Looting, cohesion & gun control

[Adrian II]

Louisiana Governor Blanco has announced that new National Guard troops are taking up stations in parts of New Orleans and that their M-16's are 'locked and loaded'. These troops apparently include 300 soldiers from the Arkansas National Guard who are 'fresh in from Iraq' and 'more than willing to kill if necessary'.

There will be sighs of relief from the 'it's-about-time'ers', but to me this sounds like a signal to the outside world more than to the looters, who are probably not listening to news reports anyway or only incidentally. And it would seem that these combat troops will have great trouble distinguishing between between looters and people who 'steal' in order to stay alive. Technically, the difference has now become very small and 'righteous looters' could soon be fighting Arkansas crack troops in the streets of New Orleans.

What are we to make of a situation where a government is forced to send in crack combat troops to control rescue operations and protect rescue workers from armed gangs and frustrated citizens taking potshots at them?

Until now I have refrained from comments about American gun control and gun culture, but it becomes more difficult by the day. Guns don't kill rescue workers, but their availability is a real plague on top of all the other issues in this situation.

As I said elsewhere, there is a marked difference between the reaction of the Turkish people to the August 1999 Izmit earthquake which destroyed entire cities and regions and that of Americans in the face of this New Orleans disaster. There was very little looting going on in Turkey and there were almost no fights between security forces and citizens. All efforts seemed to be geared toward rescuing and supporting the victims. It may have been quite important in this respect that the Turkish government immediately deployed 50.000 troops to prevent looting and black-marketeering as well as support the rescue operations. But I wonder if that explains everything. From what I hear from Turkish friends there was more cohesion than ever before in Turkish society, even between Turks and Kurds, not less.

Anyway, what do I know about New Orleans other than some things I saw on a visit years ago? Any Americans ready to face the gun control music at this stage?

[R'as al Ghul]

Any Americans ready to face the gun control music at this stage?

Hi Adrian,

I was thinking along your line when I saw the news yesterday.
I assume that the pro-gun people won't change their stance.
And why should they? (I'm trying to play Devil's advocate here)
This is the catastrophe they waited for to prove that it is safer to be armed.
After all you wouldn't want to be unarmed when your house is being looted
or someone trys to rob you, would you? The guys shooting at the helicopters?
Criminals, of course. They even would have guns even when nobody else did.
I don't believe this will change anything.

From our European perspective this is absolutely unbelievable.
I can't imagine that anything similar could happen in the Netherlands, should they be flooded someday. (a large part of it lies under sea-level)

[Adrian II]

I can't imagine that anything similar could happen in the Netherlands, should they be flooded someday. (a large part of it lies under sea-level)

We had a major flood risk in 1995. It was considered serious enough to justify mass evacuation. In a couple days 250,000 people, 300,000 cattle, a million pigs and millions of poultry birds were moved from an area bounded by the Lower Rhine, the Waal and the Maas. As it turned out, the flood didn't happen. In the (deserted) evacuation areas only some police patrolled, no army. There was no looting, no shooting.

But then, we are really a midget country compared to the United States. Everything is ten times bigger there, and not just fridges...

[R'as al Ghul]

We had a major flood risk in 1995. It was considered serious enough to justify mass evacuation. In a couple days 250,000 people, 300,000 cattle, a million pigs and millions of poultry birds were moved from an area bounded by the Lower Rhine, the Waal and the Maas. As it turned out, the flood didn't happen. In the (deserted) evacuation areas only some police patrolled, no army.

Ah, interesting. I had no idea, couldn't remember.

There was no looting, no shooting.
But then, we are really a midget country compared to the United States. Everything is ten times bigger there, and not just fridges...

Do you argue that it is a matter of size? (no pun intended)
I'd claim that it is a matter of mentality and culture.

[Adrian II]

Do you argue that it is a matter of size? (no pun intended)

Yeah. If we had to evacuate an area the size of Northern France, we would have needed more than a few police patrols with a bull horn.

[R'as al Ghul]

Yeah. If we had to evacuate an area the size of Northern France, we would have needed more than a few police patrols with a bull horn.

