Ole time practicality versus modern day theory? Puh-leeeze

[britisha]

Re: Ole time practicality versus modern day theory? Puh-leeeze

..meant to edit the above i wrote, but instead i hit the rwq button..will try agen later..

[ivan miller]

Re: Ole time practicality versus modern day theory? Puh-leeeze

Thank you britisher and tuff Gong, your critiques are respectfully well taken.

However, nonviolent crimes against an inviduals such as pickpocking, is a crime of nuisance and oppertunistic. This is a crime that come in spate, in crowded areas and on busses, leading up to and during hollidays. There is no society that is sanitize to crime.

This sneeky crime of pickpocketin is impossible for the police to successfully investigate each crime individually. What the police do is to map locations and time, from reports then dispatched resourses. Usually this crime wave is always abated.

TG: yes! Shearer said that on the new government JBCTV.

Britisher you may have remember or heard about 'Galassing' in the early 60s. The modus was robbery with violence. This breed of criminals used two feet of fishing lines, sneeked up and cast it around the unsuspecting victim's neck and pulled on it sufficiently for the victim to accede to the demand and gave up his or her valuables.

This gang had terrorised Kingston and St. Andrew for about two years. Using statistics and using resourses, the police put this gang out of business within three months.

Then came the ratchet knives. Time has change but the government's mentality has not.

Thank you my friend, Mountain girl for defining the deference between a car = a tool of conveyance and a gun = a weapon of destruction.

Thank you all for the a great dialog.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Ole time practicality versus modern day theory? Puh-leeeze

Originally posted by baba afer:
[qb]....However, nonviolent crimes against an inviduals such as pickpocking, is a crime of nuisance and oppertunistic. This is a crime that come in spate, in crowded areas and on busses, leading up to and during hollidays. There is no society that is sanitize to crime.[/qb]

I accept that and in no way shape of form did I nor would want to say it differently. One must accept that when crimes are committed and are not investigated properly it present the opportunity for more crime.

[qb]TG: yes! Shearer said that on the new government JBCTV.[/qb

Okay.

[qb]Thank you my friend, Mountain girl for defining the deference between a car = a tool of conveyance and a gun = a weapon of destruction.

Thank you all for the a great dialog.[/qb]

I am not so sure the distinction is so benign, even if it is as strict you have accepted it to be.The questions we must ask are:

Are the USA gun manufactures responsible for gun crimes committed on Jamaicans, in Jamaica by the use of the gun?

If so to what degree?

[britisha]

Re: Ole time practicality versus modern day theory? Puh-leeeze

((Afer)) thanks for your input. I do have a vague re collection of the word "gallasing"

Britisher you may have remember or heard about'Galassing' in the early 60s. The modus was robbery with violence. This breed of criminals used two feet of fishing lines, sneeked up and cast it around the unsuspecting victim's neck and pulled on it sufficiently for the victim to accede to the demand and gave up his or her valuables.

((Afer)), I hope you are not leaving already, you know that I love to read your posts..now:

...as for pickpocketeting being an opportunistic crime, I respectfully beg to differ to an extent. While that might be the case there are and were career pickpockets, to the extent that some were even known by the market women and others.

...so much that when they were spotted word would spread like wild fire that they are "around" and precautions should be taken. Despite all that some poor unwary soul would fall prey to them.

diss is just to keep the dialogue going, and wi share opinions as fellow Jamaicans...

Mek mi tel yuh wan storie..lissn tuh diss likkle bit..Dere was this girl who would wear crinoline and organza almoas everyday hair always done, her paramour in garbadine pants and pretty shirt; dem eat fresh fish and chicken often..[him mussie all did tief dem outtah ppl fowl coob]..lived a Kgn..address edited....word was that the paramour was a career pickpocket. Mi heard about this for big quarrell did ketch hup wid har an har frens seh smaddie seh har man a pp'kit..

Now; by TG

Are the USA gun manufactures responsible for gun crimes committed on Jamaicans, in Jamaica by the use of the gun?

If so to what degree?

Yes and no."Yes" because it has been shown that guns sold in some of the southern cities were sold in many cases to the same individual over and over, sometimes up to as many as six in a short space of time without any questioning by the sellers.

These were guns that were not for hunting.

It was also noted that in some states there were dealers who bought wholesale and sold from their residence[s], [not subjected to the same stringent requirements as those who sold from gunshops] thus bypassing the law in terms of requiring legitimate identification etc., plus the quantities in which they were sold..the conclusion was that these people were not buying guns for legal purposes, but in many cases to sell to criminals; and even use themselves in illegal operations...and this is the criteria being used to make the manufacturers responsible for allegedly they know that NOT all their guns are being sold legally or for hunting...in fact intended solely for criminal activities. Why would one person buy six glocks over and over again?

This is one argument posited by those who feel that because these manufacturers know that their guns are being bought for purposes other than intended, they should be made to bear some of the consequences.. It never really gotten off the ground though..

AS for "no", as I had said above, if a person gives another person a gun to kill or maim, that person does NOT have to shoot, simply because a gun is in his/her hand. The individual still has some power over this inanimate object; the gun shouldn't have the power to make the individual fire it.

Thanks everyone for your input..mi soon cum back..meanwhile walk good y'all..

[britisha]

Re: Ole time practicality versus modern day theory? Puh-leeeze

Re the guns, Sixty Minutes had a piece on last night, about criminals having not only easy access to weapons, but being able to ship them out the country undected for (a) not enough customs officers to check and (b) they leave concealed as legit goods on certain planes that are not checked, period.

One man, figget his name, was 'pushing for' computerisation of all gun sales, ie serial #, when sold, who bought it, how many they bought, how many of the same type they bought etcetera etcetera..

Now as for the other story, ie the bombings in London and a Jamaican allegedly involved..I wonder if his parent[s] flogged him when he was a child, or could it be that he hadn't received any spanking coupled with "talking" [ parental counselling] in his formative years?

Had read in one of the rags here, where a teenager in the Bronx, [Jamaican parentage] allegedly set fire to the house, then shot [**had access to a gun] himself dead...all because the father "put his foot down" in some form of disciplinary action in the home..mi noh membah hexackly what it was about, but nothing imo to warrant such awful response.

Yes, you guessed it, did this father's strictness cause this extreme reaction from the child or something else was wrong with him that went undetected? Food for thought.