the right to bear arms

[rspann]

I know of people who shot bandits and paid for it with their lives, Bunny Samlal a real estate dealer,comes to mind, and I know of others . While I agree with the right to bear arms, you have to balance it with the society we live in and the mentality of some trinis who can't control their temper.Also the little monsters who have no regard for life who would kill you for your gun,must be given some consideration. I know of people who fight for their rights and are dead. Remember the young guy in St Augustine who fight for his civic and got killed? Bandits serious when they coming and there are businessmen who are not able to defend themselves even with a firearm.

Well for me -if some one is after my car wallet etc take it.
If I find you in the car...I really will just call the police ....I probably will not intervene.

My sole concern is family ....if I wake up and you in the house I think you are fair game.
I want the RIGHT to shoot first.

I think that is my right-in these times the reality is that weapons are available to any one who wants one.
So Im at a disadvantage if Im expected to be in a confrontation, to assess justifiable force and then react.....a house invasion at 2 in the AM isnt about borrowing a cup of sugar.

For that one no amount of force is excessive!

[src1983]

Yes Duane please try to stay on topic. Imagine a setta illegal Nigerians and Jamaicans could legally have guns under the guise of working for security companies yet the regular businessman cant get a license unless he pay a bribe. Even illegal Chinese getting gun license

Now this is a good point. They should make it illegal for illegal immigrants to possess a firearm. Once they found with one they immediately deported.

For the businessmen, certain precautions can be put in place. Like built in safe to put all $100s that is only unlocked when going to the bank to deposit. Then security firms could be employed to provide an escort.

So let's say 1 team of armed guards can escort 5 people a day and each person does weekly deposits. That's 2 guns serving 35 people (i.e. 95% reduction in the required amount of guns). Not to mention it is easier to ensure that all of them are properly trained to use guns.

And 88sins you have any stats to back up what you said? Car accidents happen multiple times everyday in Trinidad. People being randomly ambushed and held up at gunpoint in their homes do not to my knowledge. But I'll hush my mouth if you provide some stats.

To me the issue with guns is mostly an issue of enforcement. Not an issue of unavailability.

Having been robbed 8 times over the years. I can say your option will never work. Since sentinel closed down I have been looking for another company to carry cash to the bank (lowest so far is 7000/pm)

Business people should get guns not everyone has the option for 24/7 security. To prove this point my neighbour (business owner) was attacked in her home it took 30 mins for officers/security to arrive. Her father was in hospital for 3 months, and still suffers from the beating. This was late 2014.

Business owners are at the mercy of criminals, while they can get protection from security the time it takes for it to arrive the worst can happen. Have you ever watched your female employee beaten with a cutlass, I have

[rspann]

I hear you, but the guys on the armoured van had guns, when men know you armed they coming in real hard.

[src1983]

I hear you, but the guys on the armoured van had guns, when men know you armed they coming in real hard.

You think they don't right now??

This is a misconception that many have. They don't care about your life everything is about "the hustle". If more people had guns, criminals would now have a deterrent, as they don't know what to expect

Lets take my neighbours example If she had a weapon and shot the guys, do you think some one will try again.

A man dare not walk into a dark room where there is a hungry lion

[rspann]

I only giving some alternative views,and talking about the reality, but understand your point of view and agree to a large extent.

[Chimera]

I hear you, but the guys on the armoured van had guns, when men know you armed they coming in real hard.

First, how would men know someone is armed unless they broadcast it or they had a previous encounter?

They coming in hard no matter what. Its not as if they think "oh ill leave the guns home for this robbery, we wud jus move with the 3line"

A gun and a good camera system at home and yuh reallll good to go. Throw in two germen shepherd and yuh safe

[src1983]

I hear you, but the guys on the armoured van had guns, when men know you armed they coming in real hard.

First, how would men know someone is armed unless they broadcast it or they had a previous encounter?