I agree. The number of people and the size of the area are an important factor.
Evacuating a third of Germany wouldn't be easy, too.
Of course we would need police and maybe even the BGS
but I doubt that we would see much armed looting in the process.
But then again, I don't trust my fellow citizens to be very relaxed about such a disaster.

[yesdachi]

We had a major flood risk in 1995. It was considered serious enough to justify mass evacuation. In a couple days 250,000 people, 300,000 cattle, a million pigs and millions of poultry birds were moved from an area bounded by the Lower Rhine, the Waal and the Maas. As it turned out, the flood didn't happen. In the (deserted) evacuation areas only some police patrolled, no army. There was no looting, no shooting.

But then, we are really a midget country compared to the United States. Everything is ten times bigger there, and not just fridges...

Interesting, that is a lot of livestock to evac!

The 2 issues I am struggling with about your comments…

1 there was no disaster. People act different in tense situations, and you also mention having a couple of days.

2 there is definitely a different culture, way of life, mood of the people, whatever you want to call it between people in NO and the Netherlands. It has been my experience that there is a lot of crime and unhappy people in NO, combined with the total lack of leadership in the area I’m not surprised the situation has turned into a soup sandwich. Anyway, my point is that the people make a difference. Many of the people in NO could barley handle their daily lives, throw a disaster at them and *poof* they are acting like cavemen except with guns vs. clubs.

There’s still no excuse and I have no sympathy for malicious looters.

Anyway, there are similarities but not enough to make a fair comparison.

[PanzerJaeger]

After I read how Bush should be imprisoned and the US is a horrible country I ignored the rest of this thread. Real classy guys.

To Adrian's first point.

Those people in New Orleans do not have those guns legally. You cannot make a gun control argument based on a situation where laws are not enforced.

It would be like me saying "Well all buildings should have batter-resistent windows because all of society might break down during a natural disaster, and that will prevent looting".

To me, that is the basic flaw of your assertion that we need better gun control. There is no control, but this is an anomoly. You cannot legislate on the assumption that there may at some time in the future be no control, so we should disarm the populace so they can only beat eachother with sticks.

Id like to say again that this whole thread is disgusting. The left has wasted no time in trying to score cheap political points off of this human tradgedy. Shame on you.

[Ser Clegane]

Those people in New Orleans do not have those guns legally.

How do you know?

[Goofball]

Those people in New Orleans do not have those guns legally. You cannot make a gun control argument based on a situation where laws are not enforced.

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.

[Strike For The South]

The reason there sending the troops is because there are now armed gangs committing acts of rape looting and in some cases murder. and I believe the troops will be able to tell the deference. As for everything thats going on down there its really not a reflection on americas culture if this happened say in Boston the looting would be allot less. There are 2 main reasons why looting is happening. The people who stayed behind are the poorest in america and many really don't have any sense of morals and they believe this is there chance to get back at the man so to speak and bad for every 1 looter there are probaly 10 people just trying to get out. As for gun control well if Im in NO and there armed gangs (90% of whom probaly purchased there weapons illegally) trying to break in to my home I should be armed as well

[Adrian II]

There are 2 main reasons why looting is happening. The people who stayed behind are the poorest in america and many really don't have any sense of morals and they believe this is there chance to get back at the man so to speak (..)

Point taken. So social cohesion was much less in New Orleans than in many other American cities to begin with.

[Strike For The South]

Point taken. So social cohesion was much less in New Orleans than in many other American cities to begin with.

not as whole but most of the people that were left behind have nothing to begin with and social cohesion means nothing when these people see free things. sad really

[Adrian II]

not as whole but most of the people that were left behind have nothing to begin with and social cohesion means nothing when these people see free things. sad really

Well I guess that figures. And maybe the behaviour of looters and armed gangs wouldn't be much different from their usual routine, so what we are witnessing is not a breakdown in cohesion, just a breakdown in public order.

[Redleg]

Point taken. So social cohesion was much less in New Orleans than in many other American cities to begin with.

Lets put it this way - the city is somewhere close to 75% black when I last saw a racial makeup statistic.

