NationStates Jolt Archive

Here I am, back with my gun control proposals. I've been reading about Hurricane Katrina and it's effect on New Orleans, and it seems to me that there are certain individuals and groups stomping around the place raping, shooting and looting, all with the help of legally owned firearms. A man even began to snipe at hospital patients, causing the doctor to evacuate the sick from the area. It's when law and order breaks down and people are desperate to receive aid or be evacuated from a place that men and women with guns rule the roost. They can loot shops without competition, they can rape people who are too distressed to carry guns, psycopaths can even shoot at complete strangers without hindrance or fear. Even the National Guard is too scared to get into some parts of the city.
THis would never happen in the UK. Unfortunately, knives are no use at long range, and don't tell me that you could throw a baseball bat at a passing helecopter.
I know that some of you are going to say 'This is how life would be if only criminals have guns'. Just remember that 80% of these looters ect. were probably never criminals before the Hurricane. However, when they have a gun in their hand and nobody else does they are in control of the situation, and that can bring out the worst in people. If they weren't able to legaly get firearms, then many of them would join the line to be evacuated.

wow. that's good. keep that point; show it to lots n lots of people.

i better get a gun in case one of those hurricanes comes to me! (it''d have to go backwards, btw; west-coaster am i)

whew, 2 semicolons!

The gunstores were looted. Those are legal firearms obtained illegally. Other folks are using guns to stop looters, protect their businesses and even assist law enforcement in maintaining law and order.

As for many of them joining the line to be evacuated, they didnt evacuate in the first place because they didnt have the means to. Not because they figured "OMG THE CITY IS EMPTY AND I GOT MES A GUN!" This arguement is pretty hollow because all you have to do is look a rioting mob to realize you dont need a gun to loot, and you sure as hell dont need a gun to be lawless. In this sort of case anything can be made a weapon. And in this sort of case mob rule is what would control the streets if guns werent around in NO.

wow. that's good. keep that point; show it to lots n lots of people.

i better get a gun in case one of those hurricanes comes to me! (it''d have to go backwards, btw; west-coaster am i)

whew, 2 semicolons!
Are you mentally impaired?

Are you mentally impaired?


er, sometimes at this hour.

The gunstores were looted. Those are legal firearms obtained illegally. Other folks are using guns to stop looters, protect their businesses and even assist law enforcement in maintaining law and order.

As for many of them joining the line to be evacuated, they didnt evacuate in the first place because they didnt have the means to. Not because they figured "OMG THE CITY IS EMPTY AND I GOT MES A GUN!" This arguement is pretty hollow because all you have to do is look a rioting mob to realize you dont need a gun to loot, and you sure as hell dont need a gun to be lawless. In this sort of case anything can be made a weapon. And in this sort of case mob rule is what would control the streets if guns werent around in NO.

Most New Orleaners (?) would already have guns, by looting the gun stoors they could just add a shiny new firearm to their collection. Granted there are people with guns guarding their shops and homes, but most of the remaining citizens just want to get out of the city. It's gun rule in New Orleans, those with the means to kill have the power to rape people making their way around, and snipe at people in the street. A knife would be almost uneffective, you cant snipe at peoople with a sharp stick or challenge the NG with a broom-handle.

Here I am, back with my gun control proposals. I've been reading about Hurricane Katrina and it's effect on New Orleans, and it seems to me that there are certain individuals and groups stomping around the place raping, shooting and looting, all with the help of legally owned firearms. A man even began to snipe at hospital patients, causing the doctor to evacuate the sick from the area. It's when law and order breaks down and people are desperate to receive aid or be evacuated from a place that men and women with guns rule the roost. They can loot shops without competition, they can rape people who are too distressed to carry guns, psycopaths can even shoot at complete strangers without hindrance or fear. Even the National Guard is too scared to get into some parts of the city.
THis would never happen in the UK. Unfortunately, knives are no use at long range, and don't tell me that you could throw a baseball bat at a passing helecopter.
I know that some of you are going to say 'This is how life would be if only criminals have guns'. Just remember that 80% of these looters ect. were probably never criminals before the Hurricane. However, when they have a gun in their hand and nobody else does they are in control of the situation, and that can bring out the worst in people. If they weren't able to legaly get firearms, then many of them would join the line to be evacuated.

wrong...most guns used there were illegal and or stolen.

sorry...your logic fails me...let crimminals with guns run the street...all the while you are defenseless because the gov. is too busy saving people to protect my family from the looters?

thanks but i will rely on me to defend my family from armed thugs while the government is busy actually trying to save drowning people,and are too busy to protect me...lest you forget...weapons can be fashioned quite easily...let alone the mob stealing them from walmart...plus..to answer your next question:what if there was no walmart"..why did half the cops turn in there badges today?because a mob surrounded a police station...i dont want to be next in line.
if you want to be defenseless..god bless you...and good luck..not me.

wrong...most guns used there were illegal and or stolen.

sorry...your logic fails me...let crimminals with guns run the street...all the while you are defenseless because the gov. is too busy saving people to protect my family from the looters?

thanks but i will rely on me to defend my family from armed thugs while the government is busy actually trying to save drowning people,and are too busy to protect me...lest you forget...weapons can be fashioned quite easily...let alone the mob stealing them from walmart...plus..to answer your next question:what if there was no walmart"..why did half the cops turn in there badges today?because a mob surrounded a police station...i dont want to be next in line.
if you want to be defenseless..god bless you...and good luck..not me.

Look, it's not my problem. If a flood ever hit London there would be little looting or raping, as few londoners carry offensive weapons and there are no weapons stores to be raided. People would stick together for protection and make their way out of the city. So whilst you're defending your family from an armed guy, just remember that there would be less chaos in a simmilar situation in Western Europe.

all the business in NO has firmly convinced me that I should go out and splurge on a shiny new gun (plus they're neat as hell.)

Lets just admit it, guns are big, loud, shiny, they make you feel like you have ten pound balls, and they go well with beer.

=)

Look, it's not my problem. If a flood ever hit London there would be little looting or raping, as few londoners carry offensive weapons and there are no weapons stores to be raided. People would stick together for protection and make their way out of the city. So whilst you're defending your family from an armed guy, just remember that there would be less chaos in a simmilar situation in Western Europe.

When was the last time a European city of some 1 million hit by a major storm, and then just 15 hours after that storm entirely flooded? You dont know as a fact that most New Orleaners have guns. That smacks of sterotyping. Infact its incredibly hard to get a firearm in a US Urban center legally. It doesnt happen unless you own a business.

And lets not BS over this natural disaster bit, Western Europeans riot over soccer matches and you want to pass off this we're superior because we dont allow guns crap? Your logic fails again simply because this happens in all disasters...after the December South West Pacific tragedy several folks in the Scandanavian countries were arrested for identity theft of those people who were on vacation and missing. And nothing even happened in those countries but people are opportunists by nature.

It's when law and order breaks down and people are desperate to receive aid or be evacuated from a place that men and women with guns rule the roost. They can loot shops without competition, they can rape people who are too distressed to carry guns, psycopaths can even shoot at complete strangers without hindrance or fear.


Or law-abiding citizens can use their firearms to defend their lives and property from the criminals described above:

--------------------
John Carolan was sitting on his porch in the thick, humid darkness just before midnight Tuesday when three or four young men, one with a knife and another with a machete, stopped in front of his fence and pointed to the generator humming in the front yard, he said.

One said, "We want that generator," he recalled.

"I fired a couple of rounds over their heads with a .357 Magnum," Mr. Carolan recounted Wednesday. "They scattered."
...
Paul Cosma, 47, who owns a nearby auto shop, stood outside it along with a reporter and photographer he was taking around the neighborhood. He had pistols on both hips.

Suddenly, he stepped forward toward a trio of young men and grabbed a pair of rusty bolt cutters out of the hands of one of them. The young man pulled back, glaring.

Mr. Cosma, never claiming any official status, eventually jerked the bolt cutters away, saying, "You don't need these."

The young man and his friends left, continuing the glare. A few minutes later, they returned and mouthed quiet oaths at Mr. Cosma, and his friend Art DePodesta, an Army veteran, who was carrying a shotgun and a pistol.

Mr. Cosma stared back, saying nothing. Between the two sides, a steady trickle of looters came and went, barely giving any of them a look.
--------------------
( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/01/national/nationalspecial/01lawless.html?ex=1283227200&en=c11fb920c4fd74f6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss )


Yes, firearms can be abused and misused as tools of crime and chaos. This is why we need police and government to help keep order, to catch and punish criminals who violate the rights of others. But firearms, in the hands of the law-abiding citizen, are used to protect life, liberty and property. It is especially vital that the law-abiding citizen have access to the tools of self-defense when the police and government are unable to come to their defense.

Most of the firearms were looted >.>

i think the point is that if you DON'T have an opourtinity to obtain weapons, they sure as hell don't sell firearms in the stores here, you DON'T end up with people looting them.

So great, you end up with a situation where you want a gun cos the guy over there has a big stick, then he gets a gun to match yours, pretty soon you're stuck in the bind that police are in, being that they need to get bigger and bigger weapons because the criminals are getting bigger and bigger weapons.

If you draw the line in the hunting shops at the knifes and fishing rods then you don't have to worry about people carrying weapons... self defence..lol..there is nobody who can pull a knife on someone in their own kitchen and be intimidating, everyone knows where they keep the big one.

i think the point is that if you DON'T have an opourtinity to obtain weapons, they sure as hell don't sell firearms in the stores here, you DON'T end up with people looting them.

So great, you end up with a situation where you want a gun cos the guy over there has a big stick, then he gets a gun to match yours, pretty soon you're stuck in the bind that police are in, being that they need to get bigger and bigger weapons because the criminals are getting bigger and bigger weapons.

If you draw the line in the hunting shops at the knifes and fishing rods then you don't have to worry about people carrying weapons... self defence..lol..there is nobody who can pull a knife on someone in their own kitchen and be intimidating, everyone knows where they keep the big one.

Again, rioting, and mob rule doesnt require firearms. Tell me when those soccer matches get out of control and they need riot cops to come break them up how many of those rioters carry pistols? Whenever there is a G8 summit in Europe and you common Europeans foam at the mouth over it how many of you carry firearms and yet still manage to loot and cause property damage in the extreme? Countless riots have taken place without widespread use of firearms and have lasted days. Saying not having guns would make them not happen is once again ignoring the human nature to be opportunistic. And its also being naive.

#1. The prisons were literally emptied into the streets, so there you have your shooters.

#2. Gun shops were looted, so don't even claim that these were legal weapons.

#3. I am not worried about the police or the military, they are armed and trained and can protect themselves from muggers, looters and even 'bangers taking poorly aimed shots at helicopters too far away to be hit.

#4. Unarmed civilians cannot.

#5. It has taken over four days for the troops in the area to recieve any ROE that could save lives. It has up to this point looked like a UN presence; useless and for nothing but show. The people have been on their own.

#6. If you disarm the populace, like in the UK (HAHA - sorry) they will be at the mercy of those with clubs and knives and machetes. That is just fact. Criminals are already banned from touching firearms, taking mine away because he might steal it is a travesty of justice. Shame on you. What do you want the people to do, get their own machete and have a swordfight in front of their shop? Thanks, but I'll take my SKS.

#7. A gun is a tool. Like all tools it can be used properly, like all tools it can be used improperly and again, like all tools it can be misused. Besides misusing them, 99% of criminals show an amazing lack of skill or ability with a firearm. A legally armed civilian is free to practice at a range whenever he wants, has access to rifles and shotguns which beat the shit out of a criminals handgun, can keep their weapon and their skills tuned and in check. A criminal has no place to practice, rarely uses anything more effective than a concealable handgun and must use whatever weapon and ammunition is on hand; its probably second rate. You see the clear advantage an armed, law abiding citizenry has over any criminal element.

#8. Finally, and most importantly, it is ironic that I read this at this moment. I'm looking at what you would call an arsenal. You see, I have been cleaning my guns... I know that if someone tried to loot my home or that of my neighbors, all they would get is a load of buckshot. I have no time for people that would try to disarm me, using the excuse that there are others out there trying to do me harm with their own guns. I say all the more reason to keep mine.

I think it's morally reprehensible for you (the OP) to use the tragedy in NO to bolster your own agenda. Shame on you.

Maybe so, but I think he has a point. I doubt that anything like we see in New Orleans would happen anywhere in Europe - and by that I'm thinking about the "armed gangs in the streets" and the "police stations where all the police are doing are defending themselves" as are at the present time reported by the CNN.

But even more disturbing is the reports of people forcing their way onto busses and helicopters at gunpoint. As far as I can tell from the reports, these people are not members of gangs or "ordinary" criminals, but people who are desperate to get to safety and will resort to any means to accomplish that.

By the way, when does the "law-abiding citizens" become criminals? The answer is easy: When they break the law. And so the question becomes: Are all the law-abiding citizens who own guns immune to the temtations and the desperation that follows such a disaster as this? Well, I don't think so. However, also I believe that frustrated and scared people with guns can be very dangerous. Even law-abiding citizens with legally owned guns.

Am I "pro- or anti-gun"? Well, that's a different discussion...

When was the last time a European city of some 1 million hit by a major storm, and then just 15 hours after that storm entirely flooded? You dont know as a fact that most New Orleaners have guns. That smacks of sterotyping. Infact its incredibly hard to get a firearm in a US Urban center legally. It doesnt happen unless you own a business.

And lets not BS over this natural disaster bit, Western Europeans riot over soccer matches and you want to pass off this we're superior because we dont allow guns crap? Your logic fails again simply because this happens in all disasters...after the December South West Pacific tragedy several folks in the Scandanavian countries were arrested for identity theft of those people who were on vacation and missing. And nothing even happened in those countries but people are opportunists by nature.


Its seems like you're wasting your breath on this one. His "legal" gun theory is already in the toilet. He's really just another opportunist trying to assert his culture is better than the US, specualting that his people would be better behaved under the same circumstances. The soccer match hooligans pretty much put and end to that too.

Most of the firearms were looted >.>


People with functioning minds are aware of this, OP cant seem to absorb it.

If you draw the line in the hunting shops at the knifes and fishing rods then you don't have to worry about people carrying weapons... self defence..lol..there is nobody who can pull a knife on someone in their own kitchen and be intimidating, everyone knows where they keep the big one.
Guns are for more than hunting. The whole reason I think there even is a second amendment right to own guns is because our forefathers weren't to far off to remember what it was like to live under oppresive government. You would have to wonder what kind of defense you would have with a fishing pole when everything went to crap and you needed to stand up for yourself. I can say that the majority of the people who own guns where I live are neither hunters or criminals. To characterize gun owners as bad people because some people with guns are socially inept and morally bankrupt is a very general opinion and just isn't logical or fair.

we need to remember that just becuase guns are legal there people wont use them to commit crimes. Take switzerland, every man of military age is REQUIRED to keep a gun in his house, yet they have one of the lowest murder rates in europe.

Maybe so, but I think he has a point. I doubt that anything like we see in New Orleans would happen anywhere in Europe - and by that I'm thinking about the "armed gangs in the streets" and the "police stations where all the police are doing are defending themselves" as are at the present time reported by the CNN.

Because as we all know, crime is a myth in europe.

wrong...most guns used there were illegal and or stolen.

I've been thinking about this. If most guns used illegally are stolen, how does that support letting people have guns? No one can steal guns and use them illegally if no one has a gun to begin with.

Again, rioting, and mob rule doesnt require firearms. Tell me when those soccer matches get out of control and they need riot cops to come break them up how many of those rioters carry pistols? Whenever there is a G8 summit in Europe and you common Europeans foam at the mouth over it how many of you carry firearms and yet still manage to loot and cause property damage in the extreme? Countless riots have taken place without widespread use of firearms and have lasted days. Saying not having guns would make them not happen is once again ignoring the human nature to be opportunistic. And its also being naive.

So is your point that anarchy with guns is the same as a riot without guns?

I think you're overestimating the spread and duration of European riots - they are very very unusual (yes, even football riots only happen occasionally) and there is very rarely anyone badly injured or killed. That doesn't make it OK, but it doesn't make it like NO right now, either.

outside of someone living in a rural area, where owning a rifle coud be used for hunting, what is the point of having a gun?

would be interest to know.
Oh and the argument about self-defence makes no sense to me. Having lived un the UK and Spain, having the IRA and ETA running around blowing people up has not made me more fearful of my life or made the average citizen want a gun/etc for defence.

Because as we all know, crime is a myth in europe.

Ah, I see you deftly avoided my point and my arguement. :rolleyes:

Nope, crime is very real in Europe as it is everywhere, but I am talking about reactions to a disaster such as this. As there are less guns in private hands in Europe, the probability of armed gangs taking control of the streats, snipers shooting at rescue-helicopters, and car-jackings at gunpoint would naturally be much lower.

It might also be easier for the police to regain order and control as they have the possibility of arming themselves and backing their authority with the threat of force, instead of the risk of starting gunfights.

Eurasia and Oceana you make an excellent point. I don't like guns, I have never used one but unfortunately it will take something so much worse than Katrina to change the gun laws in the US.

Ah, I see you deftly avoided my point and my arguement. :rolleyes:

Nope, crime is very real in Europe as it is everywhere, but I am talking about reactions to a disaster such as this. As there are less guns in private hands in Europe, the probability of armed gangs taking control of the streats, snipers shooting at rescue-helicopters, and car-jackings at gunpoint would naturally be much lower.

It might also be easier for the police to regain order and control as they have the possibility of arming themselves and backing their authority with the threat of force, instead of the risk of starting gunfights.