They coming in hard no matter what. Its not as if they think "oh ill leave the guns home for this robbery, we wud jus move with the 3line"

A gun and a good camera system at home and yuh reallll good to go. Throw in two germen shepherd and yuh safe

This correct, but I would recommend Pit Bulls over G/Shepheards.

1. They strong
2. They good with kids
3. They have endurance
4. And they smart

[rspann]

I hear you, but the guys on the armoured van had guns, when men know you armed they coming in real hard.

First, how would men know someone is armed unless they broadcast it or they had a previous encounter?

They coming in hard no matter what. Its not as if they think "oh ill leave the guns home for this robbery, we wud jus move with the 3line"

A gun and a good camera system at home and yuh reallll good to go. Throw in two germen shepherd and yuh safe

Apparently you misunderstood what is meant by coming in hard,when I say they coming hard, I mean they shooting first. When you act passive during a robbery and comply ,majority of the times they will take what they came for and go. If you resist you will feel it. If they know you are armed they will shoot before you get the chance. The guy in enterprise,Paynter, had a gun in his waist and he is a badman, why didn't he shoot them ,he didn't have a chance. You don't have to broadcast it,if you use it once ,or if someone you know talks,that is it.

[src1983]

I hear you, but the guys on the armoured van had guns, when men know you armed they coming in real hard.

First, how would men know someone is armed unless they broadcast it or they had a previous encounter?

They coming in hard no matter what. Its not as if they think "oh ill leave the guns home for this robbery, we wud jus move with the 3line"

A gun and a good camera system at home and yuh reallll good to go. Throw in two germen shepherd and yuh safe

Apparently you misunderstood what is meant by coming in hard,when I say they coming hard, I mean they shooting first. When you act passive during a robbery and comply ,majority of the times they will take what they came for and go. If you resist you will feel it. If they know you are armed they will shoot before you get the chance. The guy in enterprise,Paynter, had a gun in his waist and he is a badman, why didn't he shoot them ,he didn't have a chance. You don't have to broadcast it,if you use it once ,or if someone you know talks,that is it.

You really think so?

Unless you living close to a station minimum time is 15mins (nothing could help this) so If a bandit walk in your house and your daughter looking like Adriana Lima, prepare your self to attend a lot of counselling. Cause while one robbing the others raping.

[rspann]

I hear you, but the guys on the armoured van had guns, when men know you armed they coming in real hard.

First, how would men know someone is armed unless they broadcast it or they had a previous encounter?

They coming in hard no matter what. Its not as if they think "oh ill leave the guns home for this robbery, we wud jus move with the 3line"

A gun and a good camera system at home and yuh reallll good to go. Throw in two germen shepherd and yuh safe

Apparently you misunderstood what is meant by coming in hard,when I say they coming hard, I mean they shooting first. When you act passive during a robbery and comply ,majority of the times they will take what they came for and go. If you resist you will feel it. If they know you are armed they will shoot before you get the chance. The guy in enterprise,Paynter, had a gun in his waist and he is a badman, why didn't he shoot them ,he didn't have a chance. You don't have to broadcast it,if you use it once ,or if someone you know talks,that is it.

You really think so?

Unless you living close to a station minimum time is 15mins (nothing could help this) so If a bandit walk in your house and your daughter looking like Adriana Lima, prepare your self to attend a lot of counselling. Cause while one robbing the others raping.

All what men saying have some truth in it, but consider which will outweigh the other,the pros or the cons.The good part about being able to protect your family and yourself, or the easy availability of guns to criminals from people who can't hold on to their guns in the face of an attack.

[Chimera]

I hear you, but the guys on the armoured van had guns, when men know you armed they coming in real hard.

First, how would men know someone is armed unless they broadcast it or they had a previous encounter?

