Looting, cohesion & gun control

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

No, they don't have them legally. They looted them from stores like Walmart who had hundreds of guns on their shelves legally.

Do the math about how that relates back to gun control.

---

As I previously said, you cannot make laws based on the assumption that at some point society will break down.

---

I fully agree with that statement PJ. Laws are, after all, made and enforced to keep society from breaking down. When society actually does break down, all bets are pretty much off.

But my point is that just about every gun that is in the hands of a criminal started out as a "legitimate" gun. It was manufactured legally and at some point along the ownership chain was either stolen by or sold illegally to a criminal.

When guns are so prolific in a society as to be a major part of that country's manufacturing and retail industries, more and more criminals will have guns simply because of the existence of so many guns. Then of course, more and more honest citizens want guns to protect themselves from the armed criminals, which just leads to continual escalation in the criminal vs. law-abiding citizen arms race.

Goof, Canada has their national gun registry now right? What effect has that had on crime? Has violent crime gone up or down? Gun control doesn't equal less crime. Nor is it fair to say that higher crime in the US is due to more guns. It's just not that simple.

[QUOTE]I fully agree with that statement PJ. Laws are, after all, made and enforced to keep society from breaking down. When society actually does break down, all bets are pretty much off.

But my point is that just about every gun that is in the hands of a criminal started out as a "legitimate" gun. It was manufactured legally and at some point along the ownership chain was either stolen by or sold illegally to a criminal. [QUOTE]

And that is against the law! We need to enforce the laws better in every american state. And my point is that in the particular case the law is not being enforced at all, so its not a valid example for the supposed gun control problems of America. LA, which is not in a crisis, would be a much better case in point.

Quote:

---

When guns are so prolific in a society as to be a major part of that country's manufacturing and retail industries, more and more criminals will have guns simply because of the existence of so many guns. Then of course, more and more honest citizens want guns to protect themselves from the armed criminals, which just leads to continual escalation in the criminal vs. law-abiding citizen arms race.

---

But thats not happening. Gun crime continues to fall in America, unless Im mistaken.

That is a parody site. There is no such organization.
Del , unfortunately you are wrong , they were all over the news last week protesting at servicemens funerals .
While it might seem like a parody , the reality is that it is a seriously disturbed/disturbing group of (choose your own expletive) idiots .

[QUOTE=PanzerJager]

Quote:

---

But thats not happening. Gun crime continues to fall in America, unless Im mistaken.

---

From the stats I've seen you're indeed correct. And all the while gun ownership rates have been rising in the US.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/...nonfatalno.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The people being shot at are not hungry beggars, they are gangs of people trying to make a profit out of this disaster.

If you are geninely hungry, there are more than enough small-time releif efforts going on that it should not be difficult to get some food.

---

The last time you answered me you revealed your tendency to make profiles. It's still there i assume. You're wrong, never, in no situation you can put the human life below the things. You even can justify in some cases the stealing appealing to a resource of mass psicosis. Now i see that the president Bush it's not alone, it seems that part of the people supports him in this notorious wrong decision. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

OK when is Pat Robertson going to come forward and claim "Its the hand of the lord punishing these sinners" Thank god it was mostly bad people that died.

---

It's not Pat himself, but it's still pretty good:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Repent America

"Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city. From 'Girls Gone Wild' to 'Southern Decadence', New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. May it never be the same. Let us pray for those ravaged by this disaster. However, we must not forget that the citizens of New Orleans tolerated and welcomed the wickedness in their city for so long," -- Michael Marcavage, in a statement from the evangelical Christian group, "Repent America," issued today.

---

Quote:

---

And there's a problem with that? We learned from the Gang Wars of the 20s and 30s; never again will Civilians have access to better guns than Law Enforcement.

---

Well thats not quite true.

Quote:

---

11/11/04 Takeover Bandits shooting in Richardson

Out manned, out gunned: Dallas Police on the verge of catastrophe.