I agree wholeheartedly.
You only have to look at Boscastle from last August - I don't remember hoardes of Cornishmen roaming the streets with lack-of-real-manhood-compensating weaponry...

we need to remember that just becuase guns are legal there people wont use them to commit crimes. Take switzerland, every man of military age is REQUIRED to keep a gun in his house, yet they have one of the lowest murder rates in europe.

Actually, that is not true. Switzerland has the third highest gun murder rate in the world in proportion to population.

we need to remember that just becuase guns are legal there people wont use them to commit crimes. Take switzerland, every man of military age is REQUIRED to keep a gun in his house, yet they have one of the lowest murder rates in europe.

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun.html

Although it's true that all Swiss males are subject to compulsory military service and every solidier is required to keep their service weapon(s) at home, that does not equate to there being a full-auto weapon in every Swiss home. Let's do the math:

Swiss army size: 400,000 (Source: The Swiss Transportation Troops ) (In 1995 the size of the Swiss army was reduced to 400,000 from 625,000.)

Swiss households: 2.8 million (Source: Swiss Statistics)

400,000 full-auto weapons / 2.8 million households = 14 per cent of Swiss households have a full-auto weapon in them. (With the 625,000 figure, it is 22 per cent.) This represents a maximum figure since a household could contain more than one soldier.

· Sure, Swiss citizens have full-auto weapons, but all ammunition is strictly accounted for and must remain in a sealed container until the reservist reports for duty.

yes, i have, i have also checked that although all ammunition is supposed to be kept at firing ranges, this is a law that is almost never enforced.

""Swiss military ammo must be registered if bought at a private store, but need not be registered if bought at a range. The nation's 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition. Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed." In other words, Swiss reservists are free to purchase, possess, and use military ammunition outside the context of direct military service. "

I think what we are forgetting here is that the response from the authorities was slow, so what were the people of New Orleans to think? It may have felt like the world had forgotten them, so they truned to guns through lack of alternatives. That doesnt excuse the looters who are firing on police, national guard etc, but can we really say what we would do in Europe or elsewhere if people seemed to be doing nothing about the fact that 80% of your city was submerged in water and nearly destroyed?

This thread has got me really confused. Could someone tell me the difference, in practical terms, between a crazed looter shooting at a policeman with a gun he has obtained LEGALLY and one who just nicked it ILLEGALLY off his neighbour or from a gunshop? Because a lot of people seem to be trying to make this distinction a defence for having guns common within the civilian population. Surely they both kill policemen just as well and both contribute to preventing aid being distributed through fear of violence?

Wow people really are overstating riots at football mathces. My dad (reader in the local church for the past 20years btw before you judge him) has been a Millwall fan all his life and his dad before him etc etc that's brcause it's the local team. Now Millwall supporters have a reputation for starting trouble and riots and i went to a game last year against liverpool. 3 people form my stands got into the liverpool stnads and there was the most almighty punch up. When I got to the grounds that evening I had never seen so many policemen in my entire life. This is posting an awful picture but I am saying that guns in the hands of ordinary people in these times isn't the brightest idea. Yes when the founding fathers decided it was a good idea it probably was, there weren't as many people, times were rougher, more people lived in places where there could be wild animals. Gun were a necessity. But now, who needs a gun? The ame cicumstances don't exist. I'd give the police having guns my full support but normal people- you cal the police if there's an intruder find a cricket bat (oh sorry baseball bat) and smack the intruder round the head. If gun's cannot be bought or sold (no matter how difficult it is to obtain one) then it is less likely your looter/burglar will have a gun.

The issues in NO are incredible and almost unbelievable but crises do strange things to people who wouldn't normally hurt a fly. I'm hoping that there'll be a huge public enquirey or something as to why on earth these people weren't rescued BEFORE Katrina hit and why the emergency plans that should be in place seem to be missing.

The gunstores were looted. Those are legal firearms obtained illegally. Other folks are using guns to stop looters, protect their businesses and even assist law enforcement in maintaining law and order.


Ummm... Unless the gun stores only opened recently it is reasonale to presume that they have been selling guns for a long time, and their current stock represents a fraction of the guns that have passed through the store (unless the store isreally rubbish and going out of business). So some of the firearms will have been looted, but the majority of firearms in NO were purchesed from the same shops over the preceeding years.

Ummm... Unless the gun stores only opened recently it is reasonale to presume that they have been selling guns for a long time, and their current stock represents a fraction of the guns that have passed through the store (unless the store isreally rubbish and going out of business). So some of the firearms will have been looted, but the majority of firearms in NO were purchesed from the same shops over the preceeding years.

The point is that most of the firearms used by the looters and released criminals were looted or stolen. There are quite a few people w/ legal firearms defending themselves/families/posessions.

The point is that most of the firearms used by the looters and released criminals were looted or stolen. There are quite a few people w/ legal firearms defending themselves/families/posessions.
But WHY is that the point? How does it make any difference where they got them from?

The point is that most of the firearms used by the looters and released criminals were looted or stolen. There are quite a few people w/ legal firearms defending themselves/families/posessions.
So all guns being used are illegal are stolen, therefore they were gotten by legal means, therefore if all guns are removed and forbidden to be sold no one will have guns THUS preventing criminals from getting guns illegally.

So all guns being used are illegal are stolen, therefore they were gotten by legal means, therefore if all guns are removed and forbidden to be sold no one will have guns THUS preventing criminals from getting guns illegally.

So there is no gun crime in the UK?

There would also be no defense against the criminals as they roam in packs w/ or w/o firearms raping/looting/and murdering.

It is still a FACT that more crimes are prevented in the US by people w/ firearms than committed by criminals w/ them.

But WHY is that the point? How does it make any difference where they got them from?

Why because the original poster has attempted to claim that all of the looting and crime is being committed by people w/ legally owned firearms.

There would also be no defense against the criminals as they roam in packs w/ or w/o firearms raping/looting/and murdering.

That's what the armed police/ army are for in a situation like this, a task that they are unable to carry out in New Orleans because half the civilian populace is armed as well as they are. Accordingly they have to yield large areas of the city to looters while people ARE left at the mercy of packs of looter and no aid can get to them because people keep shooting at their helicopters.

Why because the original poster has attempted to claim that all of the looting and crime is being committed by people w/ legally owned firearms.
Yes but the guns WERE legally owned. That has never been in question. They WERE legally owned by gun shops and individuals but now are being used to shhot at policemen.

You know what's amazing to me is that so many of the anti-gun people around this board are not even American. Our stance on gun control doesn't affect non-Americans, so why do you complain about it?

Americans who have problems with America's gun control laws are one thing. And they deserve to be heard as much as anyone else in America. But non-Americans don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to debating what's best for America.

That's what the armed police/ army are for in a situation like this, a task that they are unable to carry out in New Orleans because half the civilian populace is armed as well as they are. Accordingly they have to yield large areas of the city to looters while people ARE left at the mercy of packs of looter and no aid can get to them because people keep shooting at their helicopters.

The police dropped the ball and the Army took several days to get there.

And once again, its the CRIMINALS who are shooting, not the ones legally owning the guns. Would it have been any better if they had looted the police stations? (and I'm sure they have)

Would you have disarmed all the other people against the gangs?

So there is no gun crime in the UK?

There would also be no defense against the criminals as they roam in packs w/ or w/o firearms raping/looting/and murdering.

It is still a FACT that more crimes are prevented in the US by people w/ firearms than committed by criminals w/ them.

Actually, there is considerably less gun crime in the UK. In the US it's like 10,000 plus per year. In the UK it's like 100.

They could use knives or other sharp pointy things.

And it is still a FACT that more crimes are comitted with guns than without them.

The fact that the guns are actually being used in the way they are is just crazy. Had there been no gun shops in the firstplace, i would guess that there would be far less gun crime than right now.

Yes but the guns WERE legally owned. That has never been in question. They WERE legally owned by gun shops and individuals but now are being used to shhot at policemen.

and CRIMINALS broke the law (go figure) and obtained some firearms. They would still have been looting/raping/murdering w/o them.

WITH legally owned firearms, the people who actually follow the law can defend themselves.

The percentage of criminals using them is still minute compared to the amount of Law Abiding Citizens.

I've seen videos of New Orleans police in uniform doing looting.

Don't make the idiotic assumption that just because someone is in a uniform or is an authorized public servant that they somehow have the morals, ethics, and predisposition to use a firearm for the common good.

There is a reason that I own a pistol and an assault rifle and keep several thousand rounds of ammunition, as well as all the military kit needed to carry a basic load of nearly 600 rounds.

You're looking at the inability of the local or regional government to maintain order. What would you have me do while I'm waiting for a helicopter to come get me - let the rapists and looters and murderers have their way with me?

Personally, if I was in that situation, I would have killed in order to protect my life and property. With absolutely no hesitation.

The fact that the guns are actually being used in the way they are is just crazy. Had there been no gun shops in the firstplace, i would guess that there would be far less gun crime than right now.

and much higher violent crime as the gangs ran around unchecked.

I'm not saying anything, I'd just like to point out that compared to New Orleans there was almost no unlawful behaviour in Kobe after the great Hanshin quake. Maybe we should consider what the Japanese are doing right?

I'm not saying anything, I'd just like to point out that compared to New Orleans there was almost no unlawful behaviour in Kobe after the great Hanshin quake. Maybe we should consider what the Japanese are doing right?

There wasn't any after Hurricane Hugo in South Carolina, either.

Maybe, considering that South Carolina is culturally and ethnically closer to Louisiana, we should consider what the Governor of South Carolina did that the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans refused to do until it was too late.

Declare martial law and give immediate orders to shoot to kill any looters.

No looters were shot in South Carolina - but no one misbehaved, either.

Your point is fallacious - the people of New Orleans bear little ethnic and cultural resemblance to the Japanese.

I'm not saying anything, I'd just like to point out that compared to New Orleans there was almost no unlawful behaviour in Kobe after the great Hanshin quake. Maybe we should consider what the Japanese are doing right?

Ah yes japanese culture IS very different from american. But still they kept to their laws. They still respected each other. Maybe they had better aplns that were actually happening. Maybe they respected their government officials more, who knows

Don't you people realise that without legal gun shops, no firearms can be looted?
Mobs without firearms can be held back by police with guns ect. whilst in New Orleans, the last 20% or so of the population aren't being evacuated due to armed mobs roaming the streets and firing at the NG and resce workers. An unarmed gang is 100% less dangerous than an armed gang.

You know what's amazing to me is that so many of the anti-gun people around this board are not even American. Our stance on gun control doesn't affect non-Americans, so why do you complain about it?

Americans who have problems with America's gun control laws are one thing. And they deserve to be heard as much as anyone else in America. But non-Americans don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to debating what's best for America.
I thought we were just arguing the pros and cons of gun control in a disaster situation. Certainly we were using New Orleans as a case study as it were but I don't necessarily think that precludes members of other nationalities contributing. It's not as though the US has a monopoly on natural disasters. Many people have already specualted as to what would ahppen in a similar diaster in the UK.

and CRIMINALS broke the law (go figure) and obtained some firearms. They would still have been looting/raping/murdering w/o them.

WITH legally owned firearms, the people who actually follow the law can defend themselves.

The percentage of criminals using them is still minute compared to the amount of Law Abiding Citizens.
I really think you're trying to misunderstand my argument on purpose. Yes criminals broke the law and yes they illegally obtained firearms but as you yourself have pointed out on innumerable occasions in this thread, the majority of these firearms are from gun shops. These are not unregistered guns already in the hands of criminal elements, but LEGALLY OWNED GUNS which would be totally impossible for a British criminal for example to get his hands on in a similar situation.

Doesn't anybody here find it funny how Europeans with comparitively low crime rates are generally against legally owned firearms, whilst Americans with huge murder rates insist that it is their right to carry them.

Don't you people realise that without legal gun shops, no firearms can be looted?
Mobs without firearms can be held back by police with guns ect. whilst in New Orleans, the last 20% or so of the population aren't being evacuated due to armed mobs roaming the streets and firing at the NG and resce workers. An unarmed gang is 100% less dangerous than an armed gang.

Is this more Hoplophobe mathematics?

The police couldn't control the situation even before the major looting and in some cases contributed to it.

Do you have a source for the 20%?

An unarmed gang is "100%" less dangerous? So a group of thugs couldn't beat you to death for your case of bottled water? Every single violent crime is committed by someone w/ a firearm?

Doesn't anybody here find it funny how Europeans with comparitively low crime rates are generally against legally owned firearms, whilst Americans with huge murder rates insist that it is their right to carry them.


Yeah that is very interesting. I think many europeans are possibly scared of the fact that normal everyday people are allowed these "tools" that are designed to kill, their primary pourpose was to kill. Now people can hoot to injure or shoot in the air bu it doesn't detract form that fac tthat in many peoples minds guns=death

I really think you're trying to misunderstand my argument on purpose. Yes criminals broke the law and yes they illegally obtained firearms but as you yourself have pointed out on innumerable occasions in this thread, the majority of these firearms are from gun shops. These are not unregistered guns already in the hands of criminal elements, but LEGALLY OWNED GUNS which would be totally impossible for a British criminal for example to get his hands on in a similar situation.

I believe you have no idea what happens in a life or death situation.

If the police are not in a position to protect me from a mob armed with clubs, what am I supposed to do, die?

That's why I have a pistol and semiautomatic rifle, military kit, and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

If I were to wait for rescue, police, the National Guard, in such a situation, my wife and daughter would already be raped and I would already be dead.

You haven't explained how you would prevent that. And don't say, "the police will protect you". Here in the US, no public servant is obligated in ANY way to provide you with protection or service - just because they are late and you die means that they have to do a little paperwork - but no one will be held accountable.

Police can't be everywhere. You haven't explained how you would make that happen.

The New Orleans Police, according to the Louisiana State Police, have largely quit and have joined the roving gangs of armed looters. How are you going to explain that?

Should I trust the New Orleans Police now? That would be high order stupidity.

Don't you people realise that without legal gun shops, no firearms can be looted?
Mobs without firearms can be held back by police with guns ect. whilst in New Orleans, the last 20% or so of the population aren't being evacuated due to armed mobs roaming the streets and firing at the NG and resce workers. An unarmed gang is 100% less dangerous than an armed gang.
People will go on to rape/loot/steal/kill with or without guns. What are you going to do then? It is illogical to outlaw guns for everyone because some people who are in a desperate situation are missusing them.

I thought we were just arguing the pros and cons of gun control in a disaster situation. Certainly we were using New Orleans as a case study as it were but I don't necessarily think that precludes members of other nationalities contributing. It's not as though the US has a monopoly on natural disasters. Many people have already specualted as to what would ahppen in a similar diaster in the UK.


I really think you're trying to misunderstand my argument on purpose. Yes criminals broke the law and yes they illegally obtained firearms but as you yourself have pointed out on innumerable occasions in this thread, the majority of these firearms are from gun shops. These are not unregistered guns already in the hands of criminal elements, but LEGALLY OWNED GUNS which would be totally impossible for a British criminal for example to get his hands on in a similar situation.

And would the violent crime be nonexistant if there were no firearms present or would the gangs just be more control as people couldn't defend themselves agaisnt them.

Is this more Hoplophobe mathematics?

The police couldn't control the situation even before the major looting and in some cases contributed to it.

Do you have a source for the 20%?

An unarmed gang is "100%" less dangerous? So a group of thugs couldn't beat you to death for your case of bottled water? Every single violent crime is committed by someone w/ a firearm?
Why would the exact percentages matter? it is surely beyond argument that 1) there is a large amount of people left in New orleans whom the authorities are struggling to help due to the threat posed by heavily armed gangs and 2) that these gangs are many times more of a threat to rescue workers and forces of law and order due to their possessing firearms?

Is this more Hoplophobe mathematics?

The police couldn't control the situation even before the major looting and in some cases contributed to it.

Do you have a source for the 20%?

An unarmed gang is "100%" less dangerous? So a group of thugs couldn't beat you to death for your case of bottled water? Every single violent crime is committed by someone w/ a firearm?

1: Source = today's edition of the Times

2. Sorry about the 100% remark, but the police can control an unarmed gang roaming the streets, whilst I admit that a single person couldn't. Please don't tell me that you'd kill somebody trying to snatch your bottle of water.

Doesn't anybody here find it funny how Europeans with comparitively low crime rates are generally against legally owned firearms, whilst Americans with huge murder rates insist that it is their right to carry them.

Most murders are committed by criminals on criminals.

Does anybody here find it funny that crime rates has little to nothing to do w/ the amount of firearm ownership yet hoplophobes keep insisting that guns cause crime?

Is this more Hoplophobe mathematics?

The police couldn't control the situation even before the major looting and in some cases contributed to it.

Do you have a source for the 20%?

An unarmed gang is "100%" less dangerous? So a group of thugs couldn't beat you to death for your case of bottled water? Every single violent crime is committed by someone w/ a firearm?

Here in the US, the vast majority of violent crimes are committed with no weapon at all - no club, no knife, and NO GUN. See the Department of Justice website for the stats - I've posted them MANY times before.

"In 2003, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 45% of all robberies, compared with 11% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2003."

Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm

I believe you have no idea what happens in a life or death situation.

If the police are not in a position to protect me from a mob armed with clubs, what am I supposed to do, die?

That's why I have a pistol and semiautomatic rifle, military kit, and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

If I were to wait for rescue, police, the National Guard, in such a situation, my wife and daughter would already be raped and I would already be dead.