They coming in hard no matter what. Its not as if they think "oh ill leave the guns home for this robbery, we wud jus move with the 3line"

A gun and a good camera system at home and yuh reallll good to go. Throw in two germen shepherd and yuh safe

Apparently you misunderstood what is meant by coming in hard,when I say they coming hard, I mean they shooting first. When you act passive during a robbery and comply ,majority of the times they will take what they came for and go. If you resist you will feel it. If they know you are armed they will shoot before you get the chance. The guy in enterprise,Paynter, had a gun in his waist and he is a badman, why didn't he shoot them ,he didn't have a chance. You don't have to broadcast it,if you use it once ,or if someone you know talks,that is it.

Errrrr you know a different type of bandit. They rob, rape, beat and kill whether you comply or not.

[rspann]

I hear you, but the guys on the armoured van had guns, when men know you armed they coming in real hard.

First, how would men know someone is armed unless they broadcast it or they had a previous encounter?

They coming in hard no matter what. Its not as if they think "oh ill leave the guns home for this robbery, we wud jus move with the 3line"

A gun and a good camera system at home and yuh reallll good to go. Throw in two germen shepherd and yuh safe

Apparently you misunderstood what is meant by coming in hard,when I say they coming hard, I mean they shooting first. When you act passive during a robbery and comply ,majority of the times they will take what they came for and go. If you resist you will feel it. If they know you are armed they will shoot before you get the chance. The guy in enterprise,Paynter, had a gun in his waist and he is a badman, why didn't he shoot them ,he didn't have a chance. You don't have to broadcast it,if you use it once ,or if someone you know talks,that is it.

Errrrr you know a different type of bandit. They rob, rape, beat and kill whether you comply or not.

Nah dred, some retaliate to opposition, if you cool it you stand a better chance. If they perceive you to be a threat. Of course there are some animals too.

[Chimera]

I hear you, but the guys on the armoured van had guns, when men know you armed they coming in real hard.

First, how would men know someone is armed unless they broadcast it or they had a previous encounter?

They coming in hard no matter what. Its not as if they think "oh ill leave the guns home for this robbery, we wud jus move with the 3line"

A gun and a good camera system at home and yuh reallll good to go. Throw in two germen shepherd and yuh safe

Apparently you misunderstood what is meant by coming in hard,when I say they coming hard, I mean they shooting first. When you act passive during a robbery and comply ,majority of the times they will take what they came for and go. If you resist you will feel it. If they know you are armed they will shoot before you get the chance. The guy in enterprise,Paynter, had a gun in his waist and he is a badman, why didn't he shoot them ,he didn't have a chance. You don't have to broadcast it,if you use it once ,or if someone you know talks,that is it.

Errrrr you know a different type of bandit. They rob, rape, beat and kill whether you comply or not.

Nah dred, some retaliate to opposition, if you cool it you stand a better chance. If they perceive you to be a threat. Of course there are some animals too.

Wouldnt you prefer to have the option to take them down than having to hope for the best?

[rspann]

I hear you, but the guys on the armoured van had guns, when men know you armed they coming in real hard.

First, how would men know someone is armed unless they broadcast it or they had a previous encounter?

They coming in hard no matter what. Its not as if they think "oh ill leave the guns home for this robbery, we wud jus move with the 3line"

A gun and a good camera system at home and yuh reallll good to go. Throw in two germen shepherd and yuh safe

Apparently you misunderstood what is meant by coming in hard,when I say they coming hard, I mean they shooting first. When you act passive during a robbery and comply ,majority of the times they will take what they came for and go. If you resist you will feel it. If they know you are armed they will shoot before you get the chance. The guy in enterprise,Paynter, had a gun in his waist and he is a badman, why didn't he shoot them ,he didn't have a chance. You don't have to broadcast it,if you use it once ,or if someone you know talks,that is it.

Errrrr you know a different type of bandit. They rob, rape, beat and kill whether you comply or not.

Nah dred, some retaliate to opposition, if you cool it you stand a better chance. If they perceive you to be a threat. Of course there are some animals too.

Wouldnt you prefer to have the option to take them down than having to hope for the best?

