Private gun ownership under review
(CNS): The deputy governor has announced that a review of the law and regulations surrounding the conditions under which private individuals can be licensed to hold guns is currently underway. Donovan Ebanks said that outreach had been made to stakeholders regarding the cost of firearms licences and the commissioner was examining other issues associated with weapons held in private hands. The deputy governor denied any intention by the police to eliminate the rights of people to own firearms under the current law but did not deny the possibility of ballistic testing on privately owned weapons. (Photo Dennie Warren Jr)
"The whole matter of firearms licensing to private individuals is under much needed review and consideration," Ebanks said in the Legislative Assembly this week. The deputy governor explained that it could include an increase of the licensing fee and a change in the regulations that form part of the law but there was no goal to eliminate all legally held private guns.
"A process is underway for the commissioner to make recommendations to Cabinet," he said. "I know of no such policy being adopted by the portfolio or Cabinet (to eliminate the private guns) … and have no reason to believe it is the policy of the commissioner.”
The question of further limiting private firearms ownership and the possible elimination of the right to own a legally licensed gun was raised by both the independent member for North Side and the opposition member for East End during this week’s session of Finance Committee.
Miller asked Ebanks why there was a zero in the budget documents in the section dealing with the amount of money expected to be collected by government for firearms licenses and queried if that indicated that government did not intend to issue any new licenses this year.
The deputy governor said he could not explain why a zero had appeared in the documents and suspected it was an error as firearms license would be issued. He confirmed that around 24 had recently been renewed.
Miller, who has a number of farmers in his constituency, said that concerns had arisen recently regarding this matter and he wanted reassurances that there were no changes in the policy to allow firearms under license.
Arden McLean questioned the possible increase in the cost of licenses and asked if the police intended to carry out ballistic testing on people’s licensed guns. In response, Ebanks said many things including those raised by McLean were under consideration and the final determinations would be down to the commissioner through the firearms regulations. Ebanks said there were a variety of views about how liberal the firearms law should be but it was in the hands of the commissioner of police.
Miller also asked why it took so long for licenses for owners who had been assessed and vetted to be granted. Miller said constituents were waiting months to receive their licenses when they had made applications to renew them in good time leaving them foul of the law through no fault of their own. Government backbench MLA Cline Glidden also queried the deputy governor over the length of time the licenses were taking to be approved. Ebanks asked the members for details on their constituents’ complaints and said he would try to find out why it was taking so long as the circumstances sounded unacceptable.
Category: Local News
We are all very uncertain where the economy is headed; however, it is not on the fast-track to recovery. This being the case, you can place your bets on a continual increase in the overall crime rates and violence. So when crime increases, who do you turn to? The entity in charge of policing the country (The R.C.I.P.S) Yet, they seem to be unable to do their jobs correctly. Therefore, it WILL eventually require a policy reform that allows trustworthy, Caymanian individuals, to arm and protect THEMSELVES rather than rely on the poor services available to the public. Who has the right to tell a wealthy and respectable business owner that he/she isn’t allowed to have a small firearm in a box near their bed? After all, they’re the biggest targets for these desperate individuals robbing left right and center.
Now i’m not saying that we implement laws that allow a gun-section to exist in your local stop-n-shop, like the United States, but, the respectable individuals mentioned above SHOULD be granted special privledges for firearm ownership. That way i could sleep well knowing if i wake up to an alarm, triggered perhaps by a glass break sensor, that i am STILL the master of my household and have the means to protect what is rightfully mine (and the kids of course). Who knows, maybe if some of these criminals get a gun stuck in THEIR face once in a while then they’ll realize they aren’t the tough ones anymore……Just a thought
– Young caymanian adult, raised here for 19 years by a very very wise caymanian
A gun section in the local stop-n-shop? Although we Americans do indeed enjoy freedoms denied to most of the rest of the world in regards to firearms ownership, buying one still isn’t as simple or easy as you seem to make it out to be. In many places here there are Draconian processes that virtually deny the ability to purchase firearms (though hopefully our recent Supreme Court decision will put a crimp in that), and even in the areas where ownership is appreciated and the least restricted, purchases are still subject to background checks and administrative record-keeping. Likewise, those who sell guns are subject to the requirements and restriction of a federal licensing authority, which precludes the selling of firearms by the corner conveniance store.
