← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Submitted by Yardbroom

In recent weeks guns have been a topical issue in Barbados, however this submission is not about individual cases or specific persons, as those will be investigated by authorities vested with that responsibility.  I have taken a general approach to gun ownership, its impact on society and the psychology which underpins it.

First we should take account of what are established facts arrived at through research and rigorous examination of available figures on gun related homicides.

“Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels.  Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate” – Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology – University of Ottawa.

“The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates specifically to the level of death by gunfire.” – Professor Martin Killias

If the more guns available in a specific society  show a correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide; why do private citizens feel safe owning guns.  Apart from sporting guns and guns used against vermin and wild animals, is there a need for a personal weapon, except for law enforcement officers and the military.  The argument is often made that there are criminals out there -in society- and guns are necessary to protect family and property.

However, evidence suggest that countries where there is less gun ownership you are actually safer; the idea that you are safer in a country because you own a gun is often not borne out by factual evidence.

Deaths Involving Firearms, per 100 000 Persons by Country (1997) – International Firearms Statistics

Country Total Homicide Homicide Involving Firearms Total Suicide
Jamaica 31.60 18.23 1.46
South Africa 64.64 26.23
T&T 9.48 3.42 8.08
UK 1.40 0.13 7.55
US 8.95 6.24 11.54
Brazil 9.86 27.26 0.23

Let us examine the United States and the United Kingdom.  “A Home Office Study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England and Wales remains a relatively rare event”.  In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100 000 of population.  Only 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm”.

By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.  The overall homicide rates per 100 000 ( regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.5 for the US and 1.45 in England and Wales.

Legal gun owners often say we need to protect ourselves against illegal gun owning criminals.  “In 2004 36.5% of Americans reported having a gun in their home and in 1997, 40% of Americans reported having a gun in their home”.   The General Social Survey (GSS) Data on Firearm Ownership.  Despite the high gun ownership in America the homicide rates are alarmingly high, are Americans safer?

It is for Law enforcement agencies to remove the illegal guns from society, by detection and surveillance.  It is then incumbent on the Courts to impose draconian fines and custodial sentences on those who transgress the law.  Criminals should be in no doubt what the penalties are for being in possession of an illegal weapon. Then the believed reason for having a legal weapon would disappear over time and we would all have safer societies.

For those who believe their personal guns will keep them safe, I would only add that South Africa has the second highest violent crime rate in the world and 98% of gun crime is performed with illegal (unlicensed ) weapons.  The priority should always be harness our resources to stop the criminals from acquiring illegal guns.

In South Africa there is much debate about gun ownership – naturally because of its history there is a racial dimension – on the 1st July 2004 a new Firearms Control Act came into effect.  “dealers who were selling 400 firearms a month have now dropped to three”.  They have made a start.

We must as a matter of priority take personal guns out of society, I believe in time we will all be safer; the Courts have a vital role to play and they should be given a powerful remit to do just that.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

45 responses to “Silent Guns In Barbados”


  1. Gun laws will become a major “CIVIL RIGHTS” issue around the world as the cracks and fissures in society become even more glaringly apparent…

    In the United States OBAMA* is trying to limit the “GUN LOBBY” but will have little success…

    Americans see gun ownership as an enshrined sacred cow in their Constitution which gives them the right to bear arms…

    So while in Virginia & Texas recently, I had to laugh to myself as I saw men and women (CIVILIANS) who walked around the supermarket, eating in restaurants holstered & armed to the teeth with powerful handguns…

    The reason being that if the criminals are armed – then it is our right to protect ourselves is their argument…

    This will become worst as society dilapidates…

    In the UK, I like what Richard Munday who is editor and co-author of Guns & Violence: the Debate Before Lord Cullen says:-

    “As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences.”

    “And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.”

    “Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand.”

    “Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.”

    Although British laws are strict on gun ownership – these laws will relax over time as public sentiment will force legislatures to act in the public good…

    In Barbados, the “UNDERGROUND” (no pun intended) crime economy will continue to flourish as gun ownership will remain commonplace as citizens will feel the need to protect themselves against violent crime…


  2. In Barbados we tend to be swept along with all the flavours which exist in the USA. In the USA as TB alludes the GUN is a sacred cow and so it will be in Barbados. It is also a symbol of societal status and power in Barbados which compounds the issue.


  3. @ DAVID

    Forgive me….