In March of 1997, two heavily armed robbers held Hollywood captive for 94 minutes. One hour and thirty-four minutes of pure terror. These two men were armed with AK-47 assault rifles. They were covered with bulletproof armor from their necks to their feet. Officers on the scene did not possess the firepower to penetrate the suspects' body armor and had to successfully make a head shot in order to stop the robbers. An accurate headshot from 50 yards is challenging, if not impossible, for even the most proficient marksman. The officers on the scene had little to no hope of stopping the robbers with their weapons.

.

---

Gun ownership and American culture.

Consider these two concepts: Freedom and Security.

In democratic society, these two admirable qualties do, occasionally, run counter to one another.

We wished to be protected from the worst aspects of life, but wish to have the fullest freedom of choice to do or say or think as we wish.

For many (not all) Americans, guns represent freedom. They are and have been an integral part of America. At our founding, a working gun or two were survival necessities for every household -- a basic tool in a continent where hunting was often the prime source of protein and where the indigenous peoples we were slowly displacing often reacted with hostility to the presence of our early settlers.

Gun ownership and proficiency is enshrined in our foundation myths, with the minute men of Lexington and Concord besting the British oppressors with the guns that hung over their fireplace. Community defense against raids and banditry and enemy attack was largely in the hands of a citizen militia, armed with their personal weapons. Militia were the bulk of our forces in nearly every engagement of our war of revolution -- despite the fact that most were pretty sub-par as soldiers.

Privately owned guns tamed the west, defeated the Dalton gang, and their ownership is, indeed, endorsed in our Bill of Rights. It may well be that the founders did so in the belief that the citizen militia would remain our primary defense force, but the right is clearly delineated.

Would Gun Control work?

Yes. If the constitution were altered to allow it, the process of removing most or all weaponry from the hands of every American would be bloody, but we would achieve a situation where few people owned or used guns. Deaths from gun violence and the number of killings in general would sharply decline.
Government would have the only power to easily exercise deadly violence, and could smash any group of rioters/looters and other hooligans because they would not be able to stop the government authorities with deadly force. This would clearly enhance security.

Yet in the back of our minds, many of us would feel that we had lost some of our freedom. What is to stop that government from appropriating my property because the government believes it knows best how to use that property? How would I defend my family against a group of thugs who break into our home and threaten chubby, average-sized me with a club? There are numerous places in America where the nearest neighbor is miles away and the nearest police a half hour or more distant -- how can such people feel safe? Guns are an integral part of American culture because they stand, in the minds of many of us, as both a tool to maintain and a symbol of freedom.

Is that freedom purchased at a price? Yes. But would we give up that freedom? I think, for most, the answer is no.

Seamus

Anyway we can get back on subject?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Seems on subject to me. "Gun Control" is in the thread title.

---

Duh, you're right, I thought I was in a different thread. Alot of threads on this situation. Could a mod delete my post since I'm a bad boy and don't have the means to do so? ~D

Here's question....

Why did the Mayor not deploy this...
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...lpc21109012015
When he announced his "madatory evacuation" before the storm. What a shame.. :furious3:

Yes, all of the mayor's complaining and ranting now seems just a little disingenuos to me. What extraordinary efforts did he take to get people out of his city ahead of time? Obviously not enough, considering the what, 100,000+ that stayed behind?

More importantly, where was he? Rudy set up camp at Ground Zero, for those who cannot recall what a real mayor does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

More importantly, where was he? Rudy set up camp at Ground Zero, for those who cannot recall what a real mayor does.

---

This guys is definitly no Rudy....

I saw an intervue with him today saying something like, "The President and the Governor need to figure out who's in charge and how they are going to fix this." Hows that for trying to pass the buck!?!?! What a bastard.... :furious3:

Quote:

---

Yes, all of the mayor's complaining and ranting now seems just a little disingenuos to me. What extraordinary efforts did he take to get people out of his city ahead of time? Obviously not enough, considering the what, 100,000+ that stayed behind?