Having said that, I congratulate you on your common-sense opinion regarding the rights of your people to self-defense. Good luck with that. I wish you all the best and hope that your rights to look after your own continue to be respected there.
I disagree with your statement…. The police is capable of doing the their jobs.. It’s the lack of support from the people and their very own government that is failing…. When you give the tools that is needed to do a job well, then the job will be done properly… Most people don’t not have a clue on what goes on at the RCIPS. So know what you are saying before you criticize.
It is difficult to understand why we have any laws
against good citizens owning guns.
Civilization could not exist unless there were far more law abiding
citizens than outlaws.
The crooks do not care about any laws, which means they can, and will,
procure or steal as many guns as they want.
Which means we give our bad people a tremendous advantage
over our good.
Clearly, if you can think at all logically,, this is wrong headed
and totally stupid. It is the criminals we need to be controlling,
not out good people.
Statistics show that crime is much lower in districts which
allow gun ownership.
I agree, except that how do you determine who is a good citizen. If you allow privately-licensed and/or concealed handguns, then you are also putting them into the hands of the "bad" citizens, the "incompetant" citizens, and the "irresponsible" citizens. And your example of not needing to control even good citizens doesn’t make any sense. We have speed limits and all kinds of other laws necessary to control our "good" citizens too. Statistics can be manipulated to show all kinds of things and the gun lobby in the U.S. has certainly taken advantage of this.
The American experience is that increases in gun ownership causes a DECREASE in crime, and that prohibition of gun ownership causes an INCREASE in crime. Chicago and Washington, where gun ownership has been restricted, have the highest crime rates.
A law against gun ownership is obeyed by the law-abiding citizen but ignored by the criminal, so such laws only disarm the honest citizen and empowers the criminal.
I believe that criminals are less likely to enter a private home if homeowners have the right to keep a firearm for self-defence.
If the Cayman Islands are experiencing a crime problem, then perhaps one should look to the restrictions on gun ownership as a possible cause.
Chicago and Washington do not have high crime rates because gun ownership has been restricted. They have high crime rates for the same reason that New York City and other large metropolitan/urban areas have high crime rates. Greater poverty, social disintegration, economic deprivation, overcrowding, poor public schools, ethnic diversity (which can lead to gang rivalries based on obviously unresolvable differences), crumbling infrastructure, limited social welfare, etc, etc, etc
There is a very small but vocal minority who want guns available in a fashion similiar to the United States and that will never happen.
The argument that a computer or belt can be a weapon in the hands of someone with evil intent is faulty logic as the primary design and intent of those objects was to hurt others. The primary intent of assault rifles is to kill hense its great abundance in military applications throughout the world.
Anyone who has fired an automatic weapon immediately realizes if they have a shread of honesty that they are dealing with a killing machine. The argument that an AK-47 is used for hunting or target practive is dishonest at best.
The government already has identified things that they deem unsuitable for general use in the Cayman Islands, certain breeds of dogs, pornography and firearms. I completely agree with this practice and believe the majority of rational people agree.
Re: “The argument that an AK-47 is used for hunting or target practive is dishonest at best.”
I have stated facts, but, your statement is proof of how uninformed you are on the subjects of firearms, hunting and sport shooting.
If you allow private firearms and judging from the comments in this forum, you are going to have a large overall increase in the number of guns in Cayman. This will make it even easier for criminals to obtain guns and criminals will be less hesitant to use them than your average citizen. If you would care to examine any statistics on firearms in other countries, you will see that licensing firearms does the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish. There will be an increase in violent crime and injuries and deaths amongst innocent Caymanians. If you want Cayman to be the next Miami with everyone walking around with a concealed gun, by all means, license firearms. But if you want to decrease violent crime and the chances of innocent children being killed in the crossfire, take a deep breath, and examine the evidence before jumping to any "knee-jerk" conclusions about gun ownership. Train and arm the police and work on getting them the resources to deal with the criminal element. Vigilantism and macho posturing about guns are NOT the answer.
Unfortunately, your assertions are seriously flawed.
