No guns for you!

[Tuff Gong]

Re: No guns for you!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ross...TG a ruffneck clint eastwood </div></div>I lived in Jamaica in the 70s and 80s in a section of town that saw some action!

Oh I do have to say I was three of the times I was held up was with a gun <span style="font-style: italic">(including the time I was shot, by Jamaicans)</span> was here in the States.

[rudemonk]

Re: No guns for you!

lol, so basically according to my argument that you can determine origin through manufacturing, I don't think you would suggest that one would not be able to determine at the very least that champagne comes from france, asti spumanti from italy, chimay from belgium, jerk from jamaica, or something stamped &quot;U.S.A&quot; can not be recognized as being made in America and thus did not materialize out of thin air in Jamaica.

you are saying in one breath that Jamaica can not secure her borders.

then in the next that you don't know where the guns flooding the streets are coming from? I don't think that is what you are saying, but considering how I framed my position, I am saying that we know for a fact that 'tons'- a far from specific term I'll grant you, but I think it is sufficient for the conversation- of guns are made in the US and go abroad.

and we both know Jamaica does not manufacture her own guns, outside of some homegrown pipe guns.

in any case, FOIA, and some industrious investigative reporters have linked the CIA to running guns in Jamaica a few times at least- something I was once accused of myself.

[Dyoll_73]

Re: No guns for you!

TG,
My point was simply to show you how legal firearm holders can be targeted for the purpose of their firearms. The man knew my father had a gun, and he came for that gun, anyway. Bear in mind that he, himself, already had a gun - an illegally held one. So I thought I would tell you about something I saw, that was real to me, and not just hearsay or media reports. Not something to bolster my point, but just an illustration. That's all.

This is not about whose story and experience is more gruesome than whose. That would be to miss the point, and it wasn't my intention either. I would never seek to diminish another man's experience. No competition here.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: No guns for you!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TG,
My point was simply to show you how legal firearm holders can be targeted for the purpose of their firearms. The man knew my father had a gun, and he came for that gun, anyway. Bear in mind that he, himself, already had a gun - an illegally held one. So I thought I would tell you about something I saw, that was real to me, and not just hearsay or media reports. Not something to bolster my point, but just an illustration. That's all.</div></div>

I already dealt with that part of the issue when I said, if there is a shortage of guns a person who wants a gun will target the known gun owner.
Already one of the dynamic is almost eliminated because of the influx of guns into the Island and continued ease of supply.

The other part of the dynamic is the idea that <span style="font-weight: bold">Y guns + legality + (guns owners multiplied by X) = less likelihood of a guy risking his bacon to get a gun</span>.

[Dyoll_73]

Re: No guns for you!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I already dealt with that part of the issue when I said, if there is a shortage of guns a person who wants a gun will target the known gun owner.
Already one of the dynamic is almost eliminated because of the influx of guns into the Island and continued ease of supply.

The other part of the dynamic is the idea that <span style="font-weight: bold">Y guns + legality + (guns owners multiplied by X) = less likelihood of a guy risking his bacon to get a gun</span>. </div></div>

Bwoy, mi nuh sure bout dat.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: No guns for you!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I already dealt with that part of the issue when I said, if there is a shortage of guns a person who wants a gun will target the known gun owner.
Already one of the dynamic is almost eliminated because of the influx of guns into the Island and continued ease of supply.

The other part of the dynamic is the idea that <span style="font-weight: bold">Y guns + legality + (guns owners multiplied by X) = less likelihood of a guy risking his bacon to get a gun</span>. </div></div>

Bwoy, mi suh sure bout dat. </div></div>
Well I am not sure either but it more logical to me.
What we do know for sure is that with the current trajectory, by the end of the life of this Government 3K more Jamaicans would have been murdered, most of us will be here ruminating on the same points and arguing it from our polemic vantage corner.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: No guns for you!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">lol, so basically according to my argument that you can determine origin through manufacturing, I don't think you would suggest that one would not be able to determine at the very least that champagne comes from france, asti spumanti from italy, chimay from belgium, jerk from jamaica, or something stamped &quot;U.S.A&quot; can not be recognized as being made in America and thus did not materialize out of thin air in Jamaica. </div></div>

LOL..You confuse and conflate the origins of manufacture to the place of import so casually it is almost farcical.
So let us continue down your road. If 1000 folks in Boston, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, come down with Salmonella poisoning from eating Jerk Pork you would then assume that it was imported directly from Boston, Portland in the Commonwealth of Jamaica. What would be your remedy then arrests every Jamaican?