You haven't explained how you would prevent that. And don't say, "the police will protect you". Here in the US, no public servant is obligated in ANY way to provide you with protection or service - just because they are late and you die means that they have to do a little paperwork - but no one will be held accountable.

Police can't be everywhere. You haven't explained how you would make that happen.

The New Orleans Police, according to the Louisiana State Police, have largely quit and have joined the roving gangs of armed looters. How are you going to explain that?

Should I trust the New Orleans Police now? That would be high order stupidity.

You have to trust someone unless you think that you and your assault rifle are going to some how get aid to all the thousands of people who are begging for food and water and protection which the government are unable to supply, partially I grant due to disorganisation, but even more so due to the state of disorder caused by armed gangs.

1: Source = today's edition of the Times

2. Sorry about the 100% remark, but the police can control an unarmed gang roaming the streets, whilst I admit that a single person couldn't. Please don't tell me that you'd kill somebody trying to snatch your bottle of water.

The police have no control whatsoever and ,as stated multiple times, have contributed to the problem.

I never said I would kill someone trying to take some water. What I said is that the gangs ARE killing/raping/beating people (armed or unarmed) for things as little as that.

Why would the exact percentages matter? it is surely beyond argument that 1) there is a large amount of people left in New orleans whom the authorities are struggling to help due to the threat posed by heavily armed gangs and 2) that these gangs are many times more of a threat to rescue workers and forces of law and order due to their possessing firearms?

The exact percentages matter in that a claim was made w/o (originally) sourcing it.

The gangs would be just as much of a threat as they would still be running rampant and citizens would not have been able to defend themselves. Legal ownership is still much higher and quite a few of the gangs had illegal firearms to begin w/.

You have to trust someone unless you think that you and your assault rifle are going to some how get aid to all the thousands of people who are begging for food and water and protection which the government are unable to supply, partially I grant due to disorganisation, but even more so due to the state of disorder caused by armed gangs.

It is fairly easy for me to distinguish between my neighbors and a roving gang of armed looters.

Just because someone is carrying a gun does not mean that they are an official authority figure (as we see by the New Orleans police joining the gangs of armed looters). Neither does carrying a gun make someone an armed thug.

Here in the US, I have the right to protect my life through the use of deadly force.

If I'm attacked by 10 unarmed men bent on taking my food, shelter, and water, and bent on raping my wife and daughter, there will be ten dead men in as many seconds - with no hesitation on my part.

You have to trust someone unless you think that you and your assault rifle are going to some how get aid to all the thousands of people who are begging for food and water and protection which the government are unable to supply, partially I grant due to disorganisation, but even more so due to the state of disorder caused by armed gangs.

He's talking more about being able to defend himself against the gangs (armed or unarmed) should something like that happen

The disorder is caused by gangs, armed or unarmed .

snip.

Your post is without doubt the most asinine thing I've ever had the singular misfortune of reading. You have seen a city devolve to anarchy (all you friggin' idiot anarchists take note). The population of New Orleans on its best days is barely restrained, the police force is notable as being one of the worst in the western world they notoriously corrupt and ineffectual. The city has a a homicide rate 3 times any other city it's size. The unemployment among minorities is over 33% the city also has a very low median income aprox $10,000.00 below the national average. Now take all that mix in people who could not, or would not evacuate. poor planning on the city, parish and state level and to be completely frank I surprised there is not rioting. The individual armed citizen acting to protect his life, loved ones and property is all that has prevented the city from collapsing completely. You from European myopia you can't understand America or it's "gun culture" do not try. Americans would rather rely on themselves and there guns for protection than civil authority (BTW the US Supreme Court determined it is NOT a requirement of the police to protect you, there role is law enforcement ONLY). You CANNOT understand this anymore than you can understand Hip Hop or American will understand thing like Cricket, high tea,
baked bean pizza and soccer hooligans.
I'm sick to death of people who do not live here tell me how I should live my life because they know better, and "that's how its done where I live".


Here endith the rant. :upyours:

It is fairly easy for me to distinguish between my neighbors and a roving gang of armed looters.

Just because someone is carrying a gun does not mean that they are an official authority figure (as we see by the New Orleans police joining the gangs of armed looters). Neither does carrying a gun make someone an armed thug.

Here in the US, I have the right to protect my life through the use of deadly force.

If I'm attacked by 10 unarmed men bent on taking my food, shelter, and water, and bent on raping my wife and daughter, there will be ten dead men in as many seconds - with no hesitation on my part.
You see I think that's the problem. I don't know of any serious school of thought that advocates every man for himself as an acceptable way of dealing with crises such as these.
The mindset engendered by a "Here in the US, I have the right to protect my life through the use of deadly force." and the habit of self reliance is only going to contribute to the sorts of disorder we are seeing. Instead of tying to leave the area to get shipped off to Texas and whereever and leave possessions behind, what we are seeing is people staying in the disaster area merely to guard their stuff.
The people who really suffer from this sort of attitude are those who are unlikely to carry guns anyway such as the elderly, children in hospital and so on, who are reliant on police protection, and who are not physically able to remove themselves from the danger area. You can protect yourself from lloters because you have an automatic weapon but what are they supposed to do when the police can't get to them because of the armed mobs?


The individual armed citizen acting to protect his life, loved ones and property is all that has prevented the city from collapsing completely. You from European myopia you can't understand America or it's "gun culture" do not try. Americans would rather rely on themselves and there guns for protection than civil authority
Again, what about those who are unable to do so? It seems a somewhat selfish viewpoint to say "me and my family are Ok" sod everyone else.

We're not telling you how to live. we're discussing a topic. We all feel the deepest sympathy for those in New Orleans and their loved ones and we want them to be rescued and returned to their families as quickly as possible.

This is simply a discussion fuelled by what is going on in New Orleans. Perhaps if the discussion was "hey guns are bad, man, and so american's shouldn't be allowed guns" and was a 5 page rant from all Europeans about how peolpe should not have guns in any circumstances and peace and love etc then I could fully understand your anger. But it is not.

Here I am, back ... ... ... join the line to be evacuated.

I supppose you're quite right here. Just broaden the scope from UK to E.U.

Here I am, back with my gun control proposals. I've been reading about Hurricane Katrina and it's effect on New Orleans, and it seems to me that there are certain individuals and groups stomping around the place raping, shooting and looting, all with the help of legally owned firearms. A man even began to snipe at hospital patients, causing the doctor to evacuate the sick from the area. It's when law and order breaks down and people are desperate to receive aid or be evacuated from a place that men and women with guns rule the roost. They can loot shops without competition, they can rape people who are too distressed to carry guns, psycopaths can even shoot at complete strangers without hindrance or fear. Even the National Guard is too scared to get into some parts of the city.
THis would never happen in the UK. Unfortunately, knives are no use at long range, and don't tell me that you could throw a baseball bat at a passing helecopter.
I know that some of you are going to say 'This is how life would be if only criminals have guns'. Just remember that 80% of these looters ect. were probably never criminals before the Hurricane. However, when they have a gun in their hand and nobody else does they are in control of the situation, and that can bring out the worst in people. If they weren't able to legaly get firearms, then many of them would join the line to be evacuated.


I dont think so... the opposite is true 80% of these deviants probably had criminal records...why the hell do you think they went right for the guns? The government is not worried about the food and merchandise but the raping and shooting at hospitals that are evacuating preemie babies....you pity those asses now? THey are shooting at BABIES!!! NO excuse!!! Hell the looters who stole merchandise more than likely have spent some time behind bars as well.. but these gun toting asses are raping and trying to kill rescue workers... I dont think any pity should be spared on them..they are kicking people when they are down and think that New Orleans belongs to them...I dont think so..The troops should arrive soon and I hope its shoot to kill snipers..and believe me the army and marines have been trained to hunt down and ferret out snipers.

But you ARE tell us how to live Europeans have this condescending and patronizing attitude toward the US especailly since Shrub got elected. Do you hear Americans telling European YOU MUST BUY GUNS NOW! Hell no the Right to Bear Arms is also the right NOT to, we respect the choices of those European countries that chose strict gun control, that respect is sadly not reciprical.



We're not telling you how to live. we're discussing a topic. We all feel the deepest sympathy for those in New Orleans and their loved ones and we want them to be rescued and returned to their families as quickly as possible.

This is simply a discussion fuelled by what is going on in New Orleans. Perhaps if the discussion was "hey guns are bad, man, and so american's shouldn't be allowed guns" and was a 5 page rant from all Europeans about how peolpe should not have guns in any circumstances and peace and love etc then I could fully understand your anger. But it is not.

He's talking more about being able to defend himself against the gangs (armed or unarmed) should something like that happen

The disorder is caused by gangs, armed or unarmed .
That was sort of my point. He was talking about helping himself, but that doesn't help those who are unable to help themselves, the elderly and infirm.

HOWEVER his need to have a gun to protect himself inevitably means that the looters will have guns, because they are easy to obtain, and those who were otherwise unable to protect themselves or indeed extricate themselves, suffer because the proper authorities can't get to them due to the gun violence. You see?

I don't feel I've ever used a condscending tone in this issue. This isn't about "we're so much better than you and so is our culture cos we don't have guns" We're not trying to say that because we think guns are bad you are bad or anything like that. It's just a discussion and I'm sorry if you think we're condescending we're just expressing our feelings on an issue, you don't have to like them or agree with them and we don't think you should have to either ok?

But you ARE tell us how to live Europeans have this condescending and patronizing attitude toward the US especailly since Shrub got elected. Do you hear Americans telling European YOU MUST BUY GUNS NOW! Hell no the Right to Bear Arms is also the right NOT to, we respect the choices of those European countries that chose strict gun control, that respect is sadly not reciprical.
On the contrary, I don't think anyone on the thread has stated that the US shouldn't have guns, I don't think I have anyway. People are just discussing the pros and cons of guns in a disaster situation. If you still decide that guns are an inalienable right or whatever then it's no skin off my back.

When was the last time a European city of some 1 million hit by a major storm, and then just 15 hours after that storm entirely flooded?


Actually there have been a whole string of floods in Eastern Europe this week:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2201555.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2204087.stm

None of these are quite as bad as New Orleans but they were serious enough to bring normal life to a halt and cause hundreds of thousands of people to be evacuated. Even so, there hasn't been any of the anarchy you've got in New Orleans and the local authorities seem to be coping much better.

Snip

Wow, what an absolute idiot. You automatically assume that I don't know anything about hip hop, but am an encyclopedia on tea and cricket. Whilst it is true that I don't know as much about the situation as you, venerable master, all I know is that I don't agree with this culture of gun ownership. You see, if you legalise guns nearly the entire poulation has to buy them to defend themselves from criminals with firearms. I don't agree with the principle of the right to kill somebody. Britain is unique in the sense that the police don't carry guns, yet I feel safe when I see an armed officer as I know that they have proper training and can deal with most situations. On the other hand most Americans and other Police aren't as well trained and carry firearms in the hope that they will either scare off a (coincedentally) unarmed attacker or shoot the guy in the head immidiately.

You see I think that's the problem.

No, the problem is of a wider scope.

There are two types of people - those who believe in personal respojnsibility to the extent that it is possible, and those who believe that they have no responsilibility at all and leave it all to the government.

The government in the US is not your nanny. Not your parents. It's there to help you when your personal responsibility limits are reached.

The government told those people to evacuate. While I symapthize with those who had no means (and the local government should be taken to task for not providing the means), I have NO sympathy for those who stayed - armed or not.

Those who left in advance were taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their own lives. The reason they had the means to do so was because they took the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to educate themselves and get good jobs and save money. They took PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to find a way out, and probably the majority took the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to stay informed about the storm and keep a stock of emergency supplies on hand.

I take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY as a personal mandate to prepare for emergencies, to keep aware of my surroundings, to constantly evaluate my options - for evacuation, for personal defense, for my education - for my personal retirement - etc. There are obviously not only those who believe that they have a personal entitlement to money and aid unconditionally from the state, but they believe that the state is responsible for everything in their lives. Further, there are those who believe that every citizen is a fool, and the government knows best how to run their lives, and to that person, and to that government, anyone who believes in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is a threat.

It's not every man for himself over here. But I have NO sympathy for ANYONE who hasn't a shred of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in their personal ethos.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're my neighbor, and I evacuate in advance of the storm, and you stay and you then demand action from the government, I trust that neither my charitable donations nor my tax dollars be spent on you at all - I trust that your situation be a dire lesson in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

When the looters arrive at your house, burn it, and beat you to death outside while you try to call the non-existent police on your useless cell phone, and they rape and kill your family, that too, will be a lesson in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

If your life and your self-worth are not worth defending, then why should you expect some paid government employee to sacrifice their life to do so? Eh?

You still have no answer.

Nope, crime is very real in Europe as it is everywhere, but I am talking about reactions to a disaster such as this. As there are less guns in private hands in Europe, the probability of armed gangs taking control of the streats, snipers shooting at rescue-helicopters, and car-jackings at gunpoint would naturally be much lower.

It might also be easier for the police to regain order and control as they have the possibility of arming themselves and backing their authority with the threat of force, instead of the risk of starting gunfights.
Noo, there just wouldn't be guns involved at all, which means that things would get much nastier for the store owners that stayed behind to protect their stuff. It would not in the end stop any sort of rape or looting. You might gain control back a little bit quicker, but that would be the ONLY good difference.

Noo, there just wouldn't be guns involved at all, which means that things would get much nastier for the store owners that stayed behind to protect their stuff. It would not in the end stop any sort of rape or looting. You might gain control back a little bit quicker, but that would be the ONLY good difference.

Well thats a pretty damn good difference. There would be less rape and looting as many people wouldn't bother on defended stores. In England you have the right to defend your property, but not the right to kill (unless in extreme cases).

Maybe so, but I think he has a point. I doubt that anything like we see in New Orleans would happen anywhere in Europe - and by that I'm thinking about the "armed gangs in the streets" and the "police stations where all the police are doing are defending themselves" as are at the present time reported by the CNN.

But even more disturbing is the reports of people forcing their way onto busses and helicopters at gunpoint. As far as I can tell from the reports, these people are not members of gangs or "ordinary" criminals, but people who are desperate to get to safety and will resort to any means to accomplish that.

By the way, when does the "law-abiding citizens" become criminals? The answer is easy: When they break the law. And so the question becomes: Are all the law-abiding citizens who own guns immune to the temtations and the desperation that follows such a disaster as this? Well, I don't think so. However, also I believe that frustrated and scared people with guns can be very dangerous. Even law-abiding citizens with legally owned guns.

Am I "pro- or anti-gun"? Well, that's a different discussion...


Ethnic cleansing went on for years in the Balkans so it's rather silly to argue that this kind of thing wouldn't happen in Europe.

No, the problem is of a wider scope.

There are two types of people - those who believe in personal respojnsibility to the extent that it is possible, and those who believe that they have no responsilibility at all and leave it all to the government.

...
You still have no answer.
I agree that some people stubbornly refused to leave the area when warned and I have less sympathy for them. However if you read my arguments, I was more concerned with those who weer UNABLE to leave the area.

Take for example the children's hospital that was beseiged; I can't see how they could have protected themselves with guns or indeed removed themselves from the situation and yet their lives are put at risk because armed mobs prevent the establishment of law and order.

Take old people, some will be unable to move, others like my grandmother before she died might not have left their own homes for a decade and will simply not be able to comprehend leaving. And yet they are unlikely to own guns and because the police cannot control the armed mobs are put in danger.

Ethnic cleansing went on for years in the Balkans so it's rather silly to argue that this kind of thing wouldn't happen in Europe.

Ethnic cleansing is kinda different from a destrctive hurricane, doncha think?

Wow, what an absolute idiot. You automatically assume that I don't know anything about hip hop, but am an encyclopedia on tea and cricket. Whilst it is true that I don't know as much about the situation as you, venerable master, all I know is that I don't agree with this culture of gun ownership. You see, if you legalise guns nearly the entire poulation has to buy them to defend themselves from criminals with firearms. I don't agree with the principle of the right to kill somebody. Britain is unique in the sense that the police don't carry guns, yet I feel safe when I see an armed officer as I know that they have proper training and can deal with most situations. On the other hand most Americans and other Police aren't as well trained and carry firearms in the hope that they will either scare off a (coincedentally) unarmed attacker or shoot the guy in the head immidiately.

What you consistently fail to understand is that the only people with guns if guns are outlawed would be criminals. Without a gun to protect them how will a potential victim fight back against a criminal with a gun?

And do you honestly believe that US police are not well trained? That they carry a gun just as a deterrent or to shoot people in the head? Are you serious?

What you consistently fail to understand is that the only people with guns if guns are outlawed would be criminals. Without a gun to protect them how will a potential victim fight back against a criminal with a gun?

But in England where it is near impossible to get a gun, most criminals don't have guns. There is very little gun crime a year. Don't assume that a criminal automatically has a firearm and is prepared to use it.

Anyway, its easier to fight back or run away from a criminal who doesn't have a gun in his hand.

What you consistently fail to understand is that the only people with guns if guns are outlawed would be criminals. Without a gun to protect them how will a potential victim fight back against a criminal with a gun?

And do you honestly believe that US police are not well trained? That they carry a gun just as a deterrent or to shoot people in the head? Are you serious?

Very, I've seen videos of neglicent police. I saw one clip of a cop accidentally fire a bullet into the ground, centimeters away from a guys head. I've seen another clip of one officer strugling to keep a criminal under control and prodding his several times in the chest with a tazer.

You see I think that's the problem. I don't know of any serious school of thought that advocates every man for himself as an acceptable way of dealing with crises such as these. .