---

The heck with that. As Mayor isnt he the one really responsible for his city? Shouldnt he have taken steps to make sure the levies were in good shape? Doesnt the buck really stop with him? You notice also that for some reason the Louisianna NG wasnt called in. I hate to say you get the government you deserve but it now seems to me these people were living in a third world nation already but the rest of us just didnt realise it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

The last time you answered me you revealed your tendency to make profiles. It's still there i assume. You're wrong, never, in no situation you can put the human life below the things. You even can justify in some cases the stealing appealing to a resource of mass psicosis. Now i see that the president Bush it's not alone, it seems that part of the people supports him in this notorious wrong decision. :dizzy2:

---

Oye 'uey piensalo un segundito. Las madres solteras desesperadas para un trocecito de pan para sus niñitos no son las que andan con pistola robando a la gente. Los pandilleritos que terrorizan a la ciudad estan muy bien satisfechos con respeto a comida-- por que se la robaron de los menesterosos, de las madres solteras, de las que no pudieron resistir.

Si encuentres a un tipo asi en el acto de robar o aprovechar, no es crimen matarle a balas. Con tanta falta de orden que vive la ciudad actualmente, es la unica manera de controlar a las pandillas.

DA

EDIT: Ademas esto no tiene nada que ver con Bush yo odio a Bush y no era idea suya sino una verdad que nos cuenta la historia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Oye 'uey piensalo un segundito. Las madres solteras desesperadas para un trocecito de pan para sus niñitos no son las que andan con pistola robando a la gente. Los pandilleritos que terrorizan a la ciudad estan muy bien satisfechos con respeto a comida-- por que se la robaron de los menesterosos, de las madres solteras, de las que no pudieron resistir.

Si encuentres a un tipo asi en el acto de robar o aprovechar, no es crimen matarle a balas. Con tanta falta de orden que vive la ciudad actualmente, es la unica manera de controlar a las pandillas.

DA

EDIT: Ademas esto no tiene nada que ver con Bush yo odio a Bush y no era idea suya sino una verdad que nos cuenta la historia.

---

¡Eh! Estamos hablando mucho en español no te parece, dentro de poco vamos a tomar el control ja, ja, ja, ~D . Seriously, not man, no situation creates the right for the state or individuals to kill other people, only in cases of selfdefense. In this cases they could be caught and arrested, but shooting them is a long way beyond civil and human rights, that the state cannot violate, unless you're in an state of war or under the rule of a police state. Kill somebody is only justified when your life is under direct and eminent danger. Uncomprabable causes and hipotetical situations aren't good to determine the fate of mans who only robbed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Doesnt the buck really stop with him?

---

According to Truman, the buck stopped at the desk in the oval office of the White House. Then again, under Bush, the buck not only doesn't stop at the White House, it's been put on the no-fly list and refused an entry visa.

Quote:

---

According to Truman, the buck stopped at the desk in the oval office of the White House.

---

Yes as far as matters concernng the United states do. Matters concerning the city of New Orleans stop at the Mayors desk. His sole responsibilty is to the citizens of that city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

unless you're in an state of war

---

Bingo! New Orleans is essentially in a state of war. When armed gangs roam the streets and take shots at the Red Cross, a little bit of martial law is just what the doctor ordered.

DA

The mayor can't call up Guard troops; that's the governor's job. The mayor can't mobilize FEMA; that's the president's job. The mayor can't repair the sinking levees; that's the Army Corps of Engineers' job. The mayor can't appropriate the funding for the Corps of Engineers, either; that's the job of the U.S. Congress.

The mayor can order a mandatory evacuation, which he did. He said, quite clearly before the hurricane, that those people who can leave did; but that those who can't will be in trouble if the levee system doesn't hold. What else could he have done? He can tell people who can't evacuate to gather at the superdome, which he did. He can try to get buses to get people to the superdome, which he did. Only city buses, though. School buses belong to the school districts which are controlled by the state - which means the governor again. City buses aren't enough to get people out of town, not on a few day's notice. But they can get people to supposedly safe places like the superdome; which he did. He can't even declare martial law. His only security personnel available are the police, many of whom were just as trapped and unable to get around town as the residents. Anything other than what he did would cost money which cities simply don't have since Bush and the Republican Congress mandated all manner of things onto municipalities without funding them. Could he have done more? Sure. Would his city have allowed him to do more before the disaster? I doubt it.