I would and I do and I did.

[Redman]

Nah dred, some retaliate to opposition, if you cool it you stand a better chance. If they perceive you to be a threat. Of course there are some animals too.

So you are willing to bet your life and that of your family on whether you got a cool gunta or an animal gunta.?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

this was discussed previously but I'll ask it again here since the topic has been rekindled:
lets say the gov't grants citizens the right to bear arms in Trinidad.
Now citizens can get personal firearms, bandits arm themselves with bigger firearms, citizens buy even bigger firearms to counter, bandits get bigger bigger firearms to counter that and so on - where does that stop? RPGs? Tanks?

[src1983]

this was discussed previously but I'll ask it again here since the topic has been rekindled:
lets say the gov't grants citizens the right to bear arms in Trinidad.
Now citizens can get personal firearms, bandits arm themselves with bigger firearms, citizens buy even bigger firearms to counter, bandits get bigger bigger firearms to counter that and so on - where does that stop? RPGs? Tanks?

This won't happen as citizens are not allowed to legally get tanks/high powered weapons, so if a criminal decides to roll up in a tank, it shows that the current Government is incapable of controlling illegal weapons and instilling some kind of civil order.

A government at the same time should try to clamp down on illegal weapons and criminality, thus over a period of time illegal weapons and criminality will be low. Therefore citizens will no longer need there firearms and all will just be lock in a safe.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

this was discussed previously but I'll ask it again here since the topic has been rekindled:
lets say the gov't grants citizens the right to bear arms in Trinidad.
Now citizens can get personal firearms, bandits arm themselves with bigger firearms, citizens buy even bigger firearms to counter, bandits get bigger bigger firearms to counter that and so on - where does that stop? RPGs? Tanks?

This won't happen as citizens are not allowed to legally get tanks/high powered weapons, so if a criminal decides to roll up in a tank, it shows that the current Government is incapable of controlling illegal weapons and instilling some kind of civil order.

but isn't the purpose of granting the right to bear arms is to allow the citizenry to protect itself from armed criminals by matching firepower?

A government at the same time should try to clamp down on illegal weapons and criminality, thus over a period of time illegal weapons and criminality will be low. Therefore citizens will no longer need there firearms and all will just be lock in a safe.

then what we really need is to work on this, not arm the citizenry.

[src1983]

this was discussed previously but I'll ask it again here since the topic has been rekindled:
lets say the gov't grants citizens the right to bear arms in Trinidad.
Now citizens can get personal firearms, bandits arm themselves with bigger firearms, citizens buy even bigger firearms to counter, bandits get bigger bigger firearms to counter that and so on - where does that stop? RPGs? Tanks?

This won't happen as citizens are not allowed to legally get tanks/high powered weapons, so if a criminal decides to roll up in a tank, it shows that the current Government is incapable of controlling illegal weapons and instilling some kind of civil order.

but isn't the purpose of granting the right to bear arms is to allow the citizenry to protect itself from armed criminals by matching firepower?

A government at the same time should try to clamp down on illegal weapons and criminality, thus over a period of time illegal weapons and criminality will be low. Therefore citizens will no longer need there firearms and all will just be lock in a safe.

then what we really need is to work on this, not arm the citizenry.

Yes, the option of arming citizens is for them to protect themselves against a criminal situation that is way out of control. Citizens can't just sit and wait years until government works to get crime under control. They need to protect themselves and families. By keeping guns away from citizens criminals will always have the advantage and citizens becomes the sitting ducks.

Just this year a man was kidnapped and killed, another is missing. Citizens are feeling the brunt and burden of crime, small business owners have exhausted every deterrent available.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

this was discussed previously but I'll ask it again here since the topic has been rekindled:
lets say the gov't grants citizens the right to bear arms in Trinidad.
Now citizens can get personal firearms, bandits arm themselves with bigger firearms, citizens buy even bigger firearms to counter, bandits get bigger bigger firearms to counter that and so on - where does that stop? RPGs? Tanks?

