rural areas of Jamaica and the USA would be overrun with crime, regardless of them owning guns or just a rock. I think a few questions to ask here are - Do people who commit violent crime when they were poor , cease to do so when they are no longer poor? Secondly, how do you account for violent crime committed by people who were not poor to begin with? Thirdly, if the rich have the means of jumping through the legal hoops to acquire guns and the poor do not, do you realize your egalitarian ideal would support the poor having the same access?



<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #009900"><span style="font-size: 11pt">{2} - {6}</span></span></span>: Each of these points depend on drawing a distinct line that crime is caused by poverty, and giving poor people the right to legally arm themselves is going to lead to more crime. I mean, it must be poor people, since by your argument, the rich would not need to commit crime...
So if we can conclusively show that crime is caused by poverty, we can then have a discussion about how we enable those poor people to protect themselves via poverty alleviation.

[johnnycakes]

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

{1}: While the syllogism of your sentence is correct, it again draws an inconclusive line between crime and poverty itself, which I challenge you to show. If it were so, the very poor rural areas of Jamaica and the USA would be overrun with crime, regardless of them owning guns or just a rock. I think a few questions to ask here are - Do people who commit violent crime when they were poor , cease to do so when they are no longer poor? cease to do so when they are no longer poor? Thirdly, if the rich have the means of jumping through the legal hoops to acquire guns and the poor do not, do you realize your egalitarian ideal would support the poor having the same access?



{2} - {6}: Each of these points depend on drawing a distinct line that crime is caused by poverty, and giving poor people the right to legally arm themselves is going to lead to more crime. I mean, it must be poor people, since by your argument, the rich would not need to commit crime...
So if we can conclusively show that crime is caused by poverty, we can then have a discussion about how we enable those poor people to protect themselves via poverty alleviation.


Quodlibet,

I draw the example of Cuba before and after its revolution since Cuba is (arguably) the only democratic socialist state.

The crime rate in Cuba is minuscule compared with what it was during capitalism.


Poverty, especially the have and have-not societal, variety involves long-term and lifelong unemployment and underemployment, it involves a form of despair. It twists thinking and morals. Of course, money crimes are directly attributable to poverty but consider that in the United States the leading cause of domestic/family strife is money, or rather the lack of it. The stress of poverty permeates the very social fabric of a people.


Your questions:

Do people who commit violent crime when they were poor cease to do so when they are no longer poor?

A: depends. If the conditions which caused them to commit a crime persist then they might well do it again especially when criminal intent becomes a way of life. As the twig is bent , so the tree will grow.


Q- Secondly, how do you account for violent crime committed by people who were not poor to begin with?

A: There are always crimes of passion but I would say that in Jamaica and the United States most of the gun crime is over money. Again, Cuba has eliminated poverty caused crime and has created a very peaceful society. No gangs, no drug problem, no home invasions, no shoot-outs, no mass murders, no mad men roaming the streets , no illiteracy, a doctor when you need one, guaranteed social security
Think of what a difference all that would make in Jamaican society and on the crime rate.

Q: Thirdly, if the rich have the means of jumping through the legal hoops to acquire guns and the poor do not, do you realize your egalitarian ideal would support the poor having the same access?

A: If we lived in a democratic socialist country we would not be even thinking about the need for guns to protect us from a violent society at large.
BTW Cuba has better than a million man militia. They have weapons hidden all over the island in case of an American invasion. Of necessity, they have access to these weapons.
They have no serious crime problem because the effects of poverty are negated by their economy. They have eliminated the despair that comes with the endless cycle of poverty that is intrinsic to capitalism.


Not a question per se but something to which I would like to respond:
&quot;........ we can then have a discussion about how we enable those poor people to protect themselves via poverty alleviation.&quot;


A- Now we get to the nub of the matter.
Poverty alleviation is not the capitalists forte. In fact it is way down on the list of things-to-do. What they will do is mitigate the poverty to the point that the citizenry are not rioting or otherwise causing serious or inconvenient or embarrassing societal disruptions. Poverty and the effects thereof will continue as before. That is how capitalism works. Were capitalism to put the welfare of the people first, it would be called socialism.

This might sound obvious but unless Jamaica has the same type infrastructure and wealth as the advanced European countries, you just can't come close to either ending poverty, the crime it causes, the violence, the ruined society under a capitalist economy.
You have to share the country's wealth more equitably and that can only happen in a poor country like Jamaica with a socialist economy.

The gun question is really a side (arm) issue. You can give each baby a gun when they are born, if you'd like and that will not solve the problems of violence or drug trading or armed robberies or gang wars or any of that which today plagues Jamaica.

[quodlibet]

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">{1}: While the syllogism of your sentence is correct, it again draws an inconclusive line between crime and poverty itself, which I challenge you to show. If it were so, the very poor rural areas of Jamaica and the USA would be overrun with crime, regardless of them owning guns or just a rock. I think a few questions to ask here are - Do people who commit violent crime when they were poor , cease to do so when they are no longer poor? cease to do so when they are no longer poor? Thirdly, if the rich have the means of jumping through the legal hoops to acquire guns and the poor do not, do you realize your egalitarian ideal would support the poor having the same access?