Does the mayor deserve some blame? Absolutely. So does the governor and the state government and the Louisiana U.S. Congressional delegation and FEMA and the Corp of Engineers and the U.S. Congress and Bush. Blaming the mayor exclusively is pretty pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Does the mayor deserve some blame? Absolutely. So does the governor and the state government and the Louisiana U.S. Congressional delegation and FEMA and the Corp of Engineers and the U.S. Congress and Bush. Blaming the mayor exclusively is pretty pathetic.

---

I agree wholeheartedly. The buck that should've stopped at the mayor's desk ain't the only one that's running around AWOL...

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Bingo! New Orleans is essentially in a state of war. When armed gangs roam the streets and take shots at the Red Cross, a little bit of martial law is just what the doctor ordered.

DA

---

Well the state of war is determined for the government (here by the executive power, i think there is the same), so we've to look to the evidence to know if it's wise to declare it. Even so they could arrest the looters instead of just shooting them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Well the state of war is determined for the government (here by the executive power, i think there is the same), so we've to look to the evidence to know if it's wise to declare it. Even so they could arrest the looters instead of just shooting them.

---

And what if the looters run away? And then shoot when the police pursue??

And once they are arrested, where will they be held, and by whom? Forces on the ground already have their hands full trying to provide food and water to people who AREN'T breaking the law.

If this were a normal situation, no one would be talking about shooting anybody. But the criminals already ARE shooting and HAVE killed many innocents. It is NOT a normal situation.

DA

Quote:

---

The mayor can't call up Guard troops; that's the governor's job.

---

He can request it. So far neither he nor the govenor have seen fit to do so.

Quote:

---

The mayor can't mobilize FEMA;

---

Quote:

---

Models predicted New Orleans disaster, experts say

WASHINGTON, Sept 2 (Reuters) - Virtually everything that has happened in New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina struck was predicted by experts and in computer models, so emergency management specialists wonder why authorities were so unprepared.

"The scenario of a major hurricane hitting New Orleans was well anticipated, predicted and drilled around," said Clare Rubin, an emergency management consultant who also teaches at the Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management at George Washington University.

Computer models developed at Louisiana State University and other institutions made detailed projections of what would happen if water flowed over the levees protecting the city or if they failed.

In July 2004, more than 40 federal, state, local and volunteer organizations practiced this very scenario in a five-day simulation code-named "Hurricane Pam", where they had to deal with an imaginary storm that destroyed over half a million buildings in New Orleans and forced the evacuation of a million residents.

---

Quote:

---

It predicted that 200,000 people or more would be unwilling or unable to heed evacuation orders and thousands would die, that people would be housed in the Superdome, that aid workers would find it difficult to gain access to the city as roads became impassable, as well as many other of the consequences that actually unfolded after Katrina hit this week.

Craig Marks who runs Blue Horizons Consulting, an emergency management training company in North Carolina, said the authorities had mishandled the evacuation, neglecting to help those without transportation to leave the city.

"They could have packed people on trains or buses and gotten them out before the hurricane struck. They had enough time and access to federal funds. And now, we find we do not have a proper emergency communications infrastructure so aid workers get out into the field and they can't talk to one another," he said.

---

But the mayor ignored all this.

Quote:

---

The mayor can't appropriate the funding for the Corps of Engineers, either; that's the job of the U.S. Congress.

---

Once more its his job to protect his people. He obivously wasnt up to the task.

Quote:

---

Does the mayor deserve some blame? Absolutely. So does the governor and the state government and the Louisiana U.S. Congressional delegation and FEMA and the Corp of Engineers and the U.S. Congress and Bush. Blaming the mayor exclusively is pretty pathetic.

---

No ones saying he is the only one to blame . But it is he who is most to blame and the fact that hes trying to pass the buck urks me.