But sadly that is human nature I will protect my family at all costs perhaps even the expense of yours if need be. If I have surplus I will share if I am wanting more importantly if my children are wanting I will meet their needs by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!



The mindset engendered by a "Here in the US, I have the right to protect my life through the use of deadly force." and the habit of self reliance is only going to contribute to the sorts of disorder we are seeing..

Sorry that is why we are here in the first place, our forefather chose (in most cases) to come here for a better life self reliance is DEEPLY ingrained into the American psyche..

Instead of tying to leave the area to get shipped off to Texas and whereever and leave possessions behind, what we are seeing is people staying in the disaster area merely to guard their stuff.
.
That "stuff" includes those who were old or sick and couldn't travel as well as those who thought (foolishly in retrospect) they could ride it out


The people who really suffer from this sort of attitude are those who are unlikely to carry guns anyway such as the elderly, children in hospital and so on, who are reliant on police protection, and who are not physically able to remove themselves from the danger area. .
Sadly these are always the people that suffer
.
You can protect yourself from lloters because you have an automatic weapon but what are they supposed to do when the police can't get to them because of the armed mobs?.
European ignorance there are a miniscule amount of privatly owned automatic weapons



Again, what about those who are unable to do so? It seems a somewhat selfish viewpoint to say "me and my family are Ok" sod everyone else.

sad but true

But in England where it is near impossible to get a gun, most criminals don't have guns. There is very little gun crime a year. Don't assume that a criminal automatically has a firearm and is prepared to use it.

Anyway, its easier to fight back or run away from a criminal who doesn't have a gun in his hand.

And England is not America. We have much longer borders. It would literally be impossible for the government to completely stop the flow of firearms into the country. That is what you're not comprehending. If you make owning a gun illegal it won't stop guns from being here. It will simply put them in the hands of the people willing to break the law to own one.

Gangs will have them. Organized crime will have them. Dedicated criminals will have them. Law-abiding American citizens won't. That is a bad, bad balance of power.

Very, I've seen videos of neglicent police. I saw one clip of a cop accidentally fire a bullet into the ground, centimeters away from a guys head. I've seen another clip of one officer strugling to keep a criminal under control and prodding his several times in the chest with a tazer.

Did it ever dawn on you that you see those clips because:

1. It's what you want to see. i.e. your media is simply reinforcing what your culture already believes to be true about us.

2. That they are noteworthy because of their rarity, not because of how common they are.

I am so sick and goddamn tired of Euros pretending that they know what America is like simply because they watch their evening news. America is a land of peace-loving people. We are NOT a country with astronimical crime rates. We are NOT a mob of gun nuts shooting everything that moves. We are NOT a bunch of Bible-thumping fascists. That is simply what you EXPECT to see, so you see it more often.

Educate yourself.

And England is not America. We have much longer borders. It would literally be impossible for the government to completely stop the flow of firearms into the country. That is what you're not comprehending. If you make owning a gun illegal it won't stop guns from being here. It will simply put them in the hands of the people willing to break the law to own one.

Gangs will have them. Organized crime will have them. Dedicated criminals will have them. Law-abiding American citizens won't. That is a bad, bad balance of power.

But don't YOU understand that if it is hard to get guns, most criminals won't have them. In England most murders are related to stabbing or strangling, not guns. There have been some pretty horrific cases in America of family arguments, leading to a murder where somebody had their legs blown off by an assult rifle.
Is that freedom?

Did it ever dawn on you that you see those clips because:

1. It's what you want to see. i.e. your media is simply reinforcing what your culture already believes to be true about us.

2. That they are noteworthy because of their rarity, not because of how common they are.

I am so sick and goddamn tired of Euros pretending that they know what America is like simply because they watch their evening news. America is a land of peace-loving people. We are NOT a country with astronimical crime rates. We are NOT a mob of gun nuts shooting everything that moves. We are NOT a bunch of Bible-thumping fascists. That is simply what you EXPECT to see, so you see it more often.

Educate yourself.

Its funny how you assume that I am as ignorant as you obviously are.

No further comment.

Most murders are committed by criminals on criminals.

Does anybody here find it funny that crime rates has little to nothing to do w/ the amount of firearm ownership yet hoplophobes keep insisting that guns cause crime?

Funny? No. Scared by the sheer ignorance of factual information? Yes.

And do you honestly believe that US police are not well trained? That they carry a gun just as a deterrent or to shoot people in the head? Are you serious?

The typical gun enthusiast in the US who owns a pistol is demonstrably more skilled at shooting than the typical policeman. The typical pistol owner in the US practices more - orders of magnitude more - than the typical policeman.

Even gang members practice more.

In shootings, an armed felon is more likely to hit his target per shot than the typical policeman.

And in shootings, a person with a concealed carry permit (a legal carrier of firearms) is more than twice as likely to hit his target than the typical policeman.

The pistols the police carry are mostly badges of authority. In jurisdictions where they take it more seriously, they get more practice. But most police fire around 50 rounds per year.

I fire 20,000 per year, of rifle ammunition alone. And 20,000 to 30,000 rounds of pistol

You would have to be in a US Army light infantry unit to fire that much. Police, on average, suck by comparison.

It used to be that the top pistol shooters in the US were police from police teams. Although there are still police teams, they regularly get beaten in competition by armed civilians, who have much more training, much higher quality ammunition, and much higher quality weapons.

Do you believe the rapes and looting would not happen without guns? I doubt it.

So let's create a couple scenarios, with the following givens:

1. There are NO guns. (Hard to prove that this could even happen, but I'll concede for this exercise that laws preventing gun ownership will be followed by those who don't follow the law, as mind-bending as it is.)

2. Rapes and looting still occur, but with knives as the weapons of choice instead.

Scenario #1: 250 pound man tries to rape a 150 pound woman.

Situation #1: Both have a gun.
Situation #2: Both have a knife.

Which is these situations is better for the woman?

Scenario #2: A thug tries to steal an old woman's food. Without it she will likely not survive until she can be rescued.

Situation #1: Both have a gun.
Situation #2: Both have a knife.

Which is these situations is better for the old woman?

I'd be interested in hearing what people think . . .

But don't YOU understand that if it is hard to get guns, most criminals won't have them. In England most murders are related to stabbing or strangling, not guns. There have been some pretty horrific cases in America of family arguments, leading to a murder where somebody had their legs blown off by an assult rifle.
Is that freedom?

That is absolute, complete and utter horseshit. I'm sorry, but you are completely naive on this issue. Making it more difficult to get guns will only make guns more expensive. It will not... I repeat WILL NOT... keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

And no, you don't hear about people blowing people's legs off with assault rifles. Assault rifles don't blow people's legs off. And most people who own guns in American don't own assault rifles.

Here are some VERY interesting facts:

School Safety

* Between 1994 and 1999, there were 220 school associated violent events resulting in 253 deaths - - 74.5% of these involved firearms. Handguns caused almost 60% of these deaths. (Journal of American Medical Association, December 2001)
* In 1998-99 academic year, 3,523 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. This is a decrease from the 5,724 students expelled in 1996-97 for bringing a firearm to school. (U.S. Department of Education, October 2000)
* Nearly 8% of adolescents in urban junior and senior high schools miss at least one day of school each month because they are afraid to attend. (National Mental Health & Education Center for Children & Families, National Association of School Psychologists 1998)
* The National School Boards Association estimates that more than 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools each day. (NSBA, 1993)

Children and Gun Violence

* America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
* In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. (Children's Defense Fund)
* The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

America and Gun Violence

* Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
* The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
* American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)

Guns in the Wrong Hands

* Americans for Gun Safety produced a 2003 report that reveals that 20 of the nation’s 22 national gun laws are not enforced. According to U.S. Department of Justice data (FY 2000-2002), only 2% of federal gun crimes were actually prosecuted. Eighty-five percent of cases prosecuted relate to street criminals in possession of firearms. Ignored are laws intended to punish illegal gun trafficking, firearm theft, corrupt gun dealers, lying on a criminal background check form, obliterating firearm serial numbers, selling guns to minors and possessing a gun in a school zone. To access The Enforcement Gap: Federal Gun Laws Ignored, visit http://w3.agsfoundation.com/. For a state-by-state chart of gun crimes (FY 2000-2002), click here.
*
Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the dealer that armed the DC area sniper is among this small group of problem gun dealers that "supply the suppliers" who funnel guns to the nation's criminals. (Between 1997 and 2001, guns sold by this dealer were involved in 52 crimes, including homicides, kidnappings and assaults. Still open today, it also can't account for 238 guns or say whether they were stolen, lost or sold, or if their buyers underwent felony-background checks.) As a result, these few gun dealers have a vastly disproportionate impact on public safety. The ATF can recognize such dealers based on: (1) guns stolen from inventory; (2) missing federal sales records, needed by police to solve crimes; (3) having 10 weapons a year traced to crimes; (4) frequently selling multiple guns to individual buyers; and (5) short times between gun sales and their involvement in crimes. Yet ATF enforcement is weak due to a lack of Congressional support and resources. For more details, click here.
* Terrorists have purchased firearms at gun shows, where unlicensed sellers are not currently required to conduct background checks or to ask for identification. According to the Middle East Intelligence Report, for example, a Hezbollah member was arrested in November 2000, after a nine-month investigation by the FBI's counter-terrorism unit. Ali Boumelhem was later convicted on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon. Federal agents had observed Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to Michigan gun shows and buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas. Boumelhem was prohibited from legally purchasing guns as gun stores because he was a convicted felon. Additional cases involve a Pakistani national with an expired (1988) student visa; a Lebanese native and Hamas member with numerous felony convictions; and a supporter of the Irish Republican Army. (USA Today, Wednesday, November 28, 2001 Americans for Gun Safety)

* According to Americans for Gun Safety (December 2002), gun theft is most likely in states without laws requiring safe storage of firearms in the home and where there are large numbers of gun owners and relatively high crime rates. Based on FBI data, nearly 1.7 million guns have been reported stolen in the past ten years, and only 40% of those were recovered. The missing guns, over 80% of which are taken from homes or cars, most likely fuel the black market for criminals. NEA, AGS and the National Rifle Association advocate for safe storage. To access "Stolen Guns: Arming the Enemy" visit www.agsfoundation.com.

* The American Medical Association reports that between 36% and 50% of male eleventh graders believe that they could easily get a gun if they wanted one.

* In 1998-99 academic year, 3,523 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. This is a decrease from the 5,724 students expelled in 1996-97 for bringing a firearm to school. (U.S. Department of Education, October 2000)

* According to a report by the Joshephson Institute of Ethics (2000 Report Card: Report #1), 60% of high school and 31% of middle school boys said they could get a gun if they wanted to (April, 2001).

But don't YOU understand that if it is hard to get guns, most criminals won't have them. In England most murders are related to stabbing or strangling, not guns. There have been some pretty horrific cases in America of family arguments, leading to a murder where somebody had their legs blown off by an assult rifle.
Is that freedom?

Only 24 percent of violent crime in the US is performed with a "weapon" of any kind - knife, club, chain, or firearm.

That leaves 76 percent with bare hands alone.

In addition, there are three studies (Kleck, one by the government, and one by a police association) that show that violent crime would rise by nearly double if there were no defensive uses of firearms in the US. That is, the people who would have been deterred by an armed citizen would now be free to beat someone to death.

Resulting in an increase in murders.

It's been beaten to death on this forum - the UK is not the US. So don't try to apply UK standards to the US.

But don't YOU understand that if it is hard to get guns, most criminals won't have them. In England most murders are related to stabbing or strangling, not guns. There have been some pretty horrific cases in America of family arguments, leading to a murder where somebody had their legs blown off by an assult rifle.
Is that freedom?

Could you post a link to that particular example? I'd REALLY like to read about it.

Its funny how you assume that I am as ignorant as you obviously are.

No further comment.

You prove your ignorance about my country every single time you open your mouth. It's patently obvious how ignorant you are. Care to point out what things I am saying are "ignorant?"

It's pretty obvious at this point that you base your opinion on secondhand media reports and not personal experience, yet you claim to understand the things you're talking about.

Like I said, educate yourself.

[QUOTE=Glamorgane]And England is not America. We have much longer borders. It would literally be impossible for the government to completely stop the flow of firearms into the country. That is what you're not comprehending. If you make owning a gun illegal it won't stop guns from being here. It will simply put them in the hands of the people willing to break the law to own one.[QUOTE]


Sorry to say mat but WE ARE ALL BORDERS. Yes yours are much larger but still the fact remains that we are entirely made of borders

Its funny how you assume that I am as ignorant as you obviously are.


Ignorant, hmmm...maybe. More likely brainwashed by your government and your society. At least about firearms.

The typical gun enthusiast in the US who owns a pistol is demonstrably more skilled at shooting than the typical policeman. The typical pistol owner in the US practices more - orders of magnitude more - than the typical policeman.

Even gang members practice more.

In shootings, an armed felon is more likely to hit his target per shot than the typical policeman.

And in shootings, a person with a concealed carry permit (a legal carrier of firearms) is more than twice as likely to hit his target than the typical policeman.

The pistols the police carry are mostly badges of authority. In jurisdictions where they take it more seriously, they get more practice. But most police fire around 50 rounds per year.

I fire 20,000 per year, of rifle ammunition alone. And 20,000 to 30,000 rounds of pistol

You would have to be in a US Army light infantry unit to fire that much. Police, on average, suck by comparison.

It used to be that the top pistol shooters in the US were police from police teams. Although there are still police teams, they regularly get beaten in competition by armed civilians, who have much more training, much higher quality ammunition, and much higher quality weapons.


Sierra, love the name! I'm going to be trying Sierras in my newly acquired hobby of reloading soon. :D

Ignorant, hmmm...maybe. More likely brainwashed by your government and your society. At least about firearms.

My society doesn't give me ANY information on gun crime. I read it myself. I don't need news spoon fed to me.

[QUOTE=Glamorgane]And England is not America. We have much longer borders. It would literally be impossible for the government to completely stop the flow of firearms into the country. That is what you're not comprehending. If you make owning a gun illegal it won't stop guns from being here. It will simply put them in the hands of the people willing to break the law to own one.[QUOTE]


Sorry to say mat but WE ARE ALL BORDERS. Yes yours are much larger but still the fact remains that we are entirely made of borders

And yours are much easier to police since they are far, far shorter.

Sorry to say mat but WE ARE ALL BORDERS. Yes yours are much larger but still the fact remains that we are entirely made of borders

Um, so is America--so is any other country. All borders around each country. Your point?

You have the coastline equivalent of a standard border of a STATE in the US (smaller than many). That was the point. You have less land to cover/protect/whatever.

[QUOTE=Violet strawberries][QUOTE=Glamorgane]And England is not America. We have much longer borders. It would literally be impossible for the government to completely stop the flow of firearms into the country. That is what you're not comprehending. If you make owning a gun illegal it won't stop guns from being here. It will simply put them in the hands of the people willing to break the law to own one.

And yours are much easier to police since they are far, far shorter.


We have far less people to police them than in your country. (not trying to cause offense) I know we, like every other country has problems with border control but still.

My society doesn't give me ANY information on gun crime. I read it myself. I don't need news spoon fed to me.

Uh huh. What was that stuff about knowing it's true because you've seen clips of American cops doing something wrong?

You only see those things because they are aberrations.

Could you post a link to that particular example? I'd REALLY like to read about it.

Murders: 850 (2000)
(per capita): 0.01 per 1000 people

Murders with firearms: 62 (1999)
(per capita): 0.00 per 1000 people

Uh huh. What was that stuff about knowing it's true because you've seen clips of American cops doing something wrong?

You only see those things because they are aberrations.

That wasn't on BBC news. That was on an American video clip site.

My society doesn't give me ANY information on gun crime. I read it myself. I don't need news spoon fed to me.

Your culture is anti-gun, so you grew up in it, and believe in it. That works in the UK just fine.

My point is that you don't use the actual facts and cultural idioms of the US to judge what is appropriate for the US.

Yes, you are ignorant of guns and what they really do in this country.

Woo yeah, It's anarchy in the USA.

Murders: 850 (2000)
(per capita): 0.01 per 1000 people

Murders with firearms: 62 (1999)
(per capita): 0.00 per 1000 people

I meant your leg being blown off by an assault rifle story. I'd really like to see if it happened or if you imagined it.

Your culture is anti-gun, so you grew up in it, and believe in it. That works in the UK just fine.

My point is that you don't use the actual facts and cultural idioms of the US to judge what is appropriate for the US.

Yes, you are ignorant of guns and what they really do in this country.

Why do you assume that I am ignorant becuase I don't share the same viewpoint as you? If you hated soccer (football) then I wouldn't comment on your intelligence. All the information doesn't point towards legall firearms being a good thing, you know.

My society doesn't give me ANY information on gun crime. I read it myself. I don't need news spoon fed to me.

I have a friend who was robbed behind the Lee Cinema Multiplex (a movie theater). He was confronted by six young Hispanic men, two of whom were armed with machetes.

Like some of the people here, he used to believe that I was only evil for carrying a firearm all the time, despite my success in preventing three armed robberies of my person.

After he gave them his wallet (he always advised me to cooperate with thugs to avoid injury), they held him down and chopped off his arms at the elbows.

Now he's a believer in the personal defensive use of firearms.

That wasn't on BBC news. That was on an American video clip site.

Fair enough. NO reason to believe you're not telling the truth about that.

It does not, however, change the fact that you're seeing it BECAUSE it's out of the ordinary and sensationalistic.

And perhaps we should ask what you were doing looking for such things in the first place.