    OFF MESSAGE>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The BA strike is back on as the UNITE Trade Union won its Appeal in court this morning…

    Hope your tourists numbers won’t be affected too severly…

    Clearly there are forces at work HELL-BENT* on destroying British Airways…


  4. And how do we ‘harness our resources to stop the criminal from acquiring illegal guns”? A gun amnesty? That was tried n tested before but wasn’t very successful, as expected.


  5. Is it not obvious? The current social constructs and the narratives that support them maintain the dominance of one set of people over all others. Everything changes or is susceptible to change except who benefits the most and who has the power and who controls that power. So that the “change” we are all encourage to accept is constant as is the makeup of those who benefit the most.

    Those that benefit the most got to where they are by the bullet, via violence, via inhumane treatment of others on a very large scale. They have since “change” that behavior, outlawed it, enforce adherence to it via the bullet while keeping the benefits they alone derived pre-“change.”

    As an added check to maintaining their gains, to continue their dominance, the gun is theirs to have and denying it to others is a must. A gun is a great equalizer. Those that own them in Barbados has already done the math, and they are quite happy with the sum.

    On a global scale if the powerful did not have the edge in fire power we could all be living in societies govern by religion much sooner than the inevitability of it is.


  6. @AH

    A very insightful comment.

    @TB

    An over dependence on tourism is showing up the fickle position we will perennially find ourselves if there is no reordering.


  7. A Bajan colleague here in the UK was talking with me last night and his comment was that our current PM is “green” around the ears…

    I was beginning to think that he needed a bath… LOL

    The “tourism” model worked well during the 80’s and early 90’s but due to lack of vision and forward thinking “jokers” like NOEL LYNCH* pushed the industry down the toilet…

    We now have to re-think our foreign exchange accumulation strategies all over again…


  8. Some may think these exchanges represent a digression from the substantive topic but the same mindset which promotes the situation Adrian painted is the same mindset that holds on to the idea that tourism and services is the way to go. Interesting to note that Dr. Marshall is on radio saying the way to go is to develop our economy based on clusters of activities which has the effect of giving the economy many legs to stand on.

    Until we break the mindset in Barbados where the elite can acquire arms but others will now be denied we will continue to have social fallout. For example many Black farmers known to BU have applied for permission to carry firearms to protect their crops at night with little success.


  9. @ DAVID

    We have long passed the era of men who bore swords & muskets in a form of sinister dualism orchestrated by the purveyors of political and economic power…

    Hatched from an age-old mythology by Greek philosopher & political historian Thucydides is birthed this idea that “Might Is Right” – a form of political realism studied at advanced military colleges worldwide, and where the “Melian” dialogue remains a seminal work of international relations theory in our academic institutions.

    As you look at the beliefs of the Founding Fathers* (an OXYMORON) of the United States (though claiming themselves Christian) stooped to this insidious concept called “Social Darwinism” from which sprung the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ and every other evil known to man…

    The doctrine that “Might Is Right”, though it is true, is an unprofitable doctrine, for it is true only in so broad and simple a sense that no one would dream of denying it.

    If a single nation can conquer, depress, and destroy all the other nations of the earth and acquire for itself a sole dominion, there may be matter for question whether God approves that dominion; what is certain is that He permits it. (and there’s sure enough Biblical history to support this theory).

    No earthly leader who is conscious of his power will waste time in listening to arguments concerning what his power ought to be.

    His right to wield the sword can be challenged only by the sword (or in this case the GUN*).

    An all-powerful leader (as in Kim Jong Il) who feared no assault would never trouble himself to assert that Might is Right. He would smile and sit still.

    The doctrine, when it is propounded by weaker humanity, is never a statement of abstract truth; it is a declaration of intention, a threat, a boast, an advertisement (as in these “jokers” called British YOBS* and “gang-bangers” in South-East Los Angeles).

    It has no value except when there is some one to be frightened of.

    But it is a very dangerous doctrine when it becomes the creed of a stupid people, for it flatters their self-sufficiency, and distracts their attention from the difficult, subtle, frail, and wavering conditions of human power.

    In other words, a GUN* in the hand of a fool – (giving resonance to Olympian mythology) is like the “HAMMER” in the hand of Thor (‘god’ of thunder)…

    If misguided, it’s sure to cause real damage…

  10. Straight talk Avatar

    “A gun in the hand of a fool”, TMB is generating thousands of peaceful citizens to resist, and I for one would be one, if my family were harmed by some indiscriminate foreign invaders. I hope you would be too, or are your your morals so totally subsumed by the “War on Terror”. Transpose this scenario to Bim, and reassess your analysis.