Nice try, Gawain, but you still didn't find away around the fact that he can't mobilize FEMA and he can't control the Corps of Engineers. Both of these orgnizations have a responsibility which overlaps and in some cases supercedes his own.

Don't act like you're making a point when you're really just ignoring one. THAT "urks" me.

DA

If there is serious danger to his city its his job to make the state and federal governments aware of it and to make sure they do something about it. Failure is not an option.

FEMA was mobilized before Katrina even made landfall. I'm not saying the mayor is totally to blame for all the problems- but, all the finger pointing that he's been doing lately seems, like I said, disengenuous. Maybe if he tries to assign blame early and often enough he thinks he can keep any from being laid on him. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

And what if the looters run away? And then shoot when the police pursue??

And once they are arrested, where will they be held, and by whom? Forces on the ground already have their hands full trying to provide food and water to people who AREN'T breaking the law.

If this were a normal situation, no one would be talking about shooting anybody. But the criminals already ARE shooting and HAVE killed many innocents. It is NOT a normal situation.

DA

---

Then the military forces or the private associations that provide help must create provisionary settlements to enprison the looters. I think that every care must be take after talking about killing people, that in fact you're trying to save. And another thing, with all respect, if you call this an state of war then the law doesn't matters when you say "to people who AREN'T breaking the law".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain

But it is he who is most to blame and the fact that hes trying to pass the buck urks me.

---

Nonsense. You try evacuating hundreds of thousands of people in a few days. Can't be done. Can't. Impossible. They did not have enough time and access to federal funds. That's utter BS. I don't know how many city buses there are where you live, Gawain; but I guarantee you that those in New Orleans wouldn't be enough to move even a small fraction of people out of New Orleans. It took one reporter 6 hours just to go from New Orleans to Biloxi on Sunday! They might have been able to move many more people to the superdome; but out of town altogether? Enough for one trip, maybe two roundtrips at most. I already explained that school buses are not available to a mayor. Look at the bureauratic gridlock that has already happened. Can you imagine trying to get the mayors of other cities to release their buses? To get the various school districts to get state approval to release their buses? Wouldn't have happened. State guard military transport trucks weren't available to move people, either. The transports that just got there today - make note of it being day 5 after the hurricane - came from other states. That's another artifact of the war in Iraq. Lack of military vehicles.

There are (were, I should say) 1.3 million people in the New Orleans metropolitan area. In the city itself, over 450,000. Of those, more than 20% were over 50 years of age. New Orleans was one of the oldest cities in the U.S. age-wise of the inhabitants. How many people does a bus hold? Let's say 100, which is pushing it but I'm being generous. How many buses do you think a city operates? New Orleans, being the tourist place it is, had a lot of nice street cars, not buses. Driven a street car on the highway trying to take a load of refugees away from an oncoming storm lately? No, you haven't because they're electric trolleys run on overhead lines. Here's a good joke for you. http://www.dot.gov/affairs/fta4803.htm. An announcement by the U.S. DOT in 2003 of $21.6 million in funds to improve New Orleans mass transit by building more... wait for it... street cars. Everyone wants to ride a quaint streetcar (maybe one named Desire) in New Orleans, thanks to the Tennessee Williams play set in New Orleans. ~D Let's be generous and say 500 operational buses in New Orleans last weekend. Each carries 100 people. That's 50,000 people you can evacuate - once. That's if they're altogether in one place ready to go, and the route out of town is open (which they weren't). How long does it take to load 500 buses? How long does it take to get people to the buses? The Army has been at the Convention Center all day - have they finished evacuating the 15-20,000 people there yet? No. That's the Army at one location with people who are already there and are pretty darn eager to get loaded onto buses. Try thinking back to the situation before the storm hit. Was the population of New Orleans lined up and eagerly awaiting buses, all in one place? No. Time, Gawain. Not enough time.