It has a major history of corruption in the city law enforcement and even in its administration.

There is still a lot of racial tension between the whites and the blacks. From my experience its done at all levels of the society - not only the rich but the poor.

And coupled with the emotions of likely feeling abandoned by their government (and I do mean all three levels of government - city, state, and federal) which I would have to agree with them - some would have a tendency to go to an extreme in a crisis situation like they are facing.

[Del Arroyo]

Lets put it this way - the city is somewhere close to 75% black when I last saw a racial makeup statistic.

It has a major history of corruption in the city law enforcement and even in its administration.

There is still a lot of racial tension between the whites and the blacks. From my experience its done at all levels of the society - not only the rich but the poor.

And coupled with the emotions of likely feeling abandoned by their government (and I do mean all three levels of government - city, state, and federal) which I would have to agree with them - some would have a tendency to go to an extreme in a crisis situation like they are facing.

Honestly, I think we're going on all over all different sides of the issue and missing one critical factor in the current chaos-- New Orleans is full of black people. And not your up-and-coming, move-out-to-the-suburbs, comb-your-hair-nice black people. We're talking hard-core, ghetto-style, kept-down-by-the-man black people.

The upside is great music and local "flavor"-- right now we're witnessing the downside.

Not that they're all violent trouble-makers-- far from it-- but it only takes a few, and anyone thinking logically about New Orleans would have realized there would be more than enough.

And no, you'd have to be stupid to think that this kind of behavior is characteristic of mainstream America. This is simply the price we all (and a number of other nations in the hemisphere) pay for past slavery and segregation.

Interestingly, the current situation actually does make a pretty good argument for gun control-- if you think it's full-time criminals who are doing the bulk of the current looting and raping, you're deluded. It's people who before the disaster were ordinary, employed, peaceful citizens. Poor maybe, occasional thiefs maybe, but not career criminals.

Gun control DOES work to the extent that it limits guns only to the most determined, professional criminals. Houligan rabble in Britain don't bring guns to the party.

And as far as shooting to kill the looters, I say shoot away. After only three days you're not hungry enough to NEED to steal. And if you're doing it armed, you're asking to be shot regardless.

I doubt the National Guard will be taking too many shots at hapless mothers trying to scrounge a morsel for their suckling babes. I would wager such women are probably more concerned right now with finding a good place to hide.

DA

[Redleg]

Louisiana Governor Blanco has announced that new National Guard troops are taking up stations in parts of New Orleans and that their M-16's are 'locked and loaded'. These troops apparently include 300 soldiers from the Arkansas National Guard who are 'fresh in from Iraq' and 'more than willing to kill if necessary'.

Is that a quote from the governor or is it embilisment on your part.

There will be sighs of relief from the 'it's-about-time'ers', but to me this sounds like a signal to the outside world more than to the looters, who are probably not listening to news reports anyway or only incidentally. And it would seem that these combat troops will have great trouble distinguishing between between looters and people who 'steal' in order to stay alive. Technically, the difference has now become very small and 'righteous looters' could soon be fighting Arkansas crack troops in the streets of New Orleans.

Technically speaking any looting is consider looting - be it for survival or profit. Since you used the word technically - one needs to be sure of thier word use.

From Webster's

a : to plunder or sack in war b : to rob especially on a large scale and usually by violence or corruption
2 : to seize and carry away by force especially in war
intransitive senses : to engage in robbing or plundering especially in war

What are we to make of a situation where a government is forced to send in crack combat troops to control rescue operations and protect rescue workers from armed gangs and frustrated citizens taking potshots at them?

That the government of several levels screwed up

Until now I have refrained from comments about American gun control and gun culture, but it becomes more difficult by the day. Guns don't kill rescue workers, but their availability is a real plague on top of all the other issues in this situation.

Gun control does not keep weapons out of the hands of people who are going to use them for criminal purposes.