This won't happen as citizens are not allowed to legally get tanks/high powered weapons, so if a criminal decides to roll up in a tank, it shows that the current Government is incapable of controlling illegal weapons and instilling some kind of civil order.

but isn't the purpose of granting the right to bear arms is to allow the citizenry to protect itself from armed criminals by matching firepower?

A government at the same time should try to clamp down on illegal weapons and criminality, thus over a period of time illegal weapons and criminality will be low. Therefore citizens will no longer need there firearms and all will just be lock in a safe.

then what we really need is to work on this, not arm the citizenry.

Yes, the option of arming citizens is for them to protect themselves against a criminal situation that is way out of control. Citizens can't just sit and wait years until government works to get crime under control. They need to protect themselves and families. By keeping guns away from citizens criminals will always have the advantage and citizens becomes the sitting ducks.

Just this year a man was kidnapped and killed, another is missing. Citizens are feeling the brunt and burden of crime, small business owners have exhausted every deterrent available.

ok so back to my question: what happens when the govt allows the citizenry to arm itself and then the criminals react by getting bigger guns?

[88sins]

this was discussed previously but I'll ask it again here since the topic has been rekindled:
lets say the gov't grants citizens the right to bear arms in Trinidad.
Now citizens can get personal firearms, bandits arm themselves with bigger firearms, citizens buy even bigger firearms to counter, bandits get bigger bigger firearms to counter that and so on - where does that stop? RPGs? Tanks?

Duane, that argument can never make sense. A .22lr cal will kill a bandit just as dead as a .50 bmg, particularly if placed in the hands of a skilled shooter. The need for the citizenry to escalate to bigger & bigger guns wouldn't be necessary because:

1-Bandits will be less enthusiastic to just brace any & everybody they feel they could attack, because they don't know who is armed or with what or if someone else in the vicinity is armed & will be able to oppose them & end their life just as easily as they'd end someone else's life & do so from concealment or a safe distance .

2-The most dangerous weapon is the one you don't know is there until it is time to use it. A person with a gun can be dispatched by a person with a 3" blade, if the person with the blade is aware of when, how & where to use it.

Besides that, there's also the option of a caliber limitation to be imposed on legally acquired firearms. So a FUL holder can only buy a gun & or ammo up to say 9mm & no larger. This would limit how far the citizenry can legally go, & would generally be accepted without much fuss or opposition. A person with a 9mm defending themselves against a person with a .45ACP still has a better chance of survival than the person with nothing.

And I will say again, I personally do not believe in the proliferation of small arms or concealed carry. Pistols are easy to conceal, thus easy to steal, lose, misuse & abuse. Shotguns would be the better way to go. A bandit ain't gonna walk up to a person he can see is carrying a 8 gauge shotgun, & they would be even less likely to enter a premises where they think they may encounter a few more of the same.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

this was discussed previously but I'll ask it again here since the topic has been rekindled:
lets say the gov't grants citizens the right to bear arms in Trinidad.
Now citizens can get personal firearms, bandits arm themselves with bigger firearms, citizens buy even bigger firearms to counter, bandits get bigger bigger firearms to counter that and so on - where does that stop? RPGs? Tanks?

Duane, that argument can never make sense. A .22lr cal will kill a bandit just as dead as a .50 bmg, particularly if placed in the hands of a skilled shooter. The need for the citizenry to escalate to bigger & bigger guns wouldn't be necessary because:

1-Bandits will be less enthusiastic to just brace any & everybody they feel they could attack, because they don't know who is armed or with what or if someone else in the vicinity is armed & will be able to oppose them & end their life just as easily as they'd end someone else's life & do so from concealment or a safe distance .

2-The most dangerous weapon is the one you don't know is there until it is time to use it. A person with a gun can be dispatched by a person with a 3" blade, if the person with the blade is aware of when, how & where to use it.