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">BTW</span>...you may not have noticed that the USA, Poland, Czech Republic, South Africa, Israel, China, Russia and other countries also manufacture firearms, they don't called it Champagne or Jerk Pork but it still lethal when loaded, aim and the trigger pulled.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: No guns for you!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

you are saying in one breath that Jamaica can not secure her borders.

then in the next that you don't know where the guns flooding the streets are coming from? I don't think that is what you are saying,....</div></div>

Another hilarious bit.... <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">you</span> don't know where they are coming from and <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">you</span> did not see any post by me to suggest that I don't know where they are coming from <span style="font-style: italic">(<span style="font-weight: bold">you</span> simply don't know what my definitive position is on that)</span>.
<span style="font-weight: bold">You</span> yourself claimed that point was mute anyway!

[rudemonk]

Re: No guns for you!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">lol, so basically according to my argument that you can determine origin through manufacturing, I don't think you would suggest that one would not be able to determine at the very least that champagne comes from france, asti spumanti from italy, chimay from belgium, jerk from jamaica, or something stamped &quot;U.S.A&quot; can not be recognized as being made in America and thus did not materialize out of thin air in Jamaica. </div></div>

LOL..You confuse and conflate the origins of manufacture to the place of import so casually it is almost farcical.
So let us continue down your road. If 1000 folks in Boston, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, come down with Salmonella poisoning from eating Jerk Pork you would then assume that it was imported directly from Boston, Portland in the Commonwealth of Jamaica. What would be your remedy then arrests every Jamaican?

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">BTW</span>...you may not have noticed that the USA, Poland, Czech Republic, South Africa, Israel, China, Russia and other countries also manufacture firearms, they don't called it Champagne or Jerk Pork but it still lethal when loaded, aim and the trigger pulled.
</div></div>

right, which is why I included asti spumanti, to cover that point that even with variations you can still figure out origin. Fact is, point of origin is being introduced simply to show that since Jamaica doesn't manufacture guns, they come from somewhere. I said MANY from the US, you said I have no proof- so this is all to basically say the proof is in the pudding. This isn't that difficult a concept.

Logic should dictate that if there is a gun problem in that there are too many guns on the street in the wrong hands or what have you, that the underlying reasons why a man takes up a gun need to be looked at and understood and mitigated as much as possible, and their flow stemmed from their points of origin. Guns HAVE a traceable history, which is why I introduced the point of manufacture. As to your Jerk Pork analogy. If the 1000 folks in Boston got a bug it would instantly be known from where and the source of the contagion located and sourced. I mean this is common practice and I'm surprised you would introduce something so ill thought out. Just last week Evan had a thread about pork coming from outside of JA from Ireland I think it was? Whole herds of cows and pigs have been destroyed, as well as crops of produce, in similar health instances so I think that is a poor example. It would work if people got sick and died and nobody could understand where the food came from and simply went on a whim to a namesake.

p.s. YOU assume I have no proof, yet it could very well be I just didn't feel like airing it, which is ironically the exact same position you declared.

Thanks though but I'm not looking to engage in a long discussion then suddenly produce an 'ace.' I've said my piece and am content in the logic of my conclusions. Less illegal guns on the street = I would have more friends still drawing breath.

Bottom line.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: No guns for you!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wahalla</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Still I recall my father not being able to get a gun liecence for personal protection.. This was after several people threatened our lives and the police told him that it was suffera time suh dem nah duh nuting....

</div></div>

but walhalla, would you say that in such an instance as that you need to find a gun, there were none available to your father? putting aside the legal or illegal term as ascribed to the weapon.

removing that qualifier I don't see how it is difficult to get a gun.

what did your father do? </div></div>You sound like you really expect the man should risk going to prison leaving his family for the mere posession of a gun, that if he was from the other sode of the track,he could legally posess it.
i remember whenn i was in jamaica,quite a few young Americans would behave as if we should totally disregard laws.

you behave like you expect responsible citizens shold break the laws just to enjoy the right that others enjoy and they have all rights to.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: No guns for you!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">right, which is why I included asti spumanti, to cover that point that even with variations you can still figure out origin. Fact is, point of origin is being introduced simply to show that since Jamaica doesn't manufacture guns, they come from somewhere. I said MANY from the US, you said I have no proof- so this is all to basically say the proof is in the pudding. This isn't that difficult a concept.</div></div>

Guns are not manufactured commercially in Jamaica but firearms are being made in Jamaica.