As I said elsewhere, there is a marked difference between the reaction of the Turkish people to the August 1999 Izmit earthquake which destroyed entire cities and regions and that of Americans in the face of this New Orleans disaster. There was very little looting going on in Turkey and there were almost no fights between security forces and citizens. All efforts seemed to be geared toward rescuing and supporting the victims. It may have been quite important in this respect that the Turkish government immediately deployed 50.000 troops to prevent looting and black-marketeering as well as support the rescue operations. But I wonder if that explains everything. From what I hear from Turkish friends there was more cohesion than ever before in Turkish society, even between Turks and Kurds, not less.

Yep - however again shall I mention again that in the United States and several of the laws passed by Congress prevent such an action being done by the Federal Government here. I am sure some changes are coming to the Federal response system based upon this crisis.

Anyway, what do I know about New Orleans other than some things I saw on a visit years ago? Any Americans ready to face the gun control music at this stage?

Not at all - it seems again that weapons are being used by individuals who are either faced with desperation (to protect themselves in some aspects) or from those who have criminal intentions.

[Adrian II]

Is that a quote from the governor or is it embilisment on your part.

From Reuters:

"These troops are battle-tested. They have M-16s and are locked and loaded," Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco said on Thursday night of one group of 300 National Guard troops being deployed here after recent duty in Iraq. "These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will."

I know 50.000 troops on hte ground could have made a huge difference, as it probably did in Turkey even though nearly all of them were employed in rescue and logistics operations there and practically none in policing, let alone 'combat'.

[Redleg]

From Reuters:

"These troops are battle-tested. They have M-16s and are locked and loaded," Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco said on Thursday night of one group of 300 National Guard troops being deployed here after recent duty in Iraq. "These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will."

So a little emblishment (SP) on your part it seems - that is a far cry from the orginal statement of

'more than willing to kill if necessary'

Put a nice attempt at spin toward your point.

I know 50.000 troops on hte ground could have made a huge difference, as it probably did in Turkey even though nearly all of them were employed in rescue and logistics operations there and practically none in policing, let alone 'combat'.

Considering that Lousiana has a enhanced Seperate Infantry Brigade (Mechinazed) the governor of the state had the option of activiting the Guard to prepare for the necessity of immediate response.

[Adrian II]

So a little emblishment (SP) on your part it seems - that is a far cry from the orginal statement of 'more than willing to kill if necessary'. Put a nice attempt at spin toward your point.

This is nit-picking at its worst, Redleg. I try to come to grips with a situation in New Orleans that largely eludes me. My choice of words may not be perfect, but I am not, I repeat not, putting a 'nice spin' on other peoples' misery.

[Redleg]

This is nit-picking at its worst, Redleg.

Your choice of words to make a point was taking the governor's statement out of context. However if you chose to believe I am just nit-picking - that is fine but ask yourself this question.

'more than willing to kill if necessary'

or did she state

These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will."



One statement implies that the soldiers are willing to kill their fellow citizens

the other states that they know how to fight and she suspects that they just might have to.

Notice the difference. Your making an assumpting that soldiers of the United States are more then willing to kill their fellow citizens - something that I doubt they are willing to do. Not nit-picking at all - but correcting your attempt use a diaster and spin it into an arguement for gun control.

Oh by the way I must correct myself

Considering that Lousiana has a enhanced Seperate Infantry Brigade (Mechinazed) the governor of the state had the option of activiting the Guard to prepare for the necessity of immediate response

It seems that the state does not have their Seperate Infantry Brigade - since its been deployed to Iraq. Which makes it a even bigger failure in coordination and response by not only the state - but the Federal Government since the immediate first response ability of the state was cut roughly in half when the unit was deployed to Iraq

[English assassin]

Gun control does not keep weapons out of the hands of people who are going to use them for criminal purposes.

As Meneldil points out, this is flat not true. We have very tight, maybe too tight, gun control in the UK. Far far fewer of our criminals carry guns than in the states. Of course, you can believe those facts are unconnected if you like...

I do not belittle the difficulty of evacuating a city of, what is it, about a million people. If we had to evacute Birmingham, I dare say some people would behave badly and there might be some looting. The difference is they would not be able to shoot at helicopters and it wouldn't require troops with assault rifles to restore order.