  11. In America, the bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being… (Historian J.G.A. Pocock, describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S. Constitution).

    There is nothing like having your finger on the trigger of a gun to reveal who you really are.

    Life or death in one twitch — ultimate decision, with the ultimate price for carelessness or bad choices.

    It is a kind of acid test, an initiation, to know that there is lethal force in your hand and all the complexities and ambiguities of moral choice have fined down to a single action: fire or not?

    In truth, we are called upon to make life-or-death choices more often than we generally realize.

    Every political choice (like voting Tony Blair into office in 1997) ultimately reduces to a choice about when and how to use lethal force, because the threat of lethal force is what makes politics and law more than a game out of which anyone could opt at any time.

    But most of our life-and-death choices are abstract; their costs are diffused and distant.

    We are insulated from those costs by layers of institutions we have created to specialize in controlled violence (police, prisons, armies) and to direct that violence (legislatures, courts).

    As such, the lessons those choices teach seldom become personal to most of us.

    Nothing most of us will ever do combines the moral weight of life-or-death choice with the concrete immediacy of the moment as thoroughly as the conscious handling of instruments deliberately designed to kill (i.e. the gun).

    As such, there are lessons both merciless and priceless to be learned from bearing arms – lessons which are not merely instructive to the intellect but transformative of one’s whole emotional, reflexive, and moral character…


  12. @Terence M. Blackett: “In America, the bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being…

    If I may please quote the brilliant comedian (and social commentator) Robin Williams:

    “The [US of A] Second Amendment! You have the right to bear arms, you have the right to arm bears, what ever the hell you want to do!

    I’m not sure, personally, if Anarchy wrapped within a supposed Democracy necessarily scales infinitely within a closed system (read: our planet)….

  13. Straight talk Avatar

    If the racial breakdown of the issuance of firearm licences. there would be stink.
    As it is there is no transparency, but I beg all Bajans not to target rich whiteys for fear of an unpleasant welcome.
    Could the COP be so bold and tell us all what are the requirements to hold a firearm liicence, thus ensuring a level playing field of protection for us all.


  14. @ Straight Talk

    “if my family were harmed by some indiscriminate foreign invaders… I hope you would be too, or are your morals so totally subsumed by the “War on Terror”.

    My dear brother, the only war on terror (please forgive my lack of the use of open and closed quotation marks) is frankly a witches brew (a cocktail stirred & shaken) in the mind of elitists and perpetrated on the vast global public in what sociologists like Fukiyama called a “clash of civilizations”…

    As to my moral pendulum, I am careful to stay clear of extremist positions as we all know the dangers these can pose…

    I respect your position on the rite to bear arms…

    That’s a choice each individual must make in the protection of person, property & Family*…

    However, please bear in mind the following:

    There is a school of thought that suggest that every citizen should be armed with a gun!!!

    Can you imagine every BAJAN* free to carry a pistol or two?

    OMG!!!


  15. @ CHRIS

    You are constantly entreating me to read – I want u to know I do appreciate it… But remember the words of the wise man – “there is a weariness of mind in the study of many books”… LOL

    To your comment my dear friend –

    Chris, your psychological insight both illuminates and is reinforced by one central fact of U.S. history that is usually considered purely political, and even (wrongly) thought to be of interest only to Americans.

    The Founding Fathers of the United States believed, and wrote, that the bearing of arms was essential to the character and dignity of a free people…

    For this reason, they wrote a 2nd Amendment in the Bill Of Rights which reads the right to bear arms shall not be infringed…

    Whether one agrees or disagrees with it, the 2nd Amendment is usually interpreted in these latter days as an axiom of and about political character – an expression of Republican political thought, a prescription for a equilibrium of power in which the armed people are at least equal in might to the organized forces of government…

    It is all these things.

    But it is something more, because the Founders regarded political character and individual ethical character as inseparable.

    They had a clear notion of the individual virtues necessary collectively to a free people.

    They did not merely regard the habit of bearing arms as a political virtue, but as a direct promoter of personal virtue.

    The Founders had been successful armed revolutionaries. Every one of them had had repeated confrontation with life-or-death choices, in grave knowledge of the consequences of failure.

    They desired that the people of their infant nation should always cultivate that kind of ethical maturity, the keen sense of individual moral responsibility that they had personally learned from using lethal force in defense of their liberty.

    Whether you subscribe that position or NOT* Chris is a matter of apples & oranges!!!


  16. @ CHRIS

    One more thought which is CRUCIAL!!!

    Firearms were prohibited only to those intended to be kept powerless and infantilized.