{2} - {6}: Each of these points depend on drawing a distinct line that crime is caused by poverty, and giving poor people the right to legally arm themselves is going to lead to more crime. I mean, it must be poor people, since by your argument, the rich would not need to commit crime...
So if we can conclusively show that crime is caused by poverty, we can then have a discussion about how we enable those poor people to protect themselves via poverty alleviation.


Quodlibet,

I draw the example of Cuba before and after its revolution since Cuba is (arguably) the only democratic socialist state.

The crime rate in Cuba is minuscule compared with what it was during capitalism.


Poverty, especially the have and have-not societal, variety involves long-term and lifelong unemployment and underemployment, it involves a form of despair. It twists thinking and morals. Of course, money crimes are directly attributable to poverty but consider that in the United States the leading cause of domestic/family strife is money, or rather the lack of it. The stress of poverty permeates the very social fabric of a people.


Your questions:

Do people who commit violent crime when they were poor cease to do so when they are no longer poor?

A: depends. If the conditions which caused them to commit a crime persist then they might well do it again especially when criminal intent becomes a way of life. As the twig is bent , so the tree will grow.


Q- Secondly, how do you account for violent crime committed by people who were not poor to begin with?

A: There are always crimes of passion but I would say that in Jamaica and the United States most of the gun crime is over money. Again, Cuba has eliminated poverty caused crime and has created a very peaceful society. No gangs, no drug problem, no home invasions, no shoot-outs, no mass murders, no mad men roaming the streets , no illiteracy, a doctor when you need one, guaranteed social security
Think of what a difference all that would make in Jamaican society and on the crime rate.

Q: Thirdly, if the rich have the means of jumping through the legal hoops to acquire guns and the poor do not, do you realize your egalitarian ideal would support the poor having the same access?

A: If we lived in a democratic socialist country we would not be even thinking about the need for guns to protect us from a violent society at large.
BTW Cuba has better than a million man militia. They have weapons hidden all over the island in case of an American invasion. Of necessity, they have access to these weapons.
They have no serious crime problem because the effects of poverty are negated by their economy. They have eliminated the despair that comes with the endless cycle of poverty that is intrinsic to capitalism.


Not a question per se but something to which I would like to respond:
&quot;........ we can then have a discussion about how we enable those poor people to protect themselves via poverty alleviation.&quot;


A- Now we get to the nub of the matter.
Poverty alleviation is not the capitalists forte. In fact it is way down on the list of things-to-do. What they will do is mitigate the poverty to the point that the citizenry are not rioting or otherwise causing serious or inconvenient or embarrassing societal disruptions. Poverty and the effects thereof will continue as before. That is how capitalism works. Were capitalism to put the welfare of the people first, it would be called socialism.

This might sound obvious but unless Jamaica has the same type infrastructure and wealth as the advanced European countries, you just can't come close to either ending poverty, the crime it causes, the violence, the ruined society under a capitalist economy.
You have to share the country's wealth more equitably and that can only happen in a poor country like Jamaica with a socialist economy.

The gun question is really a side (arm) issue. You can give each baby a gun when they are born, if you'd like and that will not solve the problems of violence or drug trading or armed robberies or gang wars or any of that which today plagues Jamaica.
</div></div>

So to pull this all together, I understand from your words:

1. Cubans already have the defacto right to bear arms because they have at least 'a million man militia'.
2. Cubans, while poor and armed, have no crime
3. People, even when no longer poor, will commit crime
4. Only crimes of passion are committed by those who are not poor
5. Intrinsic to capitalism is an 'endless cycle of poverty'

Based on the fact that you indicate regular Cubans having normal access to bear arms, and this does not devolve into anarchy - negates your prior argument that poverty and the right to bear arms cannot mix. Also, the argument of US=capitalism=crime, Cuba=socialism=nocrime ignores the multiple democratic countries that do experience a low level of crime regardless.

Given the very weak correlations between the topic of <span style="font-weight: bold">the right to bear arms</span> and the socio-economic structures you are evidently in favor of, I must suggest that the core argument of denying the society the right to bear arms because the country is not a socialist state is circular and futile - since the very example you used (Cuba) employed those same weapons in order to become a socialist state.

[johnnycakes]

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

So to pull this all together, I understand from your words:

1. Cubans already have the defacto right to bear arms because they have at least 'a million man militia'.

A- I don't know that the right to bear arms has any importance in Cuba. The violent crime rate is so low that the Cuban people don't feel the need to carry arms.


2. Cubans, while poor and armed, have no crime

A- They have crime. Just not crimes based on the lack of money.


3. People, even when no longer poor, will commit crime

A- Yes


4. Only crimes of passion are committed by those who are not poor

A- false syllogism. Crimes of passion are universally committed


5. Intrinsic to capitalism is an 'endless cycle of poverty'

A- Yes.