On the relief effort generally, I am also almost reaching the end of the "oh well its all very difficult you have to make allowances" stage and almost at the "Is it just me or is this so called rescue and relief effort a complete and utter shambles".

I'm also thinking that these images of very poor black people wading through sewage and begging for food, water, and someone to restore order aren't exactly going to help race relations in the US...especially taken with the talk that all their homes may need to be bulldozed and then not rebuilt.

[Petrus]

From Reuters:

"These troops are battle-tested. They have M-16s and are locked and loaded," Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco said on Thursday night of one group of 300 National Guard troops being deployed here after recent duty in Iraq. "These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will."

I know 50.000 troops on hte ground could have made a huge difference, as it probably did in Turkey even though nearly all of them were employed in rescue and logistics operations there and practically none in policing, let alone 'combat'.

I do not think it is possible to estimate the situation with the elements we possess, at least concerning violence.

The images and reports are catastrophic but it does not appear someone knows what's happening.

So are street warfare, rapes, free shooting really happening in the New Orleans now?

And if it is the case, at which scale?

Those elements remain to be verified before any statement can be made in my opinion.

What can be noted is the total disorganization and the absolute lack of reaction of the authorities in charge.

Thats is what i think to be the most 'strange', i can think of no other words : how can they, after several days of absolute mess and lack of initiative, take the decision to send the army into a devastated city, while making understand the soldiers are there to make war 'if necessary'?

This is a real gap of culture concerning fire arms and the use of violence in my opinion, what can they hope of this type of decision?

Is there really in the US a kind of general idea that big guns with men ready to use them is the ultimate solution, or something like that?

Is it possible that US citizen will accept that the only concrete decision taken by their representants can be to use violence against persons that do not have anything to drink and that have been living a hell since several days?

The term is not appropriate but isn't it a glorification of violence and weapons to mask the inability to react in a positive manner?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Is it possible that US citizen will accept that the only concrete decision taken by their representants can be to use violence against persons that do not have anything to drink and that have been living a hell since several days?

Thats not what thier talking about and you know it. Robbing jewlery stores and clothing stores doesnt keep you alive or is it needed to do so. No one is advocating harming people for the reasons you stated.

Thats is what i think to be the most 'strange', i can think of no other words : how can they, after several days of absolute mess and lack of initiative, take the decision to send the army into a devastated city, while making understand the soldiers are there to make war 'if necessary'?

If they could have sent them in sooner things wouldnt be as bad as the are now. I heard a guy from the 82nd airborn on the radio just back from Iraq the otherday saying he wished they would send him down there as he knew how to treat looters. These are criminals not some poor person trying to survive.

[Adrian II]

If they could have sent them in sooner things wouldnt be as bad as the are now. I heard a guy from the 82nd airborn on the radio just back from Iraq the otherday saying he wished they would send him down there as he knew how to treat looters. These are criminals not some poor person trying to survive.

One person's deserving poor is another person's looter. I have a better idea. Why don't you have those Chinook helicopters dump guns and ammo from Army stocks all over New Orleans so everybody can defend themselves against everybody else?

[Petrus]

Robbing jewlery stores and clothing stores doesnt keep you alive or is it needed to do so.

Robing an innocuped clothing store does not kill anyone, either, and i think american citizen are dying in the New Orleans now, so what is necessary, taking decisions to save lifes or take decisions to protect clothing property?

If they could have sent them in sooner things wouldnt be as bad as the are now. I heard a guy from the 82nd airborn on the radio just back from Iraq the otherday saying he wished they would send him down there as he knew how to treat looters. These are criminals not some poor person trying to survive.

I have no doubt that might a military deployment have occured sooner, cloth shops would have been better protected but i thought this situation mainly concerned citizen's life - do you have some sort of special feeling with clothing?

My questions in the previous post are serious, your are wrong to treat them as a debate, they reflect impressions i have and things i would like to understand, i am not trying to play the game of who has the biggest dick, you know.

If you can be honnest and can answer a question without looking for bolchevist statement, don't you think it would be better to have, instead of wild supermaket looting, an organized distribution of supermaket goods under the protection of the authorities?