If you bother to study the crime statistics in the United States, you will see that the exact opposite of what you’re saying is true. The states that have the lightest restrictions in firearms ownership and, accordingly, higher numbers of firearms per household on average do indeed enjoy lower violent crime rates. As a career police officer and former Chief of Police in one of those states, I have seen first-hand the effectiveness of the firearm in the home as a deterrent to property and other violent crimes. You mention the crime rates in Miami, yet you ignore the fact that the State of Florida has seen a massive reduction in violent crimes since right-to-carry laws have passed there. Likewise, when one looks at the cities in the country with the highest violent crime rates, such as Washington, D.C., you will find the toughest laws against firearms ownership which emboldens the criminal element by ensuring that the law-abiding citizens they prefer to prey upon have no way of defending themselves.
Try to be better informed before expressing opinions like that. The knee that’s jerking appears to be yours
I do not support vigilantism. However, self defense and vigilantism are not the same thing. In many jurisdictions, self defense is defined as "a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one’s property or the well-being of another from physical harm" and would afford one a legal defense in law as well.
In the Cayman Islands, one possible countermeasure to attempted homicide is the use of force by means of lawfully owned firearms. See Section 18(1)(a) of the Firearms Law.
The UK case law is Parker CJ in Chisam (1963) 47 Cr App Rep 130, which reads: “… where a forcible and violent felony is attempted upon the person of another, the party assaulted, or his servant, or any other person present, is entitled to repel force by force, and, if necessary, to kill the aggressor …”. The aforesaid is self-defense and NOT vigilantism.
actually the gun violence in miami hit such levels
that they finally instituted a “shall issue” policy
regarding concaled carrypermits which resulted in
an overnight decline in random and other guncrimes.
the police collect evidence and prosecute criminals
thats it!! you are on your own till they show up.
Here in canada they have stopped short (just)of outright bans
on many firearms including handguns….and gun crime has not stopped.
I guess the gun toting criminals didn’t get the memo.
If you want to stop crime, get tough on criminals not
law abiding gun owners .
gun control is the crutch that lazy politicians use to
show how they are tough on crime rather than
actualy get tough on crime.
just my thoughts
Caymanians and supporters, Need i remind you firearms have been apart of our society from the first settlers of these islands and therefore are apart of our heritage Fort George or Old Prospect fort ( The Ridge)the Home guard and the numerous historical settlement sites all indicate the presence of firearms for protection from the threatening elements of this world. Very little has changed in the past 600 years except the threat,now we have a bunch of disrespectful and despicable persons who care very little for our environment or our rights our heritage.They have degrade our values and our little society to a level where we no longer feel safe in our public and Private domains. They have eroded our rights to privillages and now aim to take away those with the help of their highly place friends in the public influencing sector and now are conspiring with the State to make this a reality. I can remember when the old “Watchmen” now security guards were armed in our society was crime rampant then???? Everytime these so call Caring & protecting elements of our society influence change and the laws, the place suspiciously becomes more unsafe. Those who don’t like the hostile natives armed please return home to your wonderfully safe predatory societies where all are safe. No more fool fool ideas,stand up Cayman put a stop to these so call feel & do gooders running around here trying to decieve and lull us into this false sense of security If the enormous State cannot protect its self how the hell is it going to protect you. What is very odd is all our ex and present politicians are heavily armed,do they know something we don’t????
all these people are doing is forcing the canoe boats to come from here and bring thier guns for sale. the commissioner will be hoping that his dept will catch them so ne can have a news briefing. but we all know that they are not that smart. LEAVE HONEST PEOPLE WITH THIER FIREARMS. LEAVE FARMERS WITH THIER FIREARMS
Can’t believe what I’m reading here. Seems the National Rifle Association has taken over CNS.
If only the RCIPS had the courage and the competence to deal with the small criminal element in this country, then there would be few or no criminals committing gun crimes. Then where would the Cayman gun lobby be ?
I don’t believe that the "I-need-a-gun-to-protect-myself" group should be allowed to prevail. In any event, if guns are owned principally for the purpose of hunting and recreational shooting, what the hell are they hunting ? There’s no bear, mountain lion, anaconda, bull elephant etc in Cayman. Taking out a rampaging chicken with a 12-gauge seems a bit excessive. And recreational shooting – isn’t that like getting a penis extension ? Serves no purpose other than to make the person holding it feel like a man.
I believe that only the police and a few upstanding farmers should be allowed to own and possess guns.
"If only the RCIPS had the courage and the competence to deal with " That is a big, I mean HUGH "IF"
Yes "IF" they could deal with it, I would say that honestly even farmer don’t need guns, hell a sling shot would be fine.