    American gun prohibitions have their origins in “RACISTS” legislation designed to disarm slaves and BLACK* freedmen.

    The wording of that legislation repays study; it was designed not merely to deny BLACK FOLKS* the political power of arms but to prevent them from aspiring to the dignity of free men.


  17. @Terence M. Blackett: “The wording of that legislation repays study; it was designed not merely to deny BLACK FOLKS* the political power of arms but to prevent them from aspiring to the dignity of free men.

    I disagree.

    IMHO, the US of A (please don’t call them America, because they’re not — they are a small subset of North and South America) enacted their Second Amendment because of fears of invasion of their sovereign nation by the British.

    That was what? 200 years ago?

    If I may please share, projectile weapons scare the shit out of me (and I’m trained in same). Be said weapons be firearms, cross-bows, or bows.

    I don’t like someone who is not properly trained being able to kill me from a distance… (I don’t like someone properly trained being able to either, but at least the kill would probably be documented.)

    I’m happy to fight someone with an edged weapon (read: a knife or a cutlass) so long as they have to enter my strike zone to strike me.

    (As an aside, I recently stood down such an equipped (edged weapon) attacker only a few months ago, with many witnesses. My counter weapon? A smile. Truly.)

    So, I guess TMB, my fundamental message is projectile weapons are scary shit, which can often go wrong.

    …and perhaps we simple stupid humans shouldn’t have this kind of “God-like” power to kill at a distance….


  18. It is just co-incidental that “Hundreds of Scholars from across the globe will gather in Barbados next week to focus on the issue of violence in the Caribbean.. The academics are coming from the United States, Canada, Europe, Latin America, Africa and across the Caribbean including Cuba and Haiti, for the May 24 to 28 Caribbean Studies Association ( CSA ) 35th annual conference at Almond Beach, St. Peter. ( Nation News 5-20-2010)

    I am sure that some of the violence perpetuated on Caribbean people is as a result of gun ownership legal/illegal.

    @ Straight Talk May 20, 2010 at 1:28pm

    Made an interesting observation: …”if the racial breakdown of the issuance of firearm licences. there would be a stink”

    Terence M. Blackette said:
    …”this right to wield the sword can be challenged only by the sword ( or in this case the Gun*)

    …”It has no value except when there is some one to be frightened of”…

    The South Africa Firearms Control Act of 1st July 2004 – post apartheid – has some stringent requirements.

    “The police interview three acquaintances of each applicant before deciding whether he or she is competent to own a gun. Prospective gun owners must pass a firearms course. They also must install a safe or strongbox that meets police standards for gun storage.”

    “More important, an applicant also must prove to the police that he or she needs a gun – a requirement, called “motivation”, which gun advocates complain is vague and hard to satisfy.”

    Blacks were barred from gun ownership during apartheid.


  19. @ CHRIS

    “(As an aside, I recently stood down such an equipped (edged weapon) attacker only a few months ago, with many witnesses. My counter weapon? A smile. Truly.)”

    YOU ARE THE BEST!!! LOL

    As to your point of disagreement – I concur on your historical take – only partially!!!

    However, the dignity of free men (and, as we would properly add today, free women LOL).That is a phrase that bears thinking on. As the 20th century drew to a close, it really sounds archaic.

    Our discourse has nearly lost the concept that the health of the “res publica” is founded on private virtue.

    Too many of us contemplate a BLACK* President who preaches family values and responsibility to the nation while committing adultery and perjury, and don’t see a contradiction.

    But Thomas Jefferson’s question, posed in his inaugural address of 1801, still stings.

    If a man cannot be trusted with the government of himself, how can he be trusted with the government of others?

    And this is where history and politics circle back to ethics and psychology: because the dignity of a free (wo)man consists in being competent to govern one’s self, and in knowing, down to the core of one’s self, that one is so competent.

    And that is where ethics and psychology bring us back to the bearing of arms.

    For causality runs both ways here; the dignity of a free man (or woman – not to incur the wrath of the lades) is what makes one ethically competent to bear arms, and the act of bearing arms promotes (by teaching its hard and subtle lessons) the inner qualities that compose the dignity of a free man.

    It is not always so, of course.

    There is a 3% or so of psychotics, drug addicts, and criminal deviants who are incapable of the dignity of free men. LOL

    Arms in the hands of such as these do not promote virtue, but are merely instruments of tragedy and destruction.

    But so, too, are cars. And kitchen knives. And bricks or in the case of Barbados – “rock-stones”.