Besides that, there's also the option of a caliber limitation to be imposed on legally acquired firearms. So a FUL holder can only buy a gun & or ammo up to say 9mm & no larger. This would limit how far the citizenry can legally go, & would generally be accepted without much fuss or opposition. A person with a 9mm defending themselves against a person with a .45ACP still has a better chance of survival than the person with nothing.

And I will say again, I personally do not believe in the proliferation of small arms or concealed carry. Pistols are easy to conceal, thus easy to steal, lose, misuse & abuse. Shotguns would be the better way to go. A bandit ain't gonna walk up to a person he can see is carrying a 8 gauge shotgun, & they would be even less likely to enter a premises where they think they may encounter a few more of the same.

fair enough but it is the job of the criminal to better their victim in order to carry out their crime. That's why bandits have guns now.

a step further is to enforce the laws so they do not have access to those guns.
It will take a lot to manage citizenry with shotguns. Put that effort into preventing illegal firearms in the country altogether.

the same corrupt system is going to have a field day with the proliferation of shotguns.

[src1983]

this was discussed previously but I'll ask it again here since the topic has been rekindled:
lets say the gov't grants citizens the right to bear arms in Trinidad.
Now citizens can get personal firearms, bandits arm themselves with bigger firearms, citizens buy even bigger firearms to counter, bandits get bigger bigger firearms to counter that and so on - where does that stop? RPGs? Tanks?

This won't happen as citizens are not allowed to legally get tanks/high powered weapons, so if a criminal decides to roll up in a tank, it shows that the current Government is incapable of controlling illegal weapons and instilling some kind of civil order.

but isn't the purpose of granting the right to bear arms is to allow the citizenry to protect itself from armed criminals by matching firepower?

A government at the same time should try to clamp down on illegal weapons and criminality, thus over a period of time illegal weapons and criminality will be low. Therefore citizens will no longer need there firearms and all will just be lock in a safe.

then what we really need is to work on this, not arm the citizenry.

Yes, the option of arming citizens is for them to protect themselves against a criminal situation that is way out of control. Citizens can't just sit and wait years until government works to get crime under control. They need to protect themselves and families. By keeping guns away from citizens criminals will always have the advantage and citizens becomes the sitting ducks.

Just this year a man was kidnapped and killed, another is missing. Citizens are feeling the brunt and burden of crime, small business owners have exhausted every deterrent available.

ok so back to my question: what happens when the govt allows the citizenry to arm itself and then the criminals react by getting bigger guns?

At current criminals already have the following caliber

.22
9mm
45
5.56
7.62

Won't be surprised they already have

.50
Amour piercing
And rocket launchers

So they already high up the ladder.

Citizens at 0, how they supposed to defend against these?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

this was discussed previously but I'll ask it again here since the topic has been rekindled:
lets say the gov't grants citizens the right to bear arms in Trinidad.
Now citizens can get personal firearms, bandits arm themselves with bigger firearms, citizens buy even bigger firearms to counter, bandits get bigger bigger firearms to counter that and so on - where does that stop? RPGs? Tanks?

This won't happen as citizens are not allowed to legally get tanks/high powered weapons, so if a criminal decides to roll up in a tank, it shows that the current Government is incapable of controlling illegal weapons and instilling some kind of civil order.

but isn't the purpose of granting the right to bear arms is to allow the citizenry to protect itself from armed criminals by matching firepower?

A government at the same time should try to clamp down on illegal weapons and criminality, thus over a period of time illegal weapons and criminality will be low. Therefore citizens will no longer need there firearms and all will just be lock in a safe.

then what we really need is to work on this, not arm the citizenry.

Yes, the option of arming citizens is for them to protect themselves against a criminal situation that is way out of control. Citizens can't just sit and wait years until government works to get crime under control. They need to protect themselves and families. By keeping guns away from citizens criminals will always have the advantage and citizens becomes the sitting ducks.