But unfortunately the RCIPS is proving to be incompetent. they need better leadership, and to be given the ability to actually do their job, as many of them know how and want to do.
— Sigmund Freud
Unfortunately if we had more confidence in our police force we would not be asking for guns in our homes. I have 2 small children, and I while living in the USA always had guns in our house. Did I like taking the risk of my son getting ahold of it, NO, however with proper care and attention the chance of hime getting ahold of a loaded weapon was far outweighed by My wifes and my confidence that we had a chance if something was to happen.
When you have poor response from your police department, and response that isn’t equipt to handle the situation, you end up with a citizenship base that demands to be able to protect ourselves. If less than lethal defence was legal, I would fully support it, and give up on the guns for now. but honestly we are being asked or TOLD sit by and let it happen. Poor advice if you ask me.
Why cant we own a pellet gun ?? How absurd is that ??
If you’re not a criminal and age of 21 regarding rifles and 18 regarding shotguns or older (Regulation 4), you always were and still is legally allowed to own an air gun.
By the way, I don’t agree with the age restrictions above. The age at which children should be allowed to shoot should only depend upon the maturity of each young person. With parental consent, young people should be able to use air guns under the direct supervision of a firearms licensee.
What our young people lack is growing up in a structured environment and the shooting sports is one way of providing that opportunity to for our children to learn discipline and respect for boundaries, in a safe and controlled environment.
Dennie – I am not a criminal and I am over 40. How do I go about "owning" a pellet gun. Can I bring one in ? Does it need to be licensed ? What exactly is the process ? TIA
Yes, you can import airguns, and yes, it must be licensed.
In summary, you have two options:
(1) If you own properly or have can obtain permission from a land owner to use their property, then you can go to the “Firearm Licensing Unit” above Wendy’s on Walker’s road and ask them for the prescribed forms.
(2) Or, you can become a member of the Cayman Islands Sport Shooting Association by calling 345-924-9570 and follow a similar process.
As required by Section 20(b) of the Law, both of the prescribed forms can be obtained from the First Schedule of the Firearm Regulations. The Form A application is used to obtain a Section 19(e) Firearms User’s (Restricted) License,and the Form B application if used to obtain a Section 19(a) Import Permit. I strongly suggest that you read the Firearms Law and Regulations before applying, because the police have been telling people inaccurate information.
Unfortunately, the RCIPF is unlawfully supplying the public with the wrong forms. The wrong forms are located at: http://www.rcips.ky/firearms_applications.htm
If you any questions please feel free to contact me at 345-926-0716.
While I do not wish ill on anybody, including those who would deny law abiding citizens from owning firearrms for sport and /or personal protection, God forbid that you should be the victim of a violent crime where the crimimal had the gun and you had only your stupid anti-gun convictions. It is the absolute most hopeless feeling in the the world to be at the mercy of a gun toting maniac. The right (emphasis on "the right") to protect yourself is a basic right and no one, including the powers to be, should deny you of that right. I was involved in a hold-up where a friend was shot several times, totally unprovoked. I left my gun behind because company policy dictated that I should not carry a firearm on a cash run. I am extremely compitent in the use of a firearm and, in that incident, I could have made a difference in how the hold-up unfolded.
The right of law abiding citizens to protect life and property is a basic "human right’ which should be protected by our constitution and should not be denied to any one.
Perhaps if the the jokers, including the Deputy Governor who continue to push for law abiding citizens to give up their guns, should be so "privilaged" to be the victim of a violent gun crime, they may change their position. But then, we the tax payers have placed them in walled homes with sophicasted security systems, something the average Joe can not afford.
Putting aside the other lawful reasons why I have a legal right to own and use firearms, such as sport and recreational shooting, hunting…, we also have a natural right to firearms for defending ourselves, our families, or any other person from becoming a victim of violent crime. That fact is recognized in Section 18(1)(a) of the Firearms Law (2008 Revision).
I would advise anyone who wants to take that right away from me to ‘tink again’.
We have been over this ground again and again, s.18 DOES NOT give rise to such a positive right, it merely provides indirect savings to prevent otherwise legal use becmoing illegal in the context of that specific part of the law.
There is no free-standing right to possess firearms for the purposes you state and anyone holding a gun on such a misapprehension would have 10 years in jail to think about their error.