    The ethically incompetent readily (and effectively) find other means to destroy and terrorize when denied arms (hence suicide-bombers and those who behead just before breakfast in the morning).

    And when civilian arms are banned, they more readily find helpless victims.

    But as for the other 97%, the bearing of arms functions not merely as an assertion of power but as a fierce and redemptive discipline.

    When sudden death hangs inches from your right hand, you become much more careful, more mindful, and much more peaceful in your heart ( some call it the “fear of GOD*) – because you know that if you are thoughtless or sloppy in your actions or succumb to bad temper, people die.


  20. @ Terence M. Blackett: “@ CHRIS : YOU ARE THE BEST!!! LOL

    TMB… Please don’t blow sunshine up my ass…

    I don’t need it, and you have your own issues to deal with.

    (Just in case it wasn’t clear, this was meant to be both serious and funny at the same time…)

    (Deal with it. LOL….)


  21. @ CHRIS

    “you have your own issues to deal with…”

    I am not clear what those issues are – do you care to enlighten me?


  22. The question would be does Estwick fit into the 3% or 97%.

    Relating the issue of guns to Barbados, the main loophole is the ports of entry. If we do not check all shipments etc and maintain the integrity of our borders, illegal weapons will become available to the socially ill-conditioned in our society. Customs must do its job well, and do it well all the time.

    There is no real will in the powerful of the earth to really deal with guns. There are limited number of manufacturers. Shipments could be tracked. Right now they do not care the harm done in Africa, Mexico, Us inner cities etc. arming rebels,criminals and idiots. If everybody went armed, at some time in extreme provocation it will be used, and we will be back to the wild, wild west. Do a better job of socialising our children; teach better conflict resolution skills; the criminal element are known, they live among us, use institutions, get the public to protect itself by reporting those engaged in these activities. Disarm wherever possible the 3% and the idiots disguised as being part of the 97%.


  23. @Bajan Truth

    The thrust of Yardbroom’s submission seems to be centred on questioning the justification of citizens feeling the need to arm themselves , legally. To your point however, recently the Auditor General announced that they are currently investigating the case of how 41 cars were released from customs without paying duty. He promised that the matter will be brought to a head soon. Should we go on?


  24. Interesting question.

    My problem with the gun, lies in the relative ‘ease’ of execution…..hence the meditation required to use or not to use is that much shorter, hence more fallible to error or accident.

    While, in general terms, ownership of guns or not does not alter the chance of rebellion or murder, it certainly makes it easier to commit an offense or react in anger to challenge, authorised or not.

    There are so many other means of committing a vioelnt crime, from the simple machete (recent incident in Grenada), to knife (I will check the statistic in Britain, but it is very high I understand), to other more exotic such as the Molotov cocktail, to other simple varieties such as the tried and tested baseball bat.

    Apart from the gun and knife however, all of the others require somewhat more time for meditation.

    So, it is not that violent crime will be averted, but moreso that such an effective means as the gun, will make the result somewhat more difficult to achieve.

    However, to think that criminals cannot access weapons such as handguns, semi-automatics etc, is ludicrous, just look at the current situation with Coke in Jamaica.

    I would agree that the authorities must address illegal weapons, but after the Jamaica embarrassment, are you confident that the authorities will even TRY?

    So, ultimately if the common citizen such as you and I are held to ransom by thugs with weapons (in the event of a law and order breakdown), our only recourse will be of the more exotic variety, derived from recipes off of the internet, utilised with amateurish actions, but probably nevertheless, effective.

    Which brings me to a second point, one that has been at the back of my mind throughout the post.

    That violence is a symptom of a society in breakdown, the methods used being irrelevant.

    Can one not say that Jamaica has broken down, when the PM himself acted in such manner?

    Can one not say that T&T, suffering with appalling leadership, has not broken down, hence the rampant violence?

    The real blame lies in societal breakdown, while it is true that we need to limit guns to ‘make it harder’ and prevent accidents, ultimately the societal breakdown will burst anyway, unless this is itself addressed.

    A little excerpt from UK news from 2007:

    ”Nineteen stabbed to death during knife amnesty. There have been almost 100 serious or fatal knife attacks in England and Wales since the government introduced a knife amnesty five weeks ago, a survey has found”

    OR

    ”New figures show violent crime is rising by four per cent across London, although total crime is down two per cent. The use of knives is a particular concern, with 361 incidents a week – up 13 per cent year-on-year.