The point is, you see what you want and expect to see. I'd lay down my paycheck that you don't go around looking for video clips of American police doing their jobs WITHOUT screwing up.

I meant your leg being blown off by an assault rifle story. I'd really like to see if it happened or if you imagined it.

That was a newspaper article about an American company who had the pleasant job of cleaning up after murders, and thus the employees saw some pretty grusome things. The guy didn't have his leg 'blown' off, but was shot so many times that it fell off. Why his wife did that, I do not know.

Well thats a pretty damn good difference. There would be less rape and looting as many people wouldn't bother on defended stores. In England you have the right to defend your property, but not the right to kill (unless in extreme cases).
Where are you getting the idea of less rape from? Big strong men aren't the ones being raped. In fact, if someone has a gun when they commit rape, the victim is less likely to be injured at the end of the ordeal. Also, what's with the less looting idea? There would be MORE looting, because there would be more shops that were lootable. Do you actually think about what your posting or is it just a recursive loop of "Guns are bad, Mmmmkayy" going on inside your head?

Why do you assume that I am ignorant becuase I don't share the same viewpoint as you? If you hated soccer (football) then I wouldn't comment on your intelligence. All the information doesn't point towards legall firearms being a good thing, you know.

If you actually KNEW what the definition of ignorant was, you may have figured out that I was saying you don't have enough information on the firearms in the US topic to be able to form a rational opinion on the topic.

I didn't say you were stupid--I said you didn't have enough knowledge or exposure on the question at hand.

I wasn't commenting on your intelligence--you were ignorant of the meaning of ignorant. It means you don't know.

Why do you assume that I am ignorant becuase I don't share the same viewpoint as you? If you hated soccer (football) then I wouldn't comment on your intelligence. All the information doesn't point towards legall firearms being a good thing, you know.

Ignorance is not stupidity (or lack of intelligence).

Ignorance is lack of knowledge, which is a separate issue altogether.

You haven't the first clue about American gun culture, you simply have made up your mind about what you believe and to hell with any evidence to the contrary.

That's why we're saying you're ignorant.

I have a friend who was robbed behind the Lee Cinema Multiplex (a movie theater). He was confronted by six young Hispanic men, two of whom were armed with machetes.

Like some of the people here, he used to believe that I was only evil for carrying a firearm all the time, despite my success in preventing three armed robberies of my person.

After he gave them his wallet (he always advised me to cooperate with thugs to avoid injury), they held him down and chopped off his arms at the elbows.

Now he's a believer in the personal defensive use of firearms.

Unpleasant story, but why should we sacrifise the lives of many English due to a pretty iscolated incident.

Fair enough. NO reason to believe you're not telling the truth about that.

It does not, however, change the fact that you're seeing it BECAUSE it's out of the ordinary and sensationalistic.

And perhaps we should ask what you were doing looking for such things in the first place.

The point is, you see what you want and expect to see. I'd lay down my paycheck that you don't go around looking for video clips of American police doing their jobs WITHOUT screwing up.

Hey now why no trust of anyone whatsoever? this seems to be the attitude many american citizens have, don't trust anyone, ever..

I do agree with you about it only being up there cos it's so extraordinary and I have full faith that your police force is in fact very well trained.

But seriously trust is an integral part of a community, not THE most important thing but some has to be there

Ignorance is not stupidity (or lack of intelligence).

Ignorance is lack of knowledge, which is a separate issue altogether.

You haven't the first clue about American gun culture, you simply have made up your mind about what you believe and to hell with any evidence to the contrary.

That's why we're saying you're ignorant.

But I've given you plenty of evidence, statistics and reasonable arguments. You probably chose to skip them and have a go at me. Please don't assume that because I don't own a gun (which I do, a 91/30) I know nothing about the American way of life.

Idiot.

Hey now why no trust of anyone whatsoever? this seems to be the attitude many american citizens have, don't trust anyone, ever..

I do agree with you about it only being up there cos it's so extraordinary and I have full faith that your police force is in fact very well trained.

But seriously trust is an integral part of a community, not THE most important thing but some has to be there

I think you misread my post. I said there was no reason to believe the person wasn't telling the truth.

I think you misread my post. I said there was no reason to believe the person wasn't telling the truth.

I'm very sorry. please accept my bumbling english apology

Sorry sorry sorry

But I've given you plenty of evidence, statistics and reasonable arguments. You probably chose to skip them and have a go at me. Please don't assume that because I don't own a gun (which I do, a 91/30) I know nothing about the American way of life.

Idiot.

You're in the UK. You don't know anything about the American way of life.

And for someone who was so affronted about perceived attacks on their intelligence, you certainly resort to it quickly enough.

Owning a gun does not make you an expert on American gun culture any more than being a football fan makes me eligible to play for the Dallas Cowboys.

That was a newspaper article about an American company who had the pleasant job of cleaning up after murders, and thus the employees saw some pretty grusome things. The guy didn't have his leg 'blown' off, but was shot so many times that it fell off. Why his wife did that, I do not know.

I'd still like to see actual proof--you stating it doesn't quite cut it (no pun intended).

You're in the UK. You don't know anything about the American way of life.

And for someone who was so affronted about perceived attacks on their intelligence, you certainly resort to it quickly enough.

Owning a gun does not make you an expert on American gun culture any more than being a football fan makes me eligible to play for the Dallas Cowboys.

Listen, mate, you're really testing my nerves. I have told you time and time again that I research, read books and articles on gun crime. I've listened to both sides of the argument and I've made up my mind. I could easily say that because you're American, you don't know anything about proper English, whcih is nonsense because you obviously do. Please think before you punch the keys on your keyboard.

I'm very sorry. please accept my bumbling english apology

Sorry sorry sorry

S'ok. I didn't think you did it on purpose. Have no reason to believe that. ;)

I'd still like to see actual proof--you stating it doesn't quite cut it (no pun intended).

Please trust me, I'm not in the business of making things up to get a point across. I love a good debate.
The article was in the Observer or Times a few months back. I distincly remember reading it on the toilet.

Owning a gun does not make you an expert on American gun culture any more than being a football fan makes me eligible to play for the Dallas Cowboys.

Not that you'd want to be elligible to play for them anyway... <shudder>

Sorry, Seahawks fan. :D

S'ok. I didn't think you did it on purpose. Have no reason to believe that. ;)

cheers :)

Please trust me, I'm not in the business of making things up to get a point across. I love a good debate.
The article was in the Observer or Times a few months back. I distincly remember reading it on the toilet.

Sorry, pal, but I'm in InfoSec, so I know how easy it is to pretend to be a lot of things. Until you post something to back it up, it didn't happen.

I can't trust someone on the other end of a stream of bits without something else corroborating it.

Listen, mate, you're really testing my nerves. I have told you time and time again that I research, read books and articles on gun crime. I've listened to both sides of the argument and I've made up my mind. I could easily say that because you're American, you don't know anything about proper English, whcih is nonsense because you obviously do. Please think before you punch the keys on your keyboard.

But then I'm not pretending to know what being English is all about. I'm not trying to tell you that you guys SHOULD have guns. I'm not making any social commentary whatsoever on your way of life. You know why? Because I'm American. Not English. I realize, fundamentally, that your ways are not always our ways and that doesn't make either of them right or wrong. It simply means they're different.

Reading about something doesn't make you an expert. Statistics can and do lie. You are extrapolating real life scenarios from numbers in a culture that you are not part of and no nothing about. That's silly.

And just to let you know, I don't much care if I'm getting on your nerves. I'm defending a way of life that you are attempting to slander. In my mind, I take the fact that I'm getting on your nerves as a sign that you are incapable of dealing with people who disagree with you and state their opinion eloquently.

Here's a good fact.

There were 8,259 gun related murders in the USA last year. There were 62 in the UK. The US is 4.89 times more populous than the UK, so proportionaly to America the UK would have had 303 murdesr last year.

There were 27 times more gun murders in the USA than in the UK last year.

But then I'm not pretending to know what being English is all about. I'm not trying to tell you that you guys SHOULD have guns. I'm not making any social commentary whatsoever on your way of life. You know why? Because I'm American. Not English. I realize, fundamentally, that your ways are not always our ways and that doesn't make either of them right or wrong. It simply means they're different.

Reading about something doesn't make you an expert. Statistics can and do lie. You are extrapolating real life scenarios from numbers in a culture that you are not part of and no nothing about. That's silly.

And just to let you know, I don't much care if I'm getting on your nerves. I'm defending a way of life that you are attempting to slander. In my mind, I take the fact that I'm getting on your nerves as a sign that you are incapable of dealing with people who disagree with you and state their opinion eloquently.

You are getiing on my nerves because I want to have a proper debate that does not involve you slagging off my sources and commenting on my ignorance.

Here's a good fact.

There were 8,259 gun related murders in the USA last year. There were 62 in the UK. The US is 4.89 times more populous than the UK, so proportionaly to America the UK would have had 303 murdesr last year.

There were 27 times more gun murders in the USA than in the UK last year.

Here's a good fact: 2.5 million crimes are prevented each year by citizens w/ legally owned firearms.

Here's a good fact: 2.5 million crimes are prevented each year by citizens w/ legally owned firearms.

That proves what little control the American police have over the crime situation there, leaving the defending to citizens with guns.

Oh yes, and I'd love to see your source.

Here are some VERY interesting facts:

).

So you cutnpasted this from AGS, one of the most beligerent "Wolf-in Sheeps clothing groups out there.

So you cutnpasted this from AGS, one of the most beligerent "Wolf-in Sheeps clothing groups out there.

How funny, I actually cut and pasted from the National Education Association.

Here's a good fact.

There were 8,259 gun related murders in the USA last year. There were 62 in the UK. The US is 4.89 times more populous than the UK, so proportionaly to America the UK would have had 303 murdesr last year.

There were 27 times more gun murders in the USA than in the UK last year.
UK gun deaths used to be even lower than the US's . . . until they banned guns.

Oops.

That proves what little control the American police have over the crime situation there, leaving the defending to citizens with guns.

Oh yes, and I'd love to see your source.


Crime across the US is down, and has been going down since the 90s across the entire nation. So lets not say American police have little control of the situation, because each police department is different.

UK gun deaths used to be even lower than the US's . . . until they banned guns.

Oops.

At least gun crime is not as big a problem here as it is in the US. Why can't the USA's gun crime rate be lower due to legally owned guns then?

At least gun crime is not as big a problem here as it is in the US. Why can't the USA's gun crime rate be lower due to legally owned guns then?
My point is that if banning guns increased crime in the UK, why should the US do it? Seriously, do you want MORE deaths? We are already stocked to the brim here.

At least gun crime is not as big a problem here as it is in the US. Why can't the USA's gun crime rate be lower due to legally owned guns then?


Because each crime is different, because you have no clue the funding in police departments which deal with said crime. Because its two different cultures entirely. Because quite frankly this entire thread is once again a real poor excuse for passing off your beliefs.

My point is that if banning guns increased crime in the UK, why should the US do it? Seriously, do you want MORE deaths? We are already stocked to the brim here.

That isn't the point. According to your logic, the US death toll should be 10 times smaller due to legal guns.

Even though I'm against of legally owned guns, I'm afraid the groups of looters in New Orleans mostly don't have weapons they legally own. They just started with easy-to-find weapons such as baseball bats or knives, and then proceeded to loot armories and arm themselves with whatever firearm they could find.

That isn't the point. According to your logic, the US death toll should be 10 times smaller due to legal guns.
No, actually my logic is that it should be half as much for owning guns, and then 20 times that amount because our culture glorifies violence.

Thus, the 10x figure. :D

By banning guns, all you do is double our already abhorrent violent crime.

I know that some of you are going to say 'This is how life would be if only criminals have guns'. Just remember that 80% of these looters ect. were probably never criminals before the Hurricane. However, when they have a gun in their hand and nobody else does they are in control of the situation, and that can bring out the worst in people. If they weren't able to legaly get firearms, then many of them would join the line to be evacuated.

Of course is this isn't how life would be if only criminals had guns. This also isn't how life would be if the stupid government would've given Lousiana the money it has been asking for for ages to get the city prepared for a hurricane of that size. This also isn't how life would be if the idiot government cared half as much about it's own people as it does about some country on the other side of the world that doesn't even concern us. There is no reason why 150,000 soldiers could be ready to go in Iraq at a second's notice but when there's an actualy emergency in the US the government drags it's feet.
And if guns were illegaly, well duh only criminals would have them. And I find it very had to believe that no one there is using their guns to defend themselves from criminals.
So what you need to realize is that when the government gets ignorant citizens take things into their own hands because they have little else to tell them there's any other possible means for survival. Authority can't control them either because they don't have the means or the will.
The level of gun control has nothing to do with this. If only criminals had guns the same things would be happening. The lesson this incident shows is the government needs to pay more attention to it's own country than to it's damned international pet projects.

I'll sum up now, I have other things to do.

I don't agree with legalised firearms, as I don't believe that it is every man's God-given right to murder somebody else with such a destructive weapon as a gun.

Not that you'd want to be elligible to play for them anyway... <shudder>

Sorry, Seahawks fan. :D

Oh, I hate the Cowboys. I was using them because they are probably the most recognizable team in the NFL. I was using them for effect. hehehe

Prediciting the U.S. death toll in a society with no guns is a little pointless as it will never happen. Honestly a policeman turns up at your hours and says "guns are banned now, hand me your weapon" and everyone goes "EHH?? get lost mate" or the american equivalent and shuts the door in his/her face. Becasue guns aer such an integral part of american culture trying to picture america without it's guns is very dificult indeed.

That proves what little control the American police have over the crime situation there, leaving the defending to citizens with guns.

Oh yes, and I'd love to see your source.

US Dept of Justice and the Kleck Study.

Apparently you have only researched one side of the debate.

You are getiing on my nerves because I want to have a proper debate that does not involve you slagging off my sources and commenting on my ignorance.

Fair enough. Then stop being ignorant. Catastrophe averted!

How funny, I actually cut and pasted from the National Education Association.

Who pretty much only quoted information from some of the most anti-gun groups out there. You previously touted AGS as a Pro-gun source even though they are ran by some of the most virulent Anti-gunners in the US.

I'll sum up now, I have other things to do.

I don't agree with legalised firearms, as I don't believe that it is every man's God-given right to murder somebody else with such a destructive weapon as a gun.

And neither do Americans believe in any such thing. It's this sort of ridiculously slanted misrepresentation that we've been taking you to task for. You assume that because Americans hold dear the right to bear arms that we think we have a right to murder people.

You know, I thought you were just ignorant. Now I'm beginning to think you're stupid too.

Of course is this isn't how life would be if only criminals had guns. This also isn't how life would be if the stupid government would've given Lousiana the money it has been asking for for ages to get the city prepared for a hurricane of that size. This also isn't how life would be if the idiot government cared half as much about it's own people as it does about some country on the other side of the world that doesn't even concern us. There is no reason why 150,000 soldiers could be ready to go in Iraq at a second's notice but when there's an actualy emergency in the US the government drags it's feet.
And if guns were illegaly, well duh only criminals would have them. And I find it very had to believe that no one there is using their guns to defend themselves from criminals.
So what you need to realize is that when the government gets ignorant citizens take things into their own hands because they have little else to tell them there's any other possible means for survival. Authority can't control them either because they don't have the means or the will.
The level of gun control has nothing to do with this. If only criminals had guns the same things would be happening. The lesson this incident shows is the government needs to pay more attention to it's own country than to it's damned international pet projects.

Yeah this is more the point really isn't it. That the governement has had a slow reaction despite a huge hurricane in NO being a likely event at some point and that they knew it was coming but due to many of the country's service men and women being further affield they cannot help evacuate those in NO, neither can they provide the protection that the police force don't have to.

So all guns being used are illegal are stolen, therefore they were gotten by legal means, therefore if all guns are removed and forbidden to be sold no one will have guns THUS preventing criminals from getting guns illegally.

That's how the US eliminated the drug problem years ago. By making it illegal to sell or use certain drugs, it is now impossible to obtain such. :)

That's how the US eliminated the drug problem years ago. By making it illegal to sell or use certain drugs, it is now impossible to obtain such. :)

There will always be ways to do or obtain such things that are illegal, sadly. this is why we even need a police force

That's how the US eliminated the drug problem years ago. By making it illegal to sell or use certain drugs, it is now impossible to obtain such. :)

LOL I love sarcasm. Cuts like a razor when used properly.

I'll go you one better, though.

Prohibition is why it's still so damn difficult to buy a beer.

I'll sum up now, I have other things to do.

I don't agree with legalised firearms, as I don't believe that it is every man's God-given right to murder somebody else with such a destructive weapon as a gun.

And here's where your bias is inherant. You automatically assume that people who desire to own a firearm are out to murder people.

There are 80 million legal owners in the US. Only a minute fraction of a percent of them commit crimes w/ them. You would punish the majority for the acts of a few.

Here I am, back with my gun control proposals. I've been reading about Hurricane Katrina and it's effect on New Orleans, and it seems to me that there are certain individuals and groups stomping around the place raping, shooting and looting, all with the help of legally owned firearms. A man even began to snipe at hospital patients, causing the doctor to evacuate the sick from the area. It's when law and order breaks down and people are desperate to receive aid or be evacuated from a place that men and women with guns rule the roost. They can loot shops without competition, they can rape people who are too distressed to carry guns, psycopaths can even shoot at complete strangers without hindrance or fear. Even the National Guard is too scared to get into some parts of the city.
THis would never happen in the UK. Unfortunately, knives are no use at long range, and don't tell me that you could throw a baseball bat at a passing helecopter.
I know that some of you are going to say 'This is how life would be if only criminals have guns'. Just remember that 80% of these looters ect. were probably never criminals before the Hurricane. However, when they have a gun in their hand and nobody else does they are in control of the situation, and that can bring out the worst in people. If they weren't able to legaly get firearms, then many of them would join the line to be evacuated.