Section 18(1)(a) of the Firearms Law (2008 Revision) reads: “No person shall discharge any firearm on or within forty yards of any public road or in any public place EXCEPT – in the lawful protection of his person or property or of the person or property of some other person”
Now, where a home invaderwho is unlawfully shooting at the licensee, please explain why the above referenced section prohibits the holder a Section 19(e) firearms license from discharging the licensed firearm to stop the attacker from committing the crime of murder against them, or their families?
The section does not support a free standing right to use arms in self-defence, it merely preserves the already existing right of self-defence from being impugned by reason of the provisions in respect of discharge near a public highway – it is a very narrow provision in scope. What the section does not do is permit anyone without a licence to maintain a gun for self-defence purposes, one is only allowed to maintain a weapon with a licence.
Unfortunately you are unable to stand back and view the Law as a whole largely because you are so focussed on bringing more weapons into the Cayman Islands because apparently more guns means less crime, and I do suppose you have the peaceful example of the United States as powerful precedent to support your view.
Re: “What the section does not do is permit anyone without a licence to maintain a gun for self-defence purposes [A], one is only allowed to maintain a weapon with a licence.[B]”
A: except, for criminals, obviously a law-abiding person cannot UNLAWFULLY own and use firearms for self-defense.
B: but, Section 18(1)(a) of the Firearms Law IS saying that LAWFULLY owned firearms CAN be lawfully used by the licensees for protecting themselves, their property, or other persons and the property of others. Agreed?
Guns are absolutely dangerous the only thing more dangerous is not having one. All you Hocus Pocus loving free the world banana bread for brains idiots fail to understand that freedom is a function of choice not circumstances.
For everyone talking about the right to use firearms in defence of their families and property, please be minded that there is no provision in law for the use of firearms in that way. They are for sporting or farming use only. The issue of permits for self defence are only issued in extreme circumstances and can probably be counted on a single hand – if any. It comes back to the fact that Cayman is UK governed, like it or not, where the protection of the individual is State driven rather than personal. This is the way it is likely to remain, for the idea of private individuals defending themselves through the use of arms is alien to most UK citizens. Whilst the law allows the use of reasonable force, the Firearms Law does not allow that force to be firearms. Those individuals who have firearms, often talk in terms of using them in this way, which is probably why the police are looking at limiting ownership. If it were to change and firearms became available for defence, how long before those extra weapons in circulation are being used in crime. I am not saying that everyone who would buy them would use them, but the criminals that do want to use them have access to enough family, friends and girlfriends who will access the firearms for them.
Saying that they can be regulated and licensed is no good either. You only have to look at the vehicle licensing system to realize that just because something is licensed to someone doesn’t mean that they are driving the car, doesn’t know where it is or even care half the time. Often they don’t even know who is driving it. Mums and Dads often let their offspring drive their car which is then driven by the young’uns fellow gang members. Mum and Dad give you a starting point but after that we all know how talkative gang members are don’t we! Apply that to firearms then add in the fact that the identifying features can be altered far easier than a car, and you now have an unidentified firearm, and easier to hide. Even ballistic testing is easily thwarted, though if the firearm is stolen in the first place then testing is a moot point, and random theft/burglaries will definitely increase, because with increased ownership will come the increased likelihood of finding a gun in the house. Home invasion burglaries may be the only domestic situation where the firearm may help, but for that to happen, it has to be close to you and in a condition to be used. For spontaneous home invasions where the criminal suddenly comes through the door, how likely is it that any of you will have a loaded and made ready firearm to hand? If you are asleep and it happens, what will wake you up, if the burglar is stealthy, for you to be prepared to use it.
I do speak from experience. I know Cayman, lived there for a number of years. I now live where I can own a handgun, and do. I initially bought it for sport and have it for defence in the home, but only because I live in an area where home invasion is common. In Cayman I never felt that need despite being a potential target because of my job. Here the last scenario is the only one where the gun will do me any good, as I have a dog and alarm, which will give me notice, and the gun is next to my bed. That would change should kids be introduced to a similar scenario, as the gun would have to be secured, and so reaction time is increased. If someone suddenly bursting through my door, then I only have my natural, and taught skills to protect me. The gun will do me no good and I don’t feel the urge to walk around wearing it indoors. Outdoors I don’t involve myself in a nefarious lifestyle, I am aware of my surroundings and overall do not project an image as a victim. My gun won’t do me any good outside as I don’t have a concealed carry permit. If I did and witnessed an incident violent enough for me to get involved I run the risk being shot by an off duty officer, another good samaritan, or on duty police, all of whom will have only likely witnessed the latter part of my involvement. That is not to say I would not get involved to save life, but be aware of the dangers.