    Richard Barnes, Tory spokesman on the Metropolitan Police Authority The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) is the police authority responsible for supervising the Metropolitan Police Service, the police force for Greater London (excluding the City of London Police area). , said the level of knife attacks was ” horrific”. He said: “It’s got to be equated with gun crime, which has been the major focus. When you consider that over half of murders are committed with a bladed weapon, it’s equally as worrying as gun crime, if not more so.” .

    OR ”A SHOCKING 72 people are stabbed or robbed at knifepoint EVERY day, it was revealed today.
    New figures show there were nearly 26,300 “serious” knife crimes last year.

    Alarmingly, the number of offences has soared by nearly 1,500 since the year before – a six per cent hike.

    Official police figures show last year’s knife crimes include 250 attempted murders and 7,500 cases of wounding with intent. ”

    BUT, there is no license required for knife ownership.

    Is is then not true, that the real issue is societal breakdown?


  25. @Terence M. Blackett: For the record, I enjoy debating with you.

    @TMB: “And this is where history and politics circle back to ethics and psychology: because the dignity of a free (wo)man consists in being competent to govern one’s self, and in knowing, down to the core of one’s self, that one is so competent.

    But then the question becomes, can every free (wo)man trust everyone else around them to be so competent.

    I would argue no.

    @TMB: “There is a 3% or so of psychotics, drug addicts, and criminal deviants who are incapable of the dignity of free men. LOL

    And how, exactly, does the “system” measure this?

    How does the Authority ensure that only those of sound mind and body will be empowered with guns? Now, and in the future.

    How does the Authority ensure that only those so empowered ever have access to the said guns?

    @TMB: “But so, too, are cars. And kitchen knives. And bricks or in the case of Barbados – “rock-stones”.

    Or anything made of glass or ceramic?

    Are you aware that a broken piece of glass has the sharpest edge possible? And yet it won’t show up on most scanners.

    Are you aware that airlines often offer their passengers “duty free” bottles of product near the end of the flight? (Smash — stab…)

    Are you aware that anyone with a black-belt (in any of the arts) is probably more deadly than any projectile weapon?

    @TMB: “The ethically incompetent readily (and effectively) find other means to destroy and terrorize when denied arms…

    Oh, come on TMB….

    Please tell me how an individual armed with a projectile weapon would counter a bomb.

    @TMB: “When sudden death hangs inches from your right hand, you become much more careful, more mindful, and much more peaceful in your heart ( some call it the “fear of GOD*) – because you know that if you are thoughtless or sloppy in your actions or succumb to bad temper, people die.

    But, at the end of the day TMB, you seem to be arguing that everyone should be allowed weapons which can kill at a distance, even if not everyone should be trusted with such empowerment.

    So, then, from this reasoning, I interpret you to say that Iran and North Korea should be allowed Nuclear Weapons.

    @TMB: Please let me know if I have not properly understood your message. (Kindest regards. LOL…)

  26. Call a spade... Avatar
    Call a spade…

    The debate about private citizens owning licensed firearms could occupy this webite for years to come. It is unwinnable. Neither side will concede defeat, because both sides are utterly convinced of the rightness and logic of their argument. And the truth is that both sides do have a degree of logic to their arguments.
    For example: those in favour argue that an individual has the right to defend himself, his family and his property against attack. And if the attacker is bigger, stronger and also armed, the victim definitely needs an “equalizer”. It’s hard to find fault with this argument; even the law grants us the right to kill in self defense.
    Of course, some guns are more “equal” than others; just ask Dirty Harry.
    Those against, argue that the more easily available guns are in a society, the more likely they are to be used as a weapon — not to defend or protect, but to attack; in other words, to injure or kill people. That’s pretty convincing argument as well, and I would suspect there is evidence to support it.
    The gun lobby in the US likes to say that guns don’t kill people; people do. After all, it takes a human to aim a handgun and pull the trigger; guns don’t do this by themselves. To accept this, you have to possess an IQ equivalent to the temperature of tap-water. After all, would it not be infinitely better for everyone if there were no trigger to pull at all?
    YOu see how it goes. In effect, it boils down to a personal choice. I’ve made mine. I don’t own a gun of any kind, altough I was handling and disassembling a Colt .32 automatic and a 16-guage shot-gun by the age of 12. I do not believe that I need one to live in Barbados. At least, not yet, and I pray it does not every come to that. Does that make me vulnerable? Perhaps. Naive? Maybe. But I believe that someone who carries a hand-gun to the beach, to a cocktail party, to a cinema, in fact everywhere he goes, is secretly hoping that one day he will have an opportunity to use it. He wants to experience a life-taking moment.
    Regards


  27. Enforcing existing laws is more useful knowing that criminals by definition don’t listen to the law.
    Disarming all- Gun control at work.
    Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict
    gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
    Hmmm…. As a criminal I’d rather work in a place where I know I can rob, rape, kill with no risk of being shot versus a place where people have rights.