Just this year a man was kidnapped and killed, another is missing. Citizens are feeling the brunt and burden of crime, small business owners have exhausted every deterrent available.

ok so back to my question: what happens when the govt allows the citizenry to arm itself and then the criminals react by getting bigger guns?

At current criminals already have the following caliber

.22
9mm
45
5.56
7.62

Won't be surprised they already have

.50
Amour piercing
And rocket launchers

So they already high up the ladder.

Citizens at 0, how they supposed to defend against these?

by having the protective services do their jobs by preventing it.

You are asking an already incompetent system to manage more guns rather than do the easier task of preventing them in the first place.

It might sound utopic but this is a dangerous plaster to administer.

[sMASH]

this was discussed previously but I'll ask it again here since the topic has been rekindled:
lets say the gov't grants citizens the right to bear arms in Trinidad.
Now citizens can get personal firearms, bandits arm themselves with bigger firearms, citizens buy even bigger firearms to counter, bandits get bigger bigger firearms to counter that and so on - where does that stop? RPGs? Tanks?

This won't happen as citizens are not allowed to legally get tanks/high powered weapons, so if a criminal decides to roll up in a tank, it shows that the current Government is incapable of controlling illegal weapons and instilling some kind of civil order.

but isn't the purpose of granting the right to bear arms is to allow the citizenry to protect itself from armed criminals by matching firepower?

A government at the same time should try to clamp down on illegal weapons and criminality, thus over a period of time illegal weapons and criminality will be low. Therefore citizens will no longer need there firearms and all will just be lock in a safe.

then what we really need is to work on this, not arm the citizenry.

...so, when everybody in the world learns to drive carefully, we can then get rid of seatbelts, airbags, and crumple zones.

[sMASH]

this was discussed previously but I'll ask it again here since the topic has been rekindled:
lets say the gov't grants citizens the right to bear arms in Trinidad.
Now citizens can get personal firearms, bandits arm themselves with bigger firearms, citizens buy even bigger firearms to counter, bandits get bigger bigger firearms to counter that and so on - where does that stop? RPGs? Tanks?

This won't happen as citizens are not allowed to legally get tanks/high powered weapons, so if a criminal decides to roll up in a tank, it shows that the current Government is incapable of controlling illegal weapons and instilling some kind of civil order.

but isn't the purpose of granting the right to bear arms is to allow the citizenry to protect itself from armed criminals by matching firepower?

A government at the same time should try to clamp down on illegal weapons and criminality, thus over a period of time illegal weapons and criminality will be low. Therefore citizens will no longer need there firearms and all will just be lock in a safe.

then what we really need is to work on this, not arm the citizenry.

Yes, the option of arming citizens is for them to protect themselves against a criminal situation that is way out of control. Citizens can't just sit and wait years until government works to get crime under control. They need to protect themselves and families. By keeping guns away from citizens criminals will always have the advantage and citizens becomes the sitting ducks.

Just this year a man was kidnapped and killed, another is missing. Citizens are feeling the brunt and burden of crime, small business owners have exhausted every deterrent available.

ok so back to my question: what happens when the govt allows the citizenry to arm itself and then the criminals react by getting bigger guns?

Somebody gonna get shoot. This time, the banditshares the chances of getting shot, instead of the citizen hoarding all for himself.

Bandits don't continue where here is a high chance of getting hurt. They would take the easier and less hazardous opportunity in most instances.

When the bandit gets bigger guns?

If u watch news, they already have... Galil , ak, rocket propelled grenades.


If ya ll remember watching the movie noah. In th begining they show noah as a good man, family man, vegetarian, respectful of life. But he moved with a staff. The staff wwsnt not to assist him in walking. That staff was his personal protective device. It wwsnt not a knife or cutlass or spear or club. No, those would be the bigger weapons that duane is talking about. He had a utilitarian/defensive staff. And was good enough to serve him when there is danger.