I don't think that that anyone was in doubt that the majority of guns are imported...so your argument about origin would have been of little use as you yourself declared.

The other thing is you are still even at this point conflating the place of manufacture to the fact that they are imported and without proof saying since the USA manufacture Guns then they are being imported for the USA. That is false in every possible way.

You also did not say <span style="font-weight: bold">many</span>.... go look at your exact words.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: No guns for you!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">p.s. YOU assume I have no proof, yet it could very well be I just didn't feel like airing it, which is ironically the exact same position you declared.</div></div>

You have provided no proof and no it is not the same position that I had declared I have declared no position I am merely questioning your logic. Those are in different realms even though one is not mutually exclusive of the other.

[rudemonk]

Re: No guns for you!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Guns are not manufactured commercially in Jamaica but firearms are being made in Jamaica. </div></div>

since we're looking at exact words, why don't you look where I said exactly that. however from this exchange it seems clear you like to cherry pick, in which case I would say I am having a conversation not submitting a thesis and would expect the courtesy of recognizing that. You still aren't getting the relatively moot point, which is ironic when you say it is moot but argue it anyway. At least I hope you see where your salmonella argument fails, and if you do then you should be able to recognize why you really aren't addressing the logic of my argument at all. Now you just need to apply that to a lot of other things you feel you are poking holes in. I don't know if this has to do with a purposeful desire to be obtuse so you have something to argue about with yourself or if you are just ignorant about law enforcement and how guns can be traced. &quot;I have no proof&quot; vs &quot;not posting proof&quot; are two different things as you seem to be fond of pointing out. I preferred not to get anecdotal and so went with the obvious 2 points which can be observed by any mouthbreather looking at the problem. 1. ALL ILLEGAL GUNS BEGIN THEIR LIFE AS LEGAL firearms. 2. GUNS CAN BE TRACED. So right there it is obvious there is a breakdown somewhere between legal and illegal weapons. If that were fixed, then there would be less guns available and less people resorting to gun violence. I feel that is a far better solution, if a part of an overall solution, than just making it easy for any tom dick or harry to get a gun. Guns are already easy to get, whether legal or illegal what difference does a turn of phrase mean. So to foam on about making legal guns easy to get makes no sense. If you really need one, get one. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 is I believe the NRA bumper sticker for that premise. Some people can't even drive, so why we want them to have power of life or death is beyond me.

These two basic points can not be argued, unless you wish to be woefully ignorant. So guns manufactured in the US need tighter controls and should not be so easy to export to other countries. When the US gets uppity they burn fields of poppy or coca, because these are processed and exported to US shores and it is considered a problem. They burn ganja, for basically the same reason.

So the fact that US manufactured guns make it into Jamaica by whatever circuitous route represents a traceable problem for which there are or should be implementable solutions. And in fact the routes are traced quite a bit and I'm surprised you are ignorant of them as to me they seem obvious. In any case, it's safe to say, conversationally, that many guns in Jamaica get their start in the US.

my logic is sound and obvious. less illegal guns on the street = less gun murders and more friends who would be alive today. in fact that can be said including LEGAL guns as well, because just because you have one doesn't mean you get a chance to draw it and I know a few people who bore weapons but never got the chance to defend themselves, which is why I also posted about the 21' rule amongst LEOs which some forces have upgraded to 30' in response to Mr. Smith's observation that he didn't think a cutlass could stand against a gun.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: No guns for you!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Guns are not manufactured commercially in Jamaica but firearms are being made in Jamaica. </div></div>

since we're looking at exact words, why don't you look where I said exactly that. </div></div>

LOL.. I don't get it; didn't you say guns are not made in Jamaica? All I am saying is they are not made on a Commercial basis but they are being made.
What is your beef with that?

How did this come down to looking at exact words you asked?
It is more correct to write exactly what you mean and not leave things open to interpretation.
Not only that when you are asked to explain, do not obfuscate, lie and start making baseless accusations!

[Tuff Gong]

Re: No guns for you!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you are just ignorant about law enforcement and how guns can be traced.</div></div>

Idiot I was a cop for five (5) years. The same guy quoted here in the article was on of my Instructors at The Police Training School.
<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">Mine you damn mout</span>!