  28. @ Call a spade…

    There is so much logic and balance in your arguments that I reread them twice.

    @ Just me

    Most criminals have a fear of being shot because of that fear they believe others feel the same way when a gun is pointed at them…your last sentence has merit.

    I do not see the need in Barbados for “private” individuals to walk around armed. There is a difference between being armed and having the mental toughness to instantly react and shoot to kill. Unless you are prepared to do that you are putting your life at risk. An injured man with a gun is often more dangerous than an uninjured one…so we were taught in the military, look at the manuals and see where shots are directed.


  29. @Call a spade…: “The debate about private citizens owning licensed firearms could occupy this webite for years to come. It is unwinnable. Neither side will concede defeat, because both sides are utterly convinced of the rightness and logic of their argument. And the truth is that both sides do have a degree of logic to their arguments.

    Thank you for your *very* insightful post.

    I agree with everything you have said above.

    But I would argue that perhaps this conversation is worth continuing — in the hopes that those who haven’t had direct experience with firearms (beyond watching Films and TV Shows from the very pro-gun US of A (where the protagonist(s) always win)) learn a little bit about the reality from those of us who have had direct experiences.

    I find it interesting that many who know about guns chose not to carry….


  30. @Yardbroom: “…so we were taught in the military, look at the manuals and see where shots are directed.


  31. @Yardbroom: “…so we were taught in the military, look at the manuals and see where shots are directed.

    For the kill:

    1. Head (You’ll probably miss. And it might be armored.)

    2. Chest (Better chance of a hit. But it might be armored.)

    3. Leg (Unlikely to be armored, but will only annoy a true warrior (or someone really pissed off).)

    4. Anyone serious would be able to execute these three shots in less than a second.

    For the disablement:

    1. A shot to the leg. But only if the attacker is not serious….

    Please note:

    1. Short barrelled firearms (read: handguns) are extremely inaccurate when compared to long guns (read: rifles).


  32. @ Chris

    The truth is most people have a white napkin view of guns, the reality is not like television; a high powered velocity rifle will spatter a man’s brains about an area not a pleasant sight.

    Short barrel firearms – of the machine gun type – can be inaccurate as they are often used for close up and personal stuff in your face. Rifles, you are right, accurate of course it depends on who is easing the trigger.

    I recall once on a cold January morning with snow on the ground doing bayonet practice. I gave the filled sandbag a little prick. The Sargeant Major came over to have a chat. “Get the bayonet right into his innards” he bellowed “you want his bowels on the ground. When you pick up a gun or rifle be prepared to kill no messing about or you will be dead” and he was not having a quiet word he was shouting.

    Most people who carry guns have never fired a shot in “anger” they believe they will take a gun, shoot someone, reholster neat and tidy and walk away, the reality is often different. We should always strive to give law enforcement officers the authority… and make the acquision of guns difficult for criminals, with severe penalties when they are caught with guns or ammunition..with less arming of private citizens, in the end we will all be safer.


  33. @Yardbroom… Thank you for your above…

    If I may share… My Sargent gave me a target on the ice, 100 meters away, and a rifle loaded with a single shell…

    I hit the target within 5 cm…

    And that single shell managed to blow out over a cubic meter of ice with its impact.

    I think it was about that time that I decided that I would never touch a gun again.

  34. Brit Bluebell Avatar

    I have always wondered why civilians have this love and fascination for guns, and ex military types like me, were only too eager to see that last of a firearm, the day we were demobbed.


  35. May 27th. Is this the day when the father who accidently shot and killed his son should next appear in court here in Barbados?


  36. Gun ownership in Barbados is not about protecting yourself, and it never has been and it never will be.

    gun ownership in barbados, is about social status and power and rich people.

    ask yourself this…why is it police officers cannot get private firearm licences because they are told that they do not meet the criteria? If a POLICE OFFICER does not fit the criteria for owning a private firearm, how CAN ANY citizen fit the criteria? Police are training in the use, maintenance, handling and safe keeping during training and continuously, for a social elite to get a firearm he does not require that training.

    so how does the social elite qualify where the police officer does not? I say to you take it from someone who is right in the middle of the whole issue, firearms in barbados are not issued for the reasons they should be, which is your decision to arm yourself in order to respond to a case of a violent attack on you or someone innocent, its issued to social elites.