[Redman]

this was discussed previously but I'll ask it again here since the topic has been rekindled:
lets say the gov't grants citizens the right to bear arms in Trinidad.
Now citizens can get personal firearms, bandits arm themselves with bigger firearms, citizens buy even bigger firearms to counter, bandits get bigger bigger firearms to counter that and so on - where does that stop? RPGs? Tanks?

This won't happen as citizens are not allowed to legally get tanks/high powered weapons, so if a criminal decides to roll up in a tank, it shows that the current Government is incapable of controlling illegal weapons and instilling some kind of civil order.

but isn't the purpose of granting the right to bear arms is to allow the citizenry to protect itself from armed criminals by matching firepower?

A government at the same time should try to clamp down on illegal weapons and criminality, thus over a period of time illegal weapons and criminality will be low. Therefore citizens will no longer need there firearms and all will just be lock in a safe.

then what we really need is to work on this, not arm the citizenry.

Yes, the option of arming citizens is for them to protect themselves against a criminal situation that is way out of control. Citizens can't just sit and wait years until government works to get crime under control. They need to protect themselves and families. By keeping guns away from citizens criminals will always have the advantage and citizens becomes the sitting ducks.

Just this year a man was kidnapped and killed, another is missing. Citizens are feeling the brunt and burden of crime, small business owners have exhausted every deterrent available.

ok so back to my question: what happens when the govt allows the citizenry to arm itself and then the criminals react by getting bigger guns?

Is there a precedent for this?

And the reality is that the concealability of an illegal weapon dictates it's mobility, and usage.

to say enabling those who want to arm themselves will cause a general arms race...is ignoring the limitations of what's available and what's practical.

So I will buy a more expensive ,heavier, larger long gun with ammo harder to get to put down a robbery.
I need a vehicle, and some where to hide it.i would have to ensure that I could carry it while breaking in,and use it in the confined space in the target house.

Or a can walk around with a concealable cheap pistol that I can get common 9 mm ammo for.
Easy to toss.

Cuz me carrying a shot gun doesn't make me any more bullet proof if I'm getting shot.

They're criminals....not morons.

Hence the cheap white dime a dozen b14 is the car of choice.

[shogun]

Agreed.

However, i'd be far more concerned about a rise in legally owned firearms being used to settle domestic/public/traffic related disputes. Yuh know Trin's heads hot. Not sure we're mature enough as a society to handle that responsibility just yet.

[hustla_ambition101]

Agreed.

However, i'd be far more concerned about a rise in legally owned firearms being used to settle domestic/public/traffic related disputes. Yuh know Trin's heads hot. Not sure we're mature enough as a society to handle that responsibility just yet.

I used this as a point in a discussion on the topic and was lambasted by others who didn't share my view. The typical Trini who claims to be law abiding cannot adhere to simple traffic laws, how will they behave with a gun in waist.

[88sins]

fair enough but it is the job of the criminal to better their victim in order to carry out their crime. That's why bandits have guns now.

Bigger/more firepower isn't always better. All it takes is 1 shot in the right place.

a step further is to enforce the laws so they do not have access to those guns.
Nuttn wrong with that. let them keep playing they trying to do something.
After trying to stem the flow of illegal arms into this country for almost 2 decades & having somewhere between little to 0 success, you don't think it's time for a new tactic? The illegal arms are already here & the police are recovering a few of them. But the more guns they take off the streets, the more guns that come into the country. Its been this way for a long time, & it's time to change tactics.

It will take a lot to manage citizenry with shotguns.

Grasping at straws now are we No Duane my boy, can be easily done with minimal use of manpower or resources.

Put that effort into preventing illegal firearms in the country altogether.

From your perspective, how long do you believe one must be allowed to fail at something before realizing their method is minimally effective & strategy needs to be revised/altered if they intend to see better results? One decade? Two decades? A century?

the same corrupt system is going to have a field day with the proliferation of shotguns.

Highly unlikely, but if you think so.