You have the right to think the way you do sir but it is because that gun is in the hand of the legel gun owner that you are free to do just what you are doing now. You have to remember what Hitler did in the 1930's after he took control of the government he took the guns away from the people who did not believe his idelogoy and then killed them. If that is what you want please go to another country and live there for a few years I am sure that you would not last long there before coming home. The fact of the matter is that this country was made by people like me who aren't afraid to carry a gun in his home or to go out in hunt in fact if you have ever whatch the movie called The Paitot you would find that it is not that regular military who saved the day it was the milita men who would fight back to the bitter end. Now mind you that The Paitot is not a historically accurate moive but the idea is correct. so if you want to end up on the wrong side of the law because you own a gun well then you might want to think about why this great Nation of the United States of America is free. Becuase people like me with the guns want, even if we don't like you, to defend you. Why you may ask because it is the freedom that you have expressed that we would die to defend. Think about it you may actually learn something. Oh and the reason why people with the guns are shooting at people is because they don't care if the people in New Orleans would settle down and help the aid people instead of shooting at them maybe the relieaf effort might just speed up a bit just maybe. ;)

Banning of all guns would make hunting here quite a challenge. Just you and a grizzly in a hand to hand fight to the death.

You have the right to think the way you do sir but it is because that gun is in the hand of the legel gun owner that you are free to do just what you are doing now. You have to remember what Hitler did in the 1930's after he took control of the government he took the guns away from the people who did not believe his idelogoy and then killed them. If that is what you want please go to another country and live there for a few years I am sure that you would not last long there before coming home. The fact of the matter is that this country was made by people like me who aren't afraid to carry a gun in his home or to go out in hunt in fact if you have ever whatch the movie called The Paitot you would find that it is not that regular military who saved the day it was the milita men who would fight back to the bitter end. Now mind you that The Paitot is not a historically accurate moive but the idea is correct. so if you want to end up on the wrong side of the law because you own a gun well then you might want to think about why this great Nation of the United States of America is free. Becuase people like me with the guns want, even if we don't like you, to defend you. Why you may ask because it is the freedom that you have expressed that we would die to defend. Think about it you may actually learn something. Oh and the reason why people with the guns are shooting at people is because they don't care if the people in New Orleans would settle down and help the aid people instead of shooting at them maybe the relieaf effort might just speed up a bit just maybe. ;)

S/he is already in another country. S/he is a Brit.

Banning of all guns would make hunting here quite a challenge. Just you and a grizzly in a hand to hand fight to the death.
Then don't go seeking out grizzlies that can kill you.

Most of the guns being used in the city right now were most likely stolen from gun shops during the flooding. They were not legally purchased to begin with.

At least gun crime is not as big a problem here as it is in the US. Why can't the USA's gun crime rate be lower due to legally owned guns then?

What were crime rates in the UK BEFORE the various regulations were enacted?

However, when they have a gun in their hand and nobody else does they are in control of the situation, and that can bring out the worst in people.

Thank you, I couldn't have made a better argument for the widespread (or even better, universal) ownership of firearms. The problem is clearly not the people who have guns, but that there are people who don't.

If everyone has a gun, it's kind of like when the USSR and USA had all those nukes and no one ever launched.

If only one person bothers with a gun, it's more like when the USA is nuking Japan without fear of reprisal.

Balance is clearly what is needed.... not disarmament.

S/he is already in another country. S/he is a Brit.

Another interesting FACT: Who did the UK call to for help in arming their citizens when their nation was threatened? That's right, the US, whose CIVILIAN population donated tens of thousands of privately owned firearms to help.

The Rwanda massacres were largely done by machete. Genghis Khan killed 40 million Chinese to gain enough pasture for his horses. The lack of guns did not stop any of this.

The lack of emergency preparedness causes this, not guns. Grow up.

Another interesting FACT: Who did the UK call to for help in arming their citizens when their nation was threatened? That's right, the US, whose CIVILIAN population donated tens of thousands of privately owned firearms to help.

and we thank you for your generosity

When looking at hte gun crime problem and homicide rate in the US, it ought to be stressed that not all of the US appears to be a war zone. Much of Michigan where I live, is about as safe as any nation in Western Europe. The odds of me, a middle aged white male, being the victim of a gun crime is pretty darn slim. The opposite is true for young black males who live in Detroit though.

Everything seems to depend on location. Still it would be great if everyone had the knowledge that they are unlikely to be the victim of any gun crime as you are my friend

Here are some VERY interesting facts:

School Safety

1 * Between 1994 and 1999, there were 220 school associated violent events resulting in 253 deaths - - 74.5% of these involved firearms. Handguns caused almost 60% of these deaths. (Journal of American Medical Association, December 2001)
2 * In 1998-99 academic year, 3,523 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. This is a decrease from the 5,724 students expelled in 1996-97 for bringing a firearm to school. (U.S. Department of Education, October 2000)
3 * Nearly 8% of adolescents in urban junior and senior high schools miss at least one day of school each month because they are afraid to attend. (National Mental Health & Education Center for Children & Families, National Association of School Psychologists 1998)
4 * The National School Boards Association estimates that more than 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools each day. (NSBA, 1993)

Children and Gun Violence

5 * America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
6 * In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. (Children's Defense Fund)
7 * The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

America and Gun Violence

8 * Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
9 * The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
10 * American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)

Guns in the Wrong Hands

11 * Americans for Gun Safety produced a 2003 report that reveals that 20 of the nation’s 22 national gun laws are not enforced. According to U.S. Department of Justice data (FY 2000-2002), only 2% of federal gun crimes were actually prosecuted. Eighty-five percent of cases prosecuted relate to street criminals in possession of firearms. Ignored are laws intended to punish illegal gun trafficking, firearm theft, corrupt gun dealers, lying on a criminal background check form, obliterating firearm serial numbers, selling guns to minors and possessing a gun in a school zone. To access The Enforcement Gap: Federal Gun Laws Ignored, visit http://w3.agsfoundation.com/. For a state-by-state chart of gun crimes (FY 2000-2002), click here.
12 * Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the dealer that armed the DC area sniper is among this small group of problem gun dealers that "supply the suppliers" who funnel guns to the nation's criminals. (Between 1997 and 2001, guns sold by this dealer were involved in 52 crimes, including homicides, kidnappings and assaults. Still open today, it also can't account for 238 guns or say whether they were stolen, lost or sold, or if their buyers underwent felony-background checks.) As a result, these few gun dealers have a vastly disproportionate impact on public safety. The ATF can recognize such dealers based on: (1) guns stolen from inventory; (2) missing federal sales records, needed by police to solve crimes; (3) having 10 weapons a year traced to crimes; (4) frequently selling multiple guns to individual buyers; and (5) short times between gun sales and their involvement in crimes. Yet ATF enforcement is weak due to a lack of Congressional support and resources. For more details, click here.
13 * Terrorists have purchased firearms at gun shows, where unlicensed sellers are not currently required to conduct background checks or to ask for identification. According to the Middle East Intelligence Report, for example, a Hezbollah member was arrested in November 2000, after a nine-month investigation by the FBI's counter-terrorism unit. Ali Boumelhem was later convicted on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon. Federal agents had observed Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to Michigan gun shows and buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas. Boumelhem was prohibited from legally purchasing guns as gun stores because he was a convicted felon. Additional cases involve a Pakistani national with an expired (1988) student visa; a Lebanese native and Hamas member with numerous felony convictions; and a supporter of the Irish Republican Army. (USA Today, Wednesday, November 28, 2001 Americans for Gun Safety)

14 * According to Americans for Gun Safety (December 2002), gun theft is most likely in states without laws requiring safe storage of firearms in the home and where there are large numbers of gun owners and relatively high crime rates. Based on FBI data, nearly 1.7 million guns have been reported stolen in the past ten years, and only 40% of those were recovered. The missing guns, over 80% of which are taken from homes or cars, most likely fuel the black market for criminals. NEA, AGS and the National Rifle Association advocate for safe storage. To access "Stolen Guns: Arming the Enemy" visit www.agsfoundation.com.

15 * The American Medical Association reports that between 36% and 50% of male eleventh graders believe that they could easily get a gun if they wanted one.

16 * In 1998-99 academic year, 3,523 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. This is a decrease from the 5,724 students expelled in 1996-97 for bringing a firearm to school. (U.S. Department of Education, October 2000)

17 * According to a report by the Joshephson Institute of Ethics (2000 Report Card: Report #1), 60% of high school and 31% of middle school boys said they could get a gun if they wanted to (April, 2001).
Got to love statistics. They can be so easily abused.

1. How many of these incidents involved gang members? Also, what does the term associated include? Where they on school property after classes or what? A meaningless nonspecific statistic.

2. Another misleading statistic. This one measures the amount of students expelled under the firearms or firearm-related expulsion rule made mandatory by the federal government in schools wanted federal funding. This means if they brought in any sort of toy gun or even pretended to shoot someone with no gun at all, they would be expelled.

3. Yeeess, so? Does it say what they were afraid of? I've known kids who were afraid to attend school because of a major test or because they failed to hand in a major project.

4. Be nice to see how they pulled this one out and where the highest concentration is. Again, primarily because of gang activity this occurs. As guns do not cause gang activity, blaming guns is useless.

5., 6., and 7. Firstly, I'm just a tad skeptical about the age range they're using here. Seeing as gang activity is most prevalent from ages 14-26 then it makes sense that there are a lot of problems. They don't publish the cut-off date either, but even if they did cut it off at 19 that's still 5 of the major years of gang activity. This statistic is much better at measuring the amount of violence then actually finding out how much of it is caused by guns themselves. Also, between 1979 and 2001 cars killed well over 1 million people. Maybe we should ban them as well.

8. So? Taking the guns away from the law-abiding citizen would do NOTHING to stop this. I suppose if you decided to ignore the Bill of Rights one could round up a majority of the illegal guns as well, but there would always be a black market.

9. Which 25 countries, and why do I think that both Switzerland and Israel will be included? Why do i also think that there will be very little gang activity compared to the United States in these countries?

10. See above. Also, the suicide rate is completely irrelevant in this discussion. The firearm is just a mode to the end one wants to achieve. If the gun's not there, they'll find another way. You do realize that swimming pools are much much more deadly than firearms for accidental deaths of kids under 12 years old right?

11. There are only so many lawyers in the country, and most of the federal gun violations have counterparts at the state level. Might as well let the state handle it.

12.Studies show. Which studies and have they been reproduced by other unaffiliated sources using the data?

13. Um, this one contradicts itself. He did not purchase a complete firearm at all. He purchased parts, none of which could be assembled to make a complete gun. Therefore it was not illegal for him to purchase those parts or ammunition. It became illegal when he went to transport them across state lines to ship them out of the country.

14. Yeeess, and the states without safe storage laws also have a much greater amount of guns as well. Wow, more guns in an area, and more guns get stolen. How interesting. I note it doesn't compare them on rate per 100,000 weapons.

15. Yeah. I could go out and get ecstasy if I wanted to as well. I'd have to hunt for it and it might take awhile, and there's a chance I would get caught, but I could still probably get some. You can get most things if you really try to.

16. Repeat.

17. Repeat, just a different study on the matter.

Everything seems to depend on location. Still it would be great if everyone had the knowledge that they are unlikely to be the victim of any gun crime as you are my friend

That's just the thing, Violet. Most people in America DO have that knowledge. It is a vast, VAST, minority of Americans that have any significant possibility of being shot in their lives.

Almost all of America is very safe. It's only the big cities, or the severely economically depressed ones, that the chances of being shot are high enough to be significant.

The gunstores were looted. Those are legal firearms obtained illegally. Other folks are using guns to stop looters, protect their businesses and even assist law enforcement in maintaining law and order.

As for many of them joining the line to be evacuated, they didnt evacuate in the first place because they didnt have the means to. Not because they figured "OMG THE CITY IS EMPTY AND I GOT MES A GUN!" This arguement is pretty hollow because all you have to do is look a rioting mob to realize you dont need a gun to loot, and you sure as hell dont need a gun to be lawless. In this sort of case anything can be made a weapon. And in this sort of case mob rule is what would control the streets if guns werent around in NO.
Maybe, but if the want was not there the store would not be.
I understand peeps looting for food....maybe. Where is your leader?
You know, the guy that got the most votes. When the U.K. got bombed our leader was where yours was, on holiday and sure not coming home in a hurry. Funny how a Demo and a Rep effectivly sleep in the same bed regardless huh?

That's just the thing, Violet. Most people in America DO have that knowledge. It is a vast, VAST, minority of Americans that have any significant possibility of being shot in their lives.

Almost all of America is very safe. It's only the big cities, or the severely economically depressed ones, that the chances of being shot are high enough to be significant.

I do understand that my honourable friend. I just went into my happy-wouldn't-it-be-nice-if-no-one-got-shot phase

I would have full confidence in your country (in fact I did about 3/4 weeks ago) that I would not get shot. However policemen carrying firearms did scare me a little but no doubt that's because my upbringing was guns=bad=death and so seeing them was a little worrying but hey, the police are there to protect me right? oops no, but it'll be ok anyway.

Wow, snip.I do apologize to his lordly all knowing majesty. Hip hop, cricket, high tea and guns are all culturally iconic, while you may live with a culture you are never truly part of it unless you were born into it. Legalizing guns doesn't mean ever needs to rush to GUNz R US and buy a glock. I used to live in MO, a right to carry state less than 10% carried but those that did had an effect on everybody. You could no longer assume that the average schmoe was unarmed. Crime went down people became more polite and incidents of road rage became less frequent. Not because everybody had a gun but because anybody might. The police in Britain need a HELL of allot MORE training as evidenced by the Brazilian man shot on the subway platform, they are poorly trained and therefore too apt to use them. I shoot more rounds on a weekend at the range than a British cop will fire in training in his whole career. Without exception every single person that I know who carries was either prior military or prior/active law enforcement. The average American who carries is better trained and more skillful with their personal weapon than the average armed UK cop. American cops train even more frequently on the average than the average civilian. It is also blatantly irresponsible to shoot a handgun anywhere except center mass (there are RARE exceptions) I find it suspicious that the British cops shot a man 7 times in the head. Those cops would be out on there asses in the US.

You are completely ignorant of the gun culture in the US any comments you make are speculative at best inflammatory at worst and rife with indoctrination. While you are completely entitled to your opinion however ill-informed it is please do not suggest you "know" anything about the US culture until you have lived hear 20 or so years.

I do understand that my honourable friend. I just went into my happy-wouldn't-it-be-nice-if-no-one-got-shot phase

I would have full confidence in your country (in fact I did about 3/4 weeks ago) that I would not get shot. However policemen carrying firearms did scare me a little but no doubt that's because my upbringing was guns=bad=death and so seeing them was a little worrying but hey, the police are there to protect me right? oops no, but it'll be ok anyway.

I don't know the exact numbers, but most police never fire their weapon in anger.

Those in major cities very well might, but those are not all policemen.

I do apologize to his lordly all knowing majesty. Hip hop, cricket, high tea and guns are all culturally iconic, while you may live with a culture you are never truly part of it unless you were born into it. Legalizing guns doesn't mean ever needs to rush to GUNz R US and buy a glock. I used to live in MO, a right to carry state less than 10% carried but those that did had an effect on everybody. You could no longer assume that the average schmoe was unarmed. Crime went down people became more polite and incidents of road rage became less frequent. Not because everybody had a gun but because anybody might. The police in Britain need a HELL of allot MORE training as evidenced by the Brazilian man shot on the subway platform, they are poorly trained and therefore too apt to use them. I shoot more rounds on a weekend at the range than a British cop will fire in training in his whole career. Without exception every single person who carries was either prior military or prior/active law enforcement. The average American who carries is better trained and more skillful with their personal weapon than the average armed UK cop. American cops train even more frequently on the average than the average civilian. It is also blatantly irresponsible to shoot a handgun anywhere except center mass (there are RARE exceptions) I find it suspicious that the British cops shot a man 7 times in the head. Those cops would be out on there asses in the US.

You are completely ignorant of the gun culture in the US any comments you make are speculative at best inflammatory at worst and rife with indoctrination. While you are completely entitled to your opinion however ill-informed it is please do not suggest you "know" anything about the US culture until you have lived hear 20 or so years.

only some UK bobbies are trained in firearms not all of them. so yes I'm guessing the average US cop is much better trained in using a gun than the AVERAGE policeman. THe shooting of the brazilian man on the tube platform was a very unfortunate and increasingly suspicious event, sympathies to his family and friends. But stil I'm sure there are also many uspicious events that occur in the US police force, I'm not saying all the time or that they're frequent just that they can happen, the brazilian man's death was very highly publicised as the public wanted any sort of terrorist to be caught and if the police thought he was the man then so be it, they should not have shot him 7 times in the head, maybe once in the leg to stop him so he could be questioned. This incident was an awful tragedy but hey we'd had people bowing up our tubes 2 weeks to the day before nmore bombs were found on the transport network so we were all a little jumpy

Just like drugs right? :rolleyes:


But don't YOU understand that if it is hard to get guns, most criminals won't have them. In England most murders are related to stabbing or strangling, not guns. There have been some pretty horrific cases in America of family arguments, leading to a murder where somebody had their legs blown off by an assult rifle.
Is that freedom?