Based on the fact that you indicate regular Cubans having normal access to bear arms, and this does not devolve into anarchy - negates your prior argument that poverty and the right to bear arms cannot mix.


A- Anarchy is merely the absence of government. In a communist state there is no government necessary. It has nothing to do with having or not having arms.
Cuba is a socialist state (government controlled economy)and is therefore not anarchic.


Also, the argument of US=capitalism=crime, Cuba=socialism=nocrime ignores the multiple democratic countries that do experience a low level of crime regardless.

A- the crime and security problems in poor capitalist countries are much worse than in rich or middle income capitalist countries. Sweden,Norway etc the rich capitalist social welfare states are the tip of the capitalist iceberg of countries. They are the exceptions in the capitalist world when it comes to a social safety net.
Where you have people suffering in large percentages of a society because they lack the money needed for basic survival, you have high crime rates of all sorts.

When you eliminate the deprivation that is due to poverty as has Cuba, you automatically remove the causes for robberies; vagrancy, drug addiction, drug trade, gang formation, etc.



Given the very weak correlations between the topic of the right to bear arms and the socio-economic structures you are evidently in favor of, I must suggest that the core argument of denying the society the right to bear arms because the country is not a socialist state is circular and futile - since the very example you used (Cuba) employed those same weapons in order to become a socialist state.


A- I don't understand your linking the right to bear arms with the economic form followed by a given society.
Except if you ask what makes people want to own and carry a gun?


We, in the violence and poverty afflicted societies seem to think that guns are the answer to the problems that they, in the end, only exacerbate.

I suppose it is easier to arm everyone than it would be to prevent poverty's effects from causing people to become violent.
---------------------------

[quodlibet]

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">So to pull this all together, I understand from your words:

1. Cubans already have the defacto right to bear arms because they have at least 'a million man militia'.

A- I don't know that the right to bear arms has any importance in Cuba. The violent crime rate is so low that the Cuban people don't feel the need to carry arms.


2. Cubans, while poor and armed, have no crime

A- They have crime. Just not crimes based on the lack of money.


3. People, even when no longer poor, will commit crime

A- Yes


4. Only crimes of passion are committed by those who are not poor

A- false syllogism. Crimes of passion are universally committed


5. Intrinsic to capitalism is an 'endless cycle of poverty'

A- Yes.




Based on the fact that you indicate regular Cubans having normal access to bear arms, and this does not devolve into anarchy - negates your prior argument that poverty and the right to bear arms cannot mix.


A- Anarchy is merely the absence of government. In a communist state there is no government necessary. It has nothing to do with having or not having arms.
Cuba is a socialist state (government controlled economy)and is therefore not anarchic.


Also, the argument of US=capitalism=crime, Cuba=socialism=nocrime ignores the multiple democratic countries that do experience a low level of crime regardless.

A- the crime and security problems in poor capitalist countries are much worse than in rich or middle income capitalist countries. Sweden,Norway etc the rich capitalist social welfare states are the tip of the capitalist iceberg of countries. They are the exceptions in the capitalist world when it comes to a social safety net.
Where you have people suffering in large percentages of a society because they lack the money needed for basic survival, you have high crime rates of all sorts.

When you eliminate the deprivation that is due to poverty as has Cuba, you automatically remove the causes for robberies; vagrancy, drug addiction, drug trade, gang formation, etc.



Given the very weak correlations between the topic of the right to bear arms and the socio-economic structures you are evidently in favor of, I must suggest that the core argument of denying the society the right to bear arms because the country is not a socialist state is circular and futile - since the very example you used (Cuba) employed those same weapons in order to become a socialist state.


A- I don't understand your linking the right to bear arms with the economic form followed by a given society.
Except if you ask what makes people want to own and carry a gun?


We, in the violence and poverty afflicted societies seem to think that guns are the answer to the problems that they, in the end, only exacerbate.

I suppose it is easier to arm everyone than it would be to prevent poverty's effects from causing people to become violent.
--------------------------- </div></div>

JK, this discussion seems to be drawn into thin lines of argument.

To decide if a society should have the right to bear arms based on the type of economy is mixing 'apples and oranges', and leads the discussion into the type of deflections and contortions we see above.

[johnnycakes]

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

JK, this discussion seems to be drawn into thin lines of argument.

To decide if a society should have the right to bear arms based on the type of economy is mixing 'apples and oranges', and leads the discussion into the type of deflections and contortions we see above.
______________


You asked the questions. I provided my thoughts on the subjects.
My point is that the need for guns in a country like Jamaica or the United States which are afflicted with high crime rates is a valid subject in that people want to protect themselves from the adverse effects of the economy. The government enforces the economic system which creates the poverty and the crime and cannot control the violence. That violence has come to be accepted as part and parcel of the system in which we are forced to live and while the only solution is to eliminate the causes of the violence, that option is not open in the United States or Jamaica which are dedicated to totalitarian capitalism.

The Cubans took that option and they have a socialist economy that eliminates the deprivations of poverty and have a nearly crime free country in which the question of gun ownership is irrelevant.

They don't need guns in their day-today lives except if the U.S. decides to invade.