So coming back to my original point about the State being responsible for our protection. There is a saying that if all guns are outlawed then only outlaws have guns. Well that is true, but it makes the identification of the outlaw by the State that much easier and the likelihood of fratricide/friendly fire or shooting of a good samaritan much less likely. And despite how it feels, Cayman is not at a point where there are huge numbers of home invasion burglaries where the occupiers are home, and I doubt it will ever get to a point of being a place where private citizens need to walk around overtly displaying firearms.
Firstly, you’re contradicting yourself, because on one hand you’re saying: “…there is no provision in law” for using firearms as a means of self-defense,” but on the other hand you’re saying: “…permits for self defence are only issued in extreme circumstances…”
News flash: if the first statement is true, the second must be false.
Secondly, you’re also wrong when you say: “…the Firearms Law does not allow that force to be firearms.” In fact, Section 18(1)(a) of the Firearms Law (2008 Revision) reads: “No personshall discharge any firearm on or within forty yards of any public road or in any public place except in the lawful protection of his person or property or of the person or property of some other person”
Thirdly, after making a few incorrect assumptions, you go on to claim that if the burglar is stealthy, firearm owners will not be prepared to use their arms in time. Well, I will not say publicly why I feel you’re very wrong again… because that must remain a surprise.
Fourthly, your “good Samaritan” example is a concern, but primarily because some police officers have the wrong attitude about self-protection. Residents should always be happy to assist the police in resisting criminal behavior, but never at the expense of the very right to self-defense by means of firearms. Not even if the family of a murder victim could sue for millions, where the police have failed to prevent the lost of the person’s life.
Fifthly, outlawing firearms to make the hypothetical identification of the criminals by the State easier is unnecessary and silly, because the Commissioner of Police says he knows who the criminals are, and that the police is monitoring them closely.
Finally, I’m not going to wait until home invasions in the Cayman Islands are out of control before doing something, and no one is going to deprive me of my right of self-defense by means of firearms, because it would simply be unreasonable to do so.
Why are we giving decent, honest citiens such a hard time to get a firearm licence? I haven’t heard of too many instances of a licenced firearm being used for illegal purposes by the licensee. The problem appears to lie with those who have unlicensed forearms. They are the ones committing the crimes. We have reached the stage where decent, private citizens cannot defend themselves against the criminals who illegally possess firearms and use them to control the public at large.
I do not like firearms and I do think that if there were no firearms in the hands of criminals, that our society would be better off limiting firearm possession for everyone, but reality would not have it that way, so despite my dislike for firearms, I do think that private citizens and security guards who are fit and trained, should have the privilege of owning a firearm for protection of their lives and property.
Very well said!…i agree with you 100%
We have to come to grips with the fact that times have changed. I too wish it wasn’t so..but it is! And any law abiding citizen (properly trained) should be able to legally protect him/her-self and family.
Plus the training and sales can open up new industry/job opportunities.
you say people should be able to own guns to "defend themselves against the criminals who illegally possess firearms", but are you really suggesting having a shoot-out with the criminal who breaks into your house with an AK47 (http://centos6-httpd22-php56-mysql55.installer.magneticone.com/o_belozerov/31115drupal622/local-news/2010/06/24/ak47-and-shotgun-seized-police-operations)? surely that puts you and your family at far greater risk than just giving them what they want, then claiming it back on your insurance?
As far as I’m concerned there is no reason at all for anyone on this Island to own a gun.
It is only a matter of time until these criminals start taking things that you can not get back from insurance, like your daughters innocence!
I personally believe that home invasion would slow greatly as you would not have guys with machetes invading, period! And guys with hand guns would not take the risk as the X factor of a gun being present isn’t worth the risk for them. AK47’s are a situation that the person being invaded would make a call on if they were to be faced with that situation, as they could decide if it is worth the risk, not some law maker who has never been in a situation of having to protect his family. Thinking keeping guns out of the lawbiding publics hads is better is unfortunately born out of ignorance, as the feeling of security one single had gun under the mattress corner unused is far greater than knowing the Police will show up eventually!