I don't know the exact numbers, but most police never fire their weapon in anger.

Those in major cities very well might, but those are not all policemen.
It was just seeing the guns that unsettled me, i didn't feel like the cops were gonna shoot me as I've been brought up with the notion that policemen protect people, thats all

Another interesting FACT: Who did the UK call to for help in arming their citizens when their nation was threatened? That's right, the US, whose CIVILIAN population donated tens of thousands of privately owned firearms to help.
The UK didn't call anyone. America only got involved after Pearl Harbour (remember? when they took some damage). If we must talk about arms and cash Americans donated to the U.K. let's talk about the I.R.A.
Great Britain always has been and always will be able not only to look after itself, but also others.
Yes, even America.

The same stuff would happen. For one, even if arms were illegal, there'd be a great black market for them. And for another, someone, like the police, will always need arms. Many police stations are now abandoned. Besides, many of the guns used are automatic rifles. Quite frankly, those are illegal in the US, save for those who go through rigorous liscensing. I bet they came from police stations and abandoned security offices.

It was just seeing the guns that unsettled me, i didn't feel like the cops were gonna shoot me as I've been brought up with the notion that policemen protect people, thats all

**nods** Gotcha. I imagine it would be disconcerting.

The UK didn't call anyone. America only got involved after Pearl Harbour (remember? when they took some damage). If we must talk about arms and cash Americans donated to the U.K. let's talk about the I.R.A.
Great Britain always has been and always will be able not only to look after itself, but also others.
Yes, even America.

The US was sending large amounts of supplies to England before Pearl Harbor.

The UK didn't call anyone. America only got involved after Pearl Harbour (remember? when they took some damage). If we must talk about arms and cash Americans donated to the U.K. let's talk about the I.R.A.
Great Britain always has been and always will be able not only to look after itself, but also others.
Yes, even America.
Factual point:
The US poured tons of military surplus equipment into the UK for more than a year before Pearl Harbor under the Lend- Lease Act.

The US was sending large amounts of supplies to England before Pearl Harbor.

Yeah well there was a war on against Hitler and his Nazis, that you seemingly didn't get involved in until you had been attacked yourselves

Factual point:
The US poured tons of military surplus equipment into the UK for more than a year before Pearl Harbor under the Lend- Lease Act.

well it was surplus

This is really quite shocking, especially happening in supposedly a civilised land. I can't imagine that this would happen in the USA. It shows the dangers of a society that is so heavily armed and a society that has such widespread disrespect for the law.

I really think that this situation is unacceptable in a western nation. Why are people not being evacuated effectively? The authorities really need to answer some serious questions.

Yeah well there was a war on against Hitler and his Nazis, that you seemingly didn't get involved in until you had been attacked yourselves

I hear this a lot. Even from people who will accuse us in another post of being a nation of warmongers.

Not saying that YOU are saying this, Violet. Just mentioning that so many Europeans like to classify our foreign policy as warmongering yet still have some historical axe to grind for how long it took us to "get into the fight."

Have you lived in a major US city? LA NYC Miami Chicago???? Been to Compton or even any "hood" a barrio buy a 40 in a Dominican bodega? Been to Little Italy and had lunch with Rasta and a Muslim. Been to KC for ribs or had a chicken freid steak? America is a culture in constant flux no book could ever teach from place to place it ebbs and flows like a river with currents undercurrent whirlls and eddies. You don't KNOW a God D*mn thing about the US.


Listen, mate, you're really testing my nerves. I have told you time and time again that I research, read books and articles on gun crime. I've listened to both sides of the argument and I've made up my mind. I could easily say that because you're American, you don't know anything about proper English, whcih is nonsense because you obviously do. Please think before you punch the keys on your keyboard.

This is really quite shocking, especially happening in supposedly a civilised land. I can't imagine that this would happen in the USA. It shows the dangers of a society that is so heavily armed and a society that has such widespread disrespect for the law.

I really think that this situation is unacceptable in a western nation. Why are people not being evacuated effectively? The authorities really need to answer some serious questions.

Do you really think that people wouldn't do the same thing but without guns if there were no guns?

Do you really think that the American people in general have no respect for the law?

Or is this yet another Insult America post? If it is, I'll happily ignore it.

This is really quite shocking, especially happening in supposedly a civilised land. I can't imagine that this would happen in the USA. It shows the dangers of a society that is so heavily armed and a society that has such widespread disrespect for the law.

I really think that this situation is unacceptable in a western nation. Why are people not being evacuated effectively? The authorities really need to answer some serious questions.

You are right in that the evacuation and response has been seriously botched. But sadly I think you would find the thin veneer of civilization breeched in any society under severe circumstances. It might manifest itself in a different manner-- but I fear its pretty universal.

As much as I love changing the subject, and i'd love to talk about attitudes of a nation that contained a significant minority that funded and help arm the people that murdered innocent people in cold blood in my home country for 30 bloody years, or WWII and the ins and outs of the Lend-Lease act, which was started largely by private industry and corporations, then exapanded into a more official military program, I wanna get back to a semblance of the subject.
EDIT: Though I notice in my ranting time, we have achieved the desired topic. good work guys.


You are completely ignorant of the gun culture in the US any comments you make are speculative at best inflammatory at worst and rife with indoctrination. While you are completely entitled to your opinion however ill-informed it is please do not suggest you "know" anything about the US culture until you have lived hear 20 or so years.

I think this is the core of our heated misunderstanding. Britian and the US are worlds apart when it comes to gun culture. In Britian, if you kick down someones door and raid somewhere holding a Glock, the inhabitants will have kittens and surrender/run 99% of the time. in America, you could well get blown to shrapnel by a practiced shooter protecting his property, and frankly, his was bigger than yours. This cultural barrier is what makes it so hard to understand eachother's points.

In Northern Ireland's experiences, a gunman was a very dangerous propisition. If you where unarmed, as the law abiding citizens where, you where helpless against the power of black market firearms, be it a simple shotgun or an AK47. But the 'civilian' mobs where just as dangerous. Without many guns and such, people formed together like a pack of animals. Improvised weapons became a real danger to policemen, not to mention petrol bombs, bricks, pipebombs and other deadly debri that can cause more damage en masse than any home bought firearm.

Do you really think that people wouldn't do the same thing but without guns if there were no guns?

Do you really think that the American people in general have no respect for the law?

Or is this yet another Insult America post? If it is, I'll happily ignore it.

No, it's not an insult America post. It may will be critical of some of the aspects of society in USA which have compounded the problem. The allowing of arms on a widespread scale, the high-degree of suspecion towards the authorities etc. The high-degree of an attitude of "every person for themselves". I think if a disaster like this happened here (obviously, we are not in a hurricane zone), I believe the people would pull together far more and I don't think you would see the widespread level of law breaking.

Much of the law breaking seems to be because of the huge levels of poverty in New Orleans. This wouldn't exist here for a start due to our social welfare system. So, you probably wouldn't have desperately poor and armed people in any case. The high-levels of poverty also meant many ot the poor couldn't afford to evacuate the city - itself a reason that has lead to the current situation.

Hmmmm......one almost wants to say that yes, New Orleans shows that guns should be reserved for government agencies only.

But then what would America do for anger management? Punching pillows isnt nearly as effective as hunting, in my humble opinion. Even though I don't OWN a firearm, there are perfectly legitimate uses for them.

I'll assume you've all had more math classes than me, so I'll do an indirect proof.

Assume: Guns are illegal.
1. No hunting would be allowed. The NRA would cease to exist.
2. Gunmakers would (for the most part) go out of business (you should know that I have no sympathy for them, however)
3. People would eventually start to smuggle guns and ammunition, as is the wont of the rebellious human nature.
4. Government agencies will attempt to stop smugglers and will be routed by large amounts of firepower.
5. Government agencies need to buy guns, but can't!

With respect to the absurdity of the notion that my government (the US) would ever limit itself, it seems quite plausible, no?

[Also with respect to the chap from Missouri who mentioned the police training with firearms].


Another bad comparison:

The internet. There are plenty of legitimate uses, as with firearms, yet there are those "devious" file-sharing programs, porno-filth sites (over and under 18), hackers, spyware, and DOS attacks. Should the internet be banned because of the misdeeds of a few? I think not.

All that New Orleans shows us is that human nature hasn't changed one bit. As soon as one is uncomfortable with a situation, the "fight or flight" instinct comes into play.

I do think that the people sniping at helicopters should be hung from their toenails and slowly but surely stuck with enough sewing needles to make them look like a porcupine, making sure they are thoroughly in pain. That kind of behavior is simply unacceptable, no matter what the circumstances may be.

Comments, questions, concerns, and criticisms welcome at NOSPAM_refreshingapathy@yahoo.com. Just take out the NOSPAM_ and you're good.

A list of forbidden words if you email me:
Liberal
Conservative
anything refering to Germany's 1940s govt.
left-wing
right-wing
propaganda
Democrat
Republican

I think this is the core of our heated misunderstanding. Britian and the US are worlds apart when it comes to gun culture. In Britian, if you kick down someones door and raid somewhere holding a Glock, the inhabitants will have kittens and surrender/run 99% of the time. in America, you could well get blown to shrapnel by a practiced shooter protecting his property, and frankly, his was bigger than yours. This cultural barrier is what makes it so hard to understand eachother's points.

In Northern Ireland's experiences, a gunman was a very dangerous propisition. If you where unarmed, as the law abiding citizens where, you where helpless against the power of black market firearms, be it a simple shotgun or an AK47. But the 'civilian' mobs where just as dangerous. Without many guns and such, people formed together like a pack of animals. Improvised weapons became a real danger to policemen, not to mention petrol bombs, bricks, pipebombs and other deadly debri that can cause more damage en masse than any home bought firearm.

See, now that's interesting. Some individual on this board stated that the police can handle mobs that aren't armed w/ firearms because they aren't dangerous.

Peta would love that

Banning of all guns would make hunting here quite a challenge. Just you and a grizzly in a hand to hand fight to the death.

See, now that's interesting. Some individual on this board stated that the police can handle mobs that aren't armed w/ firearms because they aren't dangerous.

Don't twist my words. I said that armed police with pepper spray and water hoses can take down most mobs.

Two of my uncles are cops one never drew his weapon in anger the other shot a dog that was set on him.


It was just seeing the guns that unsettled me, i didn't feel like the cops were gonna shoot me as I've been brought up with the notion that policemen protect people, thats all

While i'd agree with the idea that 'unarmed' mobs are 'easier' to control, people shouldn't kid themselves, human ingenuity will come up with plenty of brutal weapons. Need I even mention the molotov again? Or the breezeblock (ciderblock for you americans)? Or the baseball bat or wooden plank with nails driven through it?

Improvised weapons are of course far less lethal in a riot contol, and such cause far more injuries over fatalities than firearms. I'm not an idiot. But in your average mob (mob tend to have few firearms, firarms tend to forge individual or small group opportunists) there are a huge amount of these nasty suprises. But in a emergency like a hurricane, where police morale has sunk down the toilet, and access to backup and emergency services is slim to none, there would be heavy police attrition, IMHO.

Northern Ireland, in particular, would be screwed. Remember how the terrorists still have their guns? Remember that they have, and will take any opportunity to kill and maim the opposite religion or security services? Great move goverment!

all the business in NO has firmly convinced me that I should go out and splurge on a shiny new gun (plus they're neat as hell.)

Lets just admit it, guns are big, loud, shiny, they make you feel like you have ten pound balls, and they go well with beer.

=)


gun control might be okay in western europe, where criminals didn't have guns before guns were banned (I can't imagine crims just giving their guns to cops. lol)... but it would be disastrous in the united states... because many criminals DO have guns.

Guns in the hands of decent people - okay

Guns in the hands of criminals - bad (as we're seeing in Nawlins)

Ban guns - decent people give up their guns... criminals don't.

Then the decent people have NO CHANCE to defend themselves against wanton crime.

And neither do Americans believe in any such thing. It's this sort of ridiculously slanted misrepresentation that we've been taking you to task for. You assume that because Americans hold dear the right to bear arms that we think we have a right to murder people.

You know, I thought you were just ignorant. Now I'm beginning to think you're stupid too.

Why do you bear arms? Because they look good on your mantelpiece? Because guns are designed to kill people, and by pointing a loaded gun at someone you are putting a very strong point across.
'Do what I say or I kill you'.

Don't twist my words. I said that armed police with pepper spray and water hoses can take down most mobs.

It sure worked well enough for the police in the Watts and King riots.

:rolleyes:


New Orleans Cops Ordered to Stop Looters

Thursday September 1, 2005 5:01 AM


AP Photo LADM112

By KEVIN McGILL

Associated Press Writer

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Mayor Ray Nagin ordered 1,500 police officers to leave their search-and-rescue mission Wednesday night and return to the streets to stop looting that has turned increasingly hostile as the city plunges deeper into chaos.

``They are starting to get closer to heavily populated areas - hotels, hospitals, and we're going to stop it right now,'' Nagin said in a statement to The Associated Press.

The number of officers called off the search-and-rescue mission amounts to virtually the entire police force in New Orleans.

Amid the turmoil Wednesday, thieves commandeered a forklift and used it to push up the storm shutters and break the glass of a pharmacy. The crowd stormed the store, carrying out so much ice, water and food that it dropped from their arms as they ran. The street was littered with packages of ramen noodles and other items.

Looters also chased down a police truck full of food. The New Orleans police chief ran off looters while city officials themselves were commandeering equipment from a looted Office Depot. During a state of emergency, authorities have broad powers to take private supplies and buildings for their use.

Managers at a nursing home were prepared to cope with the power outages and had enough food for days, but then the looting began. The home's bus driver was forced to surrender the vehicle to carjackers.

Bands of people drove by the nursing home, shouting to residents, ``Get out!'' Eighty residents, most of them in wheelchairs, were being evacuated to other nursing homes in the state.

``We had enough food for 10 days,'' said Peggy Hoffman, the home's executive director. ``Now we'll have to equip our department heads with guns and teach them how to shoot.''

At one store, hordes of people from all ages, races and walks of life grabbed food and water. Some drove away with trunkloads of beer. At one point, two officers drew their guns on the looters, but the thieves left without incident.

One young man was seen wading through chest-deep floodwater, carrying a case of soda, after looting a grocery store.

Police officers were asking residents to give up any firearms before they evacuated neighborhoods because police desperately needed the firepower: Some officers who had been stranded on the roof of a hotel said they were being shot at overnight.

``It's really difficult because my opinion of the looting is it started with people running out of food, and you can't really argue with that too much,'' Nagin said. ``Then it escalated to this kind of mass chaos.''

Gov. Kathleen Blanco said she has asked the White House to send more people to help with evacuations and rescues, thereby freeing up National Guardsmen to stop looters.

Bob Mann, an aide to the governor, said dozens of law officers are being brought in from around the country and Canada to help stop the looting. Officials said they hope the 4,000 National Guard troops already in New Orleans, who have been engaged in search and rescue, will be available for police actions.

``We will restore law and order,'' an emotional Blanco said at a news conference. ``What angers me the most is that disasters like this often bring out the worst in people. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior.''

John Matessino, president of the Louisiana Hospital Association, said he had not heard of anyone breaking into the hospitals, but he added that thieves got into the parking garage at one hospital and were stealing car batteries and stereos.

New Orleans' homeland security chief, Terry Ebbert, said looters were breaking into stores all over town and stealing guns. He said there are gangs of armed men moving around the city. At one point, officers stranded on the roof of a hotel were fired at by criminals on the street.

Authorities said an officer was shot in the head and a looter was wounded in a shootout. The officer and looter were expected to survive.

^---

The part in Bold really disturbs me.
________


Yup, legal firearms in the hands of Citizens are ruining NO :rolleyes: .


In Uptown, one the few areas that remained dry, a bearded man patrolled Oak Street near the boarded-up Maple Leaf Bar, a sawed-off shotgun slung over his shoulder. The owners of a hardware store sat in folding chairs, pistols at the ready.

Uptown resident Keith Williams started his own security patrol, driving around in his Ford pickup with his newly purchased handgun. Earlier in the day, Williams said he had seen the body of a gunshot victim near the corner of Leonidas and Hickory streets.

"What I want to know is why we don’t have paratroopers with machine guns on every street," Williams said.

Like-minded Art Depodesta sat on the edge of a picnic table outside Cooter Brown’s Bar, a chrome shotgun at his side loaded with red shells.

"They broke into the Shell station across the street," he said. "I walked over with my 12-gauge and shot a couple into the air."

The looters scattered, but soon after, another man appeared outside the bar in a pickup truck armed with a pistol and threatened Depodesta.

"I told him, ‘Listen, I was in the Army and I will blow your ass off,’" Depodesta said. "We’ve got enough trouble with the flood."

The man sped away.

"You know what sucks," Depodesta said. "The whole U.S. is looking at this city right now, and this is what they see."

In the Bywater, a supply store sported spray-painted signs reading "You Loot, I Shoot" and "You Bein Watched." A man seated nearby with a rifle in his lap suggested it was no idle threat. At the Bywater studio of Dr. Bob, the artist known for handpainted "Be Nice or Leave" signs, a less fanciful sentiment was painted on the wall: "Looters Will Be Shot. Dr. Bob."

The US Supreme court said that the police are NOT obligated to protect you.

It was just seeing the guns that unsettled me, i didn't feel like the cops were gonna shoot me as I've been brought up with the notion that policemen protect people, thats all

Don't twist my words. I said that armed police with pepper spray and water hoses can take down most mobs.


