Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
“[…] International experience, particularly in the United States, shows that Stand Your Ground laws have not made communities safer. Instead, they have led to an increase in gun-related deaths, encouraged vigilante justice, and worsened social divisions.
“[…] Moreover, these laws will not benefit all citizens equally. The high cost of legally obtaining and maintaining a firearm—between licensing, training, storage, and equipment—places gun ownership out of reach for the average citizen…”
The following Letter to the Editor, which suggests potential drawbacks in proposed stand your ground legislation in Trinidad and Tobago, was submitted to Wired868 by Anthony Bennett of San Fernando:
The proposal to introduce stand your ground laws in Trinidad and Tobago is both reckless and misguided. While it may appeal to the fear and frustration of citizens overwhelmed by violent crime, a deeper analysis reveals that such laws have failed elsewhere—and would be downright disastrous in our local context.
International experience, particularly in the United States, shows that Stand Your Ground laws have not made communities safer. Instead, they have led to an increase in gun-related deaths, encouraged vigilante justice, and worsened social divisions.
In many cases, these laws have protected aggressors rather than victims and have been disproportionately applied in racially and economically biased ways.
Martin was killed by George Michael Zimmerman on 26 February while Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch patrol in the gated community of The Retreat at Twin Lakes, Florida.
Photo: Joe Raedle/ Getty Images.
Unlike countries with a long and regulated culture of civilian gun ownership, Trinidad and Tobago has no legacy of responsible gun use among the general population. What we do have is a grim track record of illegal firearms, gang warfare, and a police force already strained under the pressure of containing violent crime.
Introducing Stand Your Ground laws in this environment is akin to throwing gasoline on an already raging fire.
Moreover, these laws will not benefit all citizens equally. The high cost of legally obtaining and maintaining a firearm—between licensing, training, storage, and equipment—places gun ownership out of reach for the average citizen.
What we are left with, then, is a society where the wealthy can afford to arm and defend themselves under the cover of the law, while the poor remain as vulnerable as ever. This is not justice—it is the privatization of public safety, reserved for those with means.
Instead of pushing policies that encourage a shoot-first mentality, we should be investing in smarter policing, community programs, judicial reform, and real strategies for disarmament and prevention.
Security should not depend on who can afford to pull a trigger.
“[…] During public consultations, Minister Wayne Sturge went so far as to suggest that citizens might be justified in shooting Read more
As I have made plain, I value the commentaries contained in letters to the editor. Last week I quoted the Read more
“[…] T&T’s education system thus faces two challenges—decades old, but now more pressing in the context of 21st century market Read more
“[…] While the proponents of this proposed bill argue that these laws will promote self-defense and personal responsibility, critics have Read more
Elements of the trade union movement now sits inside the coalition that governs Trinidad and Tobago. That should have brought Read more
“[…] The psychological impact of long-term oppression can be devastating, leading to a cycle of poverty, social alienation, and continued Read more
Want to share your thoughts with Wired868? Email us at editor@wired868.com.
Please keep your letter between 300 to 600 words and be sure to read it over first for typos and punctuation.
We don’t publish anonymously unless there is a good reason, such as an obvious threat of harassment or job loss.
Thank God that there are a sane sober, smart few among us who see where this is going and likely to take us in the future. Nothing about the law benefits the society in its totality (don’t for a moment think that was the objective anyway).An art the ruling party seems to be the masters of. We are seeing/hearing of the flippant way in which gun ownership is being handled currently ( head of a medical assoc. jogging around the savannah with two guns in his waist, gun goes off injuring him or policeman losing his gun while running errands, drunk member of a national security service brandishing his gun at a bar) which makes you wonder what is likely when the proliferation of firearms/ownership occur through the enactment of this law.