And as crime increases, we continually pay higher insurance premiums each time we claim? Whatever you’re smoking it must be illegal.
Why does any private individual need to keep a gun at their house in Cayman? Purely to shoot the Cayman parrot?? Is it illegal to shoot the Cayman parrot?
Firearms can instead be kept securely at the gunclub and not allowed to leave the premises
The gun club doesn’t have any secure premises. In fact any premises at all except the marl pit range.
I know that there is no such facility; that was my point. It was sarcasm…
Sure that sounds plausible… lets stockpile all of the local firearms at one location far removed from public view…. Brilliant! But we would have to first build a state of the art security storage facility (because of the nature of what is being stored, nothing else would do). Then government could hire full-time security personnel to guard the location as well as admin staff for receipt and hand-out of firearms, then we would need a tracking system at the location as well to record the daily firearm transactions…… brilliant! We have solved crime in Cayman! I say we vote "Anonymous" next Premier.
Are my people so ignorant… does anyone really believe that reining in the cable tow on licensed gun owners will serve to reduce the firearm related crime wave that has plagued these islands lately…. You know… I have a sneaking suspicion that the criminals, those guys and girls who commit crimes… (those acts that are prohibited… i.e. ultra vires the law) are probably not going to be affected by any restrictions imposed on licensed owners. I think that they have some sort of special exemption that overrides local legislation… Let us be more practical, about curbing crime. Start by informing police of criminal activity in your neighborhood, or in your house 🙂
As far as the parrots, I love them and am not for farmers shooting them either. However I must at least try to understand the farmer’s argument as well.
For some of them, parrots apparently seem to be a real economic problem, I have not researched to confirm this. If I were to publicly argue against the shooting of parrots by farmers (albeit done under the pseudonym "Anonymous"), I would also present a solution… maybe after some research into practices adopted elsewhere or after designing my own parrot scaring/trapping contraption…
Pax Vobiscum
If more people would plant mango trees in their yards there would be enough to go around and even the parrots could have some. If a farmer is concerned about parrots he can plant a few more trees. Their orchards are "hobbies" anyway.
I couldn’t agree with you more.
People have a natural right of self-defense. Under the English Bill of Rights 1689, which is still law today, people have a right to arms for their defense. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
Section 18(1)(a) of the Firearms Law (2008 Revision) recognizes the right of law abiding residents, in the Cayman Islands, to defend themselves, their property, others and the property of others, against criminals acts, by means of firearm.
There are some people in society who prefer that you not defend your family, and I call them criminals. Like those who refuse to use a seatbelt on kids while driving, only a fool wouldn’t protect their kids from serious psychical harm. In order to do that, one must have the means to do so. When the time comes that armed criminals invade your home, it would be unreasonable to even suggest that you must be at a disadvantage (unarmed).
If you choose to be unarmed, that is your right and freedom to do so, just don’t expect me to be submissive to criminals as you suggest we should be. The most significant stumbling block to dealing with criminals is the numerous amounts of law-abiding people who are willing to be victims.
I suggest you raise your kids properly, because if not, you must understand they will not be permitted to just commit crimes against me inside or outside my home, and that my friend is the law and the reality.
Unless we are alive, all other rights are worthless.
Ballistic tests on all guns, paid for by owners.
Heavy sentences for subsequent use in crimes.
Substantial increase in the cost of licences.
The less guns in Cayman the better.
Stop blaming pencils for misspelling words. Sigh!
Even though an improperly used laptop or pencil could harm someone, chances are slim. A gun, however, in the hands of the wrong person, stands a pretty good chance of hurting or killing someone. That is why they need to be controlled.
Physical harm is not slim regarding the use of pencils and computers. On the basic end, criminals can use computers to research their perceptive victims, while both can be used to plan crimes. While, on the advance end, there are other more deadly ways in which computers (including cell phones, calculators…) can be used, but I would rather not help prospective criminals by giving ideas. You sound intelligent, think about it so more.