Now you're modifying your words:

the police can control an unarmed gang roaming the streets.

Why do you bear arms? Because they look good on your mantelpiece? Because guns are designed to kill people, and by pointing a loaded gun at someone you are putting a very strong point across.
'Do what I say or I kill you'.

Because if someone comes to me trying to take my liberty from me I can defend myself. It's as simple as that. Whether you're talking about criminals, foreign powers or my own government.

Why do you bear arms? Because they look good on your mantelpiece? Because guns are designed to kill people, and by pointing a loaded gun at someone you are putting a very strong point across.
'Do what I say or I kill you'.

Not all firearms are designed to kill people. This points been covered before.

"Do what I say" ussually means "get out of my house" or " stop trying to harm me and my family"

Because if someone comes to me trying to take my liberty from me I can defend myself. It's as simple as that. Whether you're talking about criminals, foreign powers or my own government.

Oy vavoy, just keep your liberty-preserving gun if you think that you need it, and good luck if you ever come across a situation that requires you to fire it.

This is really quite shocking, especially happening in supposedly a civilised land. I can't imagine that this would happen in the USA. It shows the dangers of a society that is so heavily armed and a society that has such widespread disrespect for the law.

I really think that this situation is unacceptable in a western nation. Why are people not being evacuated effectively? The authorities really need to answer some serious questions.

NO is NOT a civilized land. It is a festering boil and the butt of America.

And here are pictures of LAWFUL civilians defending themselves against mob rule in NO.

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/4917/0214ik.jpg

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/4629/shotungarmedciv7yp.jpg



These two fellas are headed to their father's house to salvage any valuables.

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/8392/katrina016qv.jpg



Looter appears to be looting a Winchester or Henry Repeating arms 30-30 lever action rifle.

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1061/walmart600x3930jf.jpg




http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3419/r4111739709ce.jpg

Texas "Fish police" (Game wardens) detaining several looters who stole a US postal carrier mail vehicle. Unfortunately they will be let go, FYI stealign US postal service vehicles is a FELONY. The rifles are M16s, yes, and those ARE full auto rifles.



(down below) NOPD officers armed with a Chinese MAK-90 rifle and a what appears to be a Mini-14. They were apparently the officers' private weapons (HINT HINT-BANNING private ownership of these "assault weapons" means that these cops would have been under gunned by looters).

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/8033/picture0628vb.jpg



Don't blame guns because the NOPD and Governor didn't do their job. Blame the gangs and criminals that run NO right now.

Not all firearms are designed to kill people. This points been covered before.

"Do what I say" ussually means "get out of my house" or " stop trying to harm me and my family"

All firearms (minus the taser) are designed to kill. Just add the phrase 'or I shoot' to the end of your examples.

No, it's not an insult America post. It may will be critical of some of the aspects of society in USA which have compounded the problem. The allowing of arms on a widespread scale, the high-degree of suspecion towards the authorities etc. The high-degree of an attitude of "every person for themselves". I think if a disaster like this happened here (obviously, we are not in a hurricane zone), I believe the people would pull together far more and I don't think you would see the widespread level of law breaking.

Much of the law breaking seems to be because of the huge levels of poverty in New Orleans. This wouldn't exist here for a start due to our social welfare system. So, you probably wouldn't have desperately poor and armed people in any case. The high-levels of poverty also meant many ot the poor couldn't afford to evacuate the city - itself a reason that has lead to the current situation.

I don't know if I'm going to be able to express this correctly but the issues you raise-- widespread legal ownership of firearms, suspicion of authority, and , let's call it, rugged individualism, go to the core belief in America that we are a "free" society-- That we have within ourselves, individually, the ability and the RIGHT, to change our lives and society to how it bests suits us. And that the government must, at need, be able to adjust and accept to that social change when it reaches a critical mass of popular support.

All firearms (minus the taser) are designed to kill. Just add the phrase 'or I shoot' to the end of your examples.

Now you're modifying your statement again. You previously said people, now your changing it to kill. It's still not true. There are quite a few firearms that are designed for target/skeet/trap shooting. If you had actually researched firearms, instead of how to make arguements to ban them, you would know that.

Adding the phrase at the end of my examples does not change the purpose behind them.

disregard second word "to" in last sentence

Not all firearms are designed to kill people. This points been covered before.

"Do what I say" ussually means "get out of my house" or " stop trying to harm me and my family"

"Or you will get a lead injection"

COnservatives...always so cruel and heartless to the poor looting mob stealing Plasma TVs :D

All firearms (minus the taser) are designed to kill. Just add the phrase 'or I shoot' to the end of your examples.

firearms are designed to do nothing more than propel a projectile at a target. The shooter determines the target

Oy vavoy, just keep your liberty-preserving gun if you think that you need it, and good luck if you ever come across a situation that requires you to fire it.

The question is not whether I think I will need it.

It's whether I have the right to use it if the need ever arises.

The US was sending large amounts of supplies to England before Pearl Harbor.
Free were they or are we still paying?
Maybe we could send some back to the U.S. now at inflated prices.

All firearms (minus the taser) are designed to kill. Just add the phrase 'or I shoot' to the end of your examples.

Oh really? What about a beanbag gun?

I don't know if I'm going to be able to express this correctly but the issues you raise-- widespread legal ownership of firearms, suspicion of authority, and , let's call it, rugged individualism, go to the core belief in America that we are a "free" society-- That we have within ourselves, individually, the ability and the RIGHT, to change our lives and society to how it bests suits us. And that the government must, at need, be able to adjust and accept to that social change when it reaches a critical mass of popular support.

Well, we are also a free society, but a free society that realises that there is such a thing as "society", and thus it is in the interest of ''society'' that we ensure and promote equality of access to services and opportunities.

Our society does not wish to allow people to have to live in such appaling poverty.

I don't agree with legalised firearms, as I don't believe that it is every man's God-given right to murder somebody else with such a destructive weapon as a gun.

Neither do I, but I do believe it's everyone's right to be able to defend themselves with whatever weapon they see fit to use.

Nope, better still we wait until there is next to nothing left except our own safty, then we can charge you for something we had to do anyway. I have a lot of good American friends but peeps with your attitude make me sick.

Well, we are also a free society, but a free society that realises that there is such a thing as "society", and thus it is in the interest of ''society'' that we ensure and promote equality of access to services and opportunities.

Our society does not wish to allow people to have to live in such appaling poverty.

and how many people would that be? and how many have emigrated over the years for new and better opportunities?

Then don't go seeking out grizzlies that can kill you.

We're in the US. Grizzly bears LIVE here. They may find you--like in your own backyard.

and how many people would that be? and how many have emigrated over the years for new and better opportunities?

More than 10% of people hare are immigrants, having moved here from other countries.

We're in the US. Grizzly bears LIVE here. They may find you--like in your own backyard.

Yeah sorry but you were referring to hunting grizzly bears in your original message

The US Supreme court said that the police are NOT obligated to protect you.

I know that it's been said like a million times, I was saying that I was brought up to believe that and it was referring to an earlier post. I know cops dont shoot in anger. I'm not saying i thought ne would shoot me ok?I've just never seen that many guns before seeing as I'm british

Yeah sorry but you were referring to hunting grizzly bears in your original message

Now it's my turn to be sorry--I missed what you were actually quoting. :(

There are a ton of rather large, potentially damaging critters in North America--the Western half of the US is crawling with them (thankfully--I'm a nature nut), but you have to have respect for what they can do, and you will need to protect yourself eventually.

I'm not big on hunting predators--they weren't made to be hunted.

Now it's my turn to be sorry--I missed what you were actually quoting. :(

There are a ton of rather large, potentially damaging critters in North America--the Western half of the US is crawling with them (thankfully--I'm a nature nut), but you have to have respect for what they can do, and you will need to protect yourself eventually.

I'm not big on hunting predators--they weren't made to be hunted.

I ca totally understand that/

More than 10% of people hare are immigrants, having moved here from other countries.

sorry, you misunderstood my question. How many have moved out over the years?

The interesting part of what we are seeing in New Orleans right now, is that there seems to be relatively normal, "law-abiding citizens" who bring out their guns as an act of desperation.

Previously in this thread someone talked about having guns and lots of ammo, and that they would not hesitate to use them on people who came to steal their food and water. But this forms the basis for a dilemma in my mind: What if the only way to get food and water for your family was to threaten or shoot somebody else? How far are you willing to go? With a gun, it could be so much easier to save your childrens life... At the cost of some stranger, maybe?
How many "law-abiding citizens" have been that desperate in the last couple of days? None? Many? I don't know.

I've read about a helicopter-pilot who didn't dare land and pick up people because there were too many armed people, and he feared what would happen if he tried it.

We see that citizens, angry, frustrated and scared, use guns to get themselves (and their families) onto busses so they can be evacuated safely. Does this cost innocent lives because someone more needy is left behind?

So I believe that the private ownership of guns is a danger in New Orleans, and that in such desperate times, it will cause some deaths - not all directly.

As to the general discussion about gun control - Nope, won't get involved in that one today. :cool:

Noo, there just wouldn't be guns involved at all, which means that things would get much nastier for the store owners that stayed behind to protect their stuff. It would not in the end stop any sort of rape or looting. You might gain control back a little bit quicker, but that would be the ONLY good difference.

Can you be sure that there wouldn't be less looting if guns weren't involved at all? I think it is much easier to summon up the courage to go looting if you have a loaded gun, rather than just having some kind of hand-to-hand-weapon or just your fists. So I believe it would limit the looting and the violence.

I've been thinking about this. If most guns used illegally are stolen, how does that support letting people have guns? No one can steal guns and use them illegally if no one has a gun to begin with.

Nobody's "letting" me own any firearms. I despise such usage of words; it's like saying the government "lets" me speak my own political opinions. Bullshit, I exercise my rights and won't let anybody steal that from me. Exericising my own rights in no way empowers criminals.

Ethnic cleansing went on for years in the Balkans so it's rather silly to argue that this kind of thing wouldn't happen in Europe.

Government-sanctioned ethnic clensing and individual people acting out of desperation or opportunism in the aftermath of a disaster are two completely different discussions, my friend. :p

sorry, you misunderstood my question. How many have moved out over the years?

I am not sure. As you know in the late nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth there was outwards migration, as from other European lands. I believe this totaled around 1 million persons alltogether. In recent history, I don't know the statistics. I don't believe they are significant numbers. Inward migration has been far more significant in the last 30 or so years. Today the figure is around 1,5 million people with at least one foreign-born parent.

I've been reading about Hurricane Katrina and it's effect on New Orleans, and it seems to me that there are certain individuals and groups stomping around the place raping, shooting and looting, all with the help of legally owned firearms.
Do you have a source showing that these are the legal owners of legally registered guns, or are you just making a wild accusation based on no evidence and completely without merit?

Most New Orleaners (?) would already have guns, by looting the gun stoors they could just add a shiny new firearm to their collection. Granted there are people with guns guarding their shops and homes, but most of the remaining citizens just want to get out of the city. It's gun rule in New Orleans, those with the means to kill have the power to rape people making their way around, and snipe at people in the street. A knife would be almost uneffective, you cant snipe at peoople with a sharp stick or challenge the NG with a broom-handle.

Everytime the British (Don't get me wrong, I have Brit friends, I love them) take a crack at us for high gun deaths and the such, I'd like to remind them that since we are a much larger country, we will obviously have higher deaths from guns than from a smaller country. Its the percentage that important, not the absolute value. And remember, banning something just makes it seem more fun to get.

Look at weed, since it was unilaterally banned, it went from novelty smoke, only a few enjoyed, to the most pervasive drug in the United States and now costs us billions to enforce drug laws.

And for a more effective example look at Prohibition. Today the US has a lot of alcohol related arrests and crimes, because its banned for children, even in the privacy of their own homes. In other countries this isnt' an issue. Because beer and the like are just part of their lives, nothing special. In China I've seen kids as young as 13 walk into a bar and order a beer with their friends. They drink responsibly and leave. That isn't to say there aren't alcohol related crimes, its just that the majority of the population, because they have access to it, can learn to do it responsibly and legally and will not act evil.

And besides, as a constitutional right to own firearms and to operate a militia it will require a massive movement to outlaw it. I don't see every person down there raping and killing. I see a few nutcases doing so. What would outlawing guns prevent? A psychopath will just find a new way, predating on people from hiding, with knives and the such. Guns aren't the problem, evil people are. And people like you who call guns problems, limiting them and making it so that those who do own guns get thrown out of society and they rage against it. You and the psychopaths are the problem. Stop hating people.

Here I am, back with my gun control proposals. I've been reading about Hurricane Katrina and it's effect on New Orleans, and it seems to me that there are certain individuals and groups stomping around the place raping, shooting and looting, all with the help of legally owned firearms. A man even began to snipe at hospital patients, causing the doctor to evacuate the sick from the area. It's when law and order breaks down and people are desperate to receive aid or be evacuated from a place that men and women with guns rule the roost. They can loot shops without competition, they can rape people who are too distressed to carry guns, psycopaths can even shoot at complete strangers without hindrance or fear. Even the National Guard is too scared to get into some parts of the city.
THis would never happen in the UK. Unfortunately, knives are no use at long range, and don't tell me that you could throw a baseball bat at a passing helecopter.
I know that some of you are going to say 'This is how life would be if only criminals have guns'. Just remember that 80% of these looters ect. were probably never criminals before the Hurricane. However, when they have a gun in their hand and nobody else does they are in control of the situation, and that can bring out the worst in people. If they weren't able to legaly get firearms, then many of them would join the line to be evacuated.


As already stated numbnuts, gunstores were looted. Get your head out of your antigun uptight ass.
BTW, I have nothing against BRITs

I am not sure. As you know in the late nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth there was outwards migration, as from other European lands. I believe this totaled around 1 million persons alltogether. In recent history, I don't know the statistics. I don't believe they are significant numbers. Inward migration has been far more significant in the last 30 or so years. Today the figure is around 1,5 million people with at least one foreign-born parent.

are they ethnically/religiously similar and do these immigrants adopt Swedish culture as their own? Or is there a Little Havana (no slur towards Cubans intended) in Stockholm? I'd love to continue, sadly I must bow out and move on. Feel free to TG me at your convenience so we might continue at some other point

Here I am, back with my gun control proposals. I've been reading about Hurricane Katrina and it's effect on New Orleans, and it seems to me that there are certain individuals and groups stomping around the place raping, shooting and looting, all with the help of legally owned firearms. A man even began to snipe at hospital patients, causing the doctor to evacuate the sick from the area. It's when law and order breaks down and people are desperate to receive aid or be evacuated from a place that men and women with guns rule the roost. They can loot shops without competition, they can rape people who are too distressed to carry guns, psycopaths can even shoot at complete strangers without hindrance or fear. Even the National Guard is too scared to get into some parts of the city.
THis would never happen in the UK. Unfortunately, knives are no use at long range, and don't tell me that you could throw a baseball bat at a passing helecopter.
I know that some of you are going to say 'This is how life would be if only criminals have guns'. Just remember that 80% of these looters ect. were probably never criminals before the Hurricane. However, when they have a gun in their hand and nobody else does they are in control of the situation, and that can bring out the worst in people. If they weren't able to legaly get firearms, then many of them would join the line to be evacuated.
Says nothing about how people are supposed to defend themselves when they are at knifepoint or their kids are being attacked in New Orleans.

are they ethnically/religiously similar and do these immigrants adopt Swedish culture as their own? Or is there a Little Havana (no slur towards Cubans intended) in Stockholm? I'd love to continue, sadly I must bow out and move on. Feel free to TG me at your convenience so we might continue at some other point

Hmm.... there's no one answer. It's a case of Yes and No! Some immigrants have very much integrated into Swedish society very well. Some haven't and this has led to some integraton issues. These days the government is actively pursuing a policy of integration to address the issues of alienation among some immigrants. We must treat issues faced by immigrant communities as part of wider social issues rather than segragating them as ''immigrant'' issues. So, it's certainly not a perfect situation of integration, but it's certainly not as ghettoised as in some other nations.

Regarding ethnicity and religion. No, many of the immigrants are not from the same religion and ethnicity as the more established population.

Says nothing about how people are supposed to defend themselves when they are at knifepoint or their kids are being attacked in New Orleans.

Didn't you know? It's the guns that are "causing" the crime. If there were no guns, nobody would ever get robbed or raped.

Didn't you know? It's the guns that are "causing" the crime. If there were no guns, nobody would ever get robbed or raped.
...Let's hope that's sarcasm.

I can easily beat down a 10 year old and take whatever money he has. That's not a crime?

Now, if the 10 year old had a gun, I don't think he'd be quite as good a target.

...Let's hope that's sarcasm.

.

Take a look at my nations motto and you tell me. ;)

hate hate hate

Sorry need to clarify .."in anger" means anything not for practice not necessarily that you are angry. If you ever come to the states you have to go shooting. I know that it's been said like a million times, I was saying that I was brought up to believe that and it was referring to an earlier post. I know cops dont shoot in anger. I'm not saying i thought ne would shoot me ok?I've just never seen that many guns before seeing as I'm british

You can take the ****** out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the ******. They are savages.

So what you're really saying is that you don't like it here at NS and want to be booted.

Well, we are also a free society, but a free society that realises that there is such a thing as "society", and thus it is in the interest of ''society'' that we ensure and promote equality of access to services and opportunities.

Our society does not wish to allow people to have to live in such appaling poverty.

...is it society's responsibility to support people, or individuals' responsibility to support themselves?