And as for knowing that New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen, I've already posted links to quotes from the Time-Picayune stories from 2004 talking about how federal funding had slowed to a trickle due to the Iraq war. I posted the quote from the Army Corp of Engineers prject manager for SELA who stated explicitly that she was forced to beg a local entity for some money to do more work on the levees in 2004 because federal funding had dried up due to the war in Iraq and the deficit. They knew it was bad, and they knew it was coming, and no one was willing to pay for it. Can't have our taxes wasted on that! No, sir! It's our money! Back off! Give it back to the rich who "earned" it.

And now we'll discuss the time factor. Just how much time do you think they had to make all these decisions you claim the mayor should have made? As late as last Thursday, the computer models had New Orleans on the western edge of the strike probability cone. Prior to that the computer models were all over the map, with the NOGAPS to the UKMET and the rest in only partial agreement with landfall from Texas to back over Florida near Pensicola. So much for 5 days notice, or even 4. It wasn't until late on Friday that the computer models started consistently indicating southeastern Louisiana as the most likely. That's 2 and a half days, tops, before it hit. Saturday, Sunday and part of Monday. Two and a half days for the mayor of New Orleans to do all these things you seem to think he could or should have done. Most of which are impossibilities under ideal conditions, much less two days notice with no funding, no authority, and not even someone willing to say "yes, the storm will hit there!"

:bow:

It makes me shocked and surprised to see how the gangs react in New Orleans. I would expect a bit more from the citizens of New Orleans.
I still believe that gun should not be the property of each citizen. But what has happened in New Orleans is force majoure and can not be used for or against issues like gun control.

Quote:

---

And now we'll discuss the time factor. Just how much time do you think they had to make all these decisions you claim the mayor should have made?

---

Probably about 30 or 40 years. So blame all the mayors. Ill tell you this much . Id never live there anymore than Id live on the side of an active volcano. I hear cops there are turning in their badges.

Incidents of looting and the like are proof why more Americans should own guns. You see, if some of the good people of New Orleans owned guns, they're be less looters and more corpses!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Incidents of looting and the like are proof why more Americans should own guns. You see, if some of the good people of New Orleans owned guns, they're be less looters and more corpses!

---

No, there'd be more looters AND more corpses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Probably about 30 or 40 years. So blame all the mayors. Ill tell you this much . Id never live there anymore than Id live on the side of an active volcano. I hear cops there are turning in their badges.

---

Oh, I doubt it's just going to be the police in New Orleans who resign in disgust. Check out this quote from the local New Orleans area director of Homeland Security:

Asserting that the whole recovery operation had been "carried on the backs of the little guys for four goddamn days," Col. Terry Ebbert, director of homeland security for New Orleans said "the rest of the goddamn nation can't get us any resources for security."

That doesn't sound like a happy man to me. And his criticism wasn't directed at the mayor, but straight up his chain of command - at the head of which sits Michael Chertoff, and just above him - Bush, who isn't on speaking terms with the buck or any of the buck's friends and relatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Incidents of looting and the like are proof why more Americans should own guns. You see, if some of the good people of New Orleans owned guns, they're be less looters and more corpses!

---

Considering the socio-economic strata which were left behind in New Orleans, I'd be pretty confident in saying that is it the "GOOD" people who are doing most of the looting, at least petty stuff.

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Then the military forces or the private associations that provide help must create provisionary settlements to enprison the looters. I think that every care must be take after talking about killing people, that in fact you're trying to save. And another thing, with all respect, if you call this an state of war then the law doesn't matters when you say "to people who AREN'T breaking the law".

---

Pues si sabes tanto de como hacer las cosas en una situacion asi, pues recogete una brigada de voluntarios y ven! Y maneja la ciudad tu mismo!

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Pues si sabes tanto de como hacer las cosas en una situacion asi, pues recogete una brigada de voluntarios y ven! Y maneja la ciudad tu mismo!

DA

---

¡Bueno eso fue con odio che! En realidad fue más en forma de sugestión, creo que ustedes saben más de la situación que yo, pero cuando Santa Fe se inundó acá el gobierno no ordenó matar a nadie.