Nevertheless, the main point of the pencil and computer is that they are inanimate objects, which are unable to commit crimes on their own, but which instead must be misused by someone with the requisite mens rea, before any harm is done…
Therefore, our focus must be to alter the criminal intent and actions of the home invaders, robbers… In this case, I’m talking about when unfortunately it reaches the point where deadly force is necessary to prevent a criminal from murdering your family or yourself.
Shots were fired just behind my home in the after math of hurricane Ivan, but fortunately, a police officer who privately owned firearms and lived on the other street from me came running to the scene immediately. I watched his back with my firearm in hand until other officers arrive on the scene. I would rather have a firearm and not need it for self-defense (prevention of a crime), than need it and not have it.
I’m not against regulation, but I am against laws and regulations that resemble the 400 Meter Hurdles, with a hurdle at every meter.
Do you think criminals would do all those test you are asking. Criminals would always do it any way regardless of the laws any government might impose.
More private licensed firearms please!
Yes, Let us protect our family and asset in a proper way.
And when your son or daughter is accidentally killed from a stray bullet you how will you feel? The evidence does not support a decrease in crime or violence by allowing privately licensed firearms. In fact, the opposite occurs. Remember, it only takes one stray bullet to kill an innocent victim and the chances of this happening greatly increase with the number of guns around. You think that it won’t happen to you but before jumping on the "we have the right to protect ourself" bandwagon think twice. You might be responsible enough to use a gun properly but many people are not and if you think that arming everyone will create a safer community you are sadly mistaken.
Re: “The evidence does not support a decrease in crime…”
Can you provide us with copies of the evidence you’re referring to?
These statistics are from FBI Uniform Crime Reports, as quoted, the year the writer said. Thety are available through an easy online query.
Also interesting to note that an even more dramatic decrease in overall violent crime was noted in 2009 in the US (also per FBI statistics) after an immense increase in new gun sales stemming from the Obama election-victory.
When I was 20 years old, one of my best friends was shot and killed outside of a bar. The killer was also a young man and apparently his group had gotten into an argument with my friend’s group which got carried over into the parking lot. My friend, who was not involved at all, got into his truck to leave whereupon the killer went to his truck and pulled out a licensed hunting rifle and fired a shot that struck my friend in the back of the head and killed him instantly. My point is that there was a readily available licensed weapon and because of alcohol and the heat of the moment it was used. This type of thing happens regularly in places where weapons are available. (The killer was sentenced to manslaughter, and was released after 3 years imprisonment).
In another incident, my father, who was an experienced hunter for over thirty years, acccidentally shot my mother in the face with his shotgun. Luckily, she was not killed.
There are lots of statistics from both gun-promoters and anti-gun promoters that back up their agendas. But they miss the point. Cayman, being a relatively small island, has the opportunity to be virtually weapons-free. All that it takes it a concerted, determined effort by Cayman’s citizens to demand that their political leaders and police put all their resources into getting all weapons out of Cayman and protecting its shores and borders properly. There are lots of things that you can do. Increase the penalties for anyone caught with a firearm. Have the police conduct spot-checks in known areas of drugs and criminal activity. Create a zero-tolerance society when it comes to guns.
Sorry, your flat out wrong. The following are actual statistics, not opinions.
* Right-to-carry laws require law enforcement agencies to issue handgun permits to all qualified applicants. Qualifications include criteria such asage, a clean criminal record, and completing a firearm safety course. (13)
* In 1986, nine states had right-to-carry laws. (14)
* As of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws, and about half the U.S. population lives in these states. (3)
* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:
"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)
* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)
* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida
United States
homicide rate
-36%
-0.4%
firearm homicide rate
-37%
+15%
handgun homicide rate
-41%
+24%
(3)
* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)
* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident.The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)
* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer’s life. (7)
You do not need a gun to protect yourself or your family, you need common sense. If someone actually came at you with a gun (which is an extremely rare occurance anyway) you would not have time to get your weapon anyway. Teach yourself and your children to keep away from situations and places that may be risky and protect your property with proper security (good lighting, good locks, etc.). If Caymanians group together to get rid of all unlicensed firearms you will be a safer community.
Actually, you need commonsense to know why you need a firearm for self-defense. A firearm for self-defense is like a seatbelt in your car, unnecessary until you need it.
Good lighting and locks are helpful, but of limited use when you’re confronted by armed and determined home invaders. Surely it must be commonsense that you have a natural right to prevent or stop armed home invaders from murdering you or your family?