  37. @ Consider….While I support your reasoning and cause to some extent, it is important that it not be a case of free to all. This appears personal to you and hence somewhat clouded. Although most police officers do not have license to own private firearms some certainly do own firearms; this I say without fear of contradiction. This defiant attitude and the mentality to ‘do as I say and not as I do’ is a problem. If a man can feel comfortable charging a man under an act that he willingly and knowingly defies, where are we?? Sometimes you have to save people from themselves. Being trained to use and carry a firearm is not the only criteria either.


  38. I would rather have the chance to defend myself (and my family) than have to think, if only I had not listened to liberals telling me i’d be safer WITHOUT ANY CHANCE of defending myself.


  39. most things on here turn into black and white issues.showing the racism of black against whites in barbados clearly.
    i hoping and waiting on the race war to begin.
    cause then barbados done period.
    it is inevitable.
    blacks start killing whites in barbados today.!!
    the UK and USA and Canada would soon kill you all.
    and you would loose your having sex with the dirty white whores that come here for that.always turns to black white thing here in barbados,much worse as time passes because of the overpopulation of the rabbit like breeding of the blacks..
    they can not help themselves it is in their nature.
    but as more are born the more racism there will be.
    my answer is that the African immigrants should have been sent back to their home lands when slavery was abolished.the biggest mistake the white man ever made is not to send them back from where they came from ,it would have the morally right thing to do.then none of this would be happening.
    not correct?is it too late?
    i think it is still possible and let the oppressed and badly done by negro people go to heir real home where they will be happy again..
    or at least let the ones that choose to have that option with government funding
    and help finding their real home.
    so sad to think they were taken from their home land.they should be allowed to return.a tear just ran down my face.sob


  40. Harry I have got this sneaky feeling that you are a product of the same black men (people) that you endeavour in everyone of your post to ridicule and belittle .. Maybe one on the reasons that you prefer to live in Canada is for the very same reason that many other “Bajan whites” like you have adopted cold Canada as their preferred place of abode. The mild Canadian climate is kind to people of mixed race and unlike the harsher tropics, does not bring out the ”touch of the tar brush” in people like you. So for all intents and purposes you will be seen and treated as a real whiteman, as long as you stay in Canada, and be free to throw stones at your black cousins back here. Perhaps that is why you do not overstay your visits to Barbados, for fear of de-bleaching.
    But one day , that tar brush will strike back ,undiluted , to one of your offspring, be it 2nd, 3rd of 4th generation. Perhaps then, you will want to pack that child back to black Barbados. So do not burn your bridges Barbados , my brother.


  41. RIP Captain Barkey, Reggae In Peace


  42. I was thinking that since South Carolina and Barbados have an old connection dating back to the colonial days, South Carolina’s earliest pioneers actually arrived from Barbados, that it would be nice to visit. I am a native South Carolinian, my grandmother was born and raised in Charleston, near where the first Bajans landed.

    Looking, hopefully, for the gun laws in Barbados found this discussion. Sadly, I see that the initial article appears to have been written by the Gun Confiscation Lobby in the United States which are virulent self defense rights restriction advocates.

    Here in the US the statistics quoted are skewed by this fact. The 20 largest cities in the US, where gun ownership is the lowest, have a huge violent crime rate, so large in fact that if you remove these cities and consider only the rest of the country, where gun ownership is from 300 to 500 percent higher, you get a homicide rate lower than Canada’s. I see that Jamaica’s homicide rate is listed, what the author fails to mention is that it’s virtually illegal for anyone to own a gun legally there, virtually all of the homicides are by organized criminal gangs.

    What I’d think you’d want is unrestricted gun ownership by respectable citizens, the law abiding in every sense, and encourage them to receive proper training via the tax code or other methods.

    I haven’t found the Bajan gun laws yet, but if they’re still reasonable, please don’t let these leftists railroad you into giving up your self defense rights.


  43. What a twist in facts. You have to look at the murder rate and percentage of violent crime/murder per capita. Instead of twisting the facts why don’t you use real journalism and you will find the number of murders and violent crime per capita is MUCH less in areas where citizens are armed. The percentage in the UK is 100s of times higher than the US. PLUS, when you take seperate the states in the US that have highly restrictive gun laws frim the states that have more freedoms for te citizenry…the differance is stark! The violent crime/murder rate is the majority of the numbers in the more restrictive states.


  44. Safe not free

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading