NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.wwltv.com/sharedcontent/nationworld/katrina/stories/090105ccjcwccwMainKatrina.4c55a2f6.html

New Orleans has slipped into anarchy, as we all know, but now it might return to law and order. Governor Kathleen Blanco has ordered the 300 members of the Arkansas National Guard that has redeployed from Iraq to New Orleans to restore law and order, using any means necessary.

"They have M-16s and they're locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so, and I expect they will," she says.

What is your opinion on this? I say shoot the fuckers that are looting and killing. Good luck to the National Guard.

http://www.wwltv.com/sharedcontent/nationworld/katrina/stories/090105ccjcwccwMainKatrina.4c55a2f6.html

New Orleans has slipped into anarchy, as we all know, but now it might return to law and order. Governor Kathleen Blanco has ordered the 300 members of the Arkansas National Guard that has redeployed from Iraq to New Orleans to restore law and order, using any means necessary.

"They have M-16s and they're locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so, and I expect they will," she says.

What is your opinion on this? I say shoot the fuckers that are looting and killing. Good luck to the National Guard.

On first glance I agree with you... but then you have to realize that it sets a VERY bad precedent.

Don't just shoot anyone going in a store/house.

Shoot those going for TVs and shit... if you're taking food and water for you and your family, do you REALLY need to die for it? It'd go to waste anyway.

The effect is more psychological than real.

If the governor of Louisiana had possessed any knowledge of what people do in desperate situations, she would have declared martial law in advance of the hurricane during the evacuation - this would have had the salutary psychological effect of keeping people from doing the stupid things they are doing now.

It worked during Hurrican Hugo and its aftermath in South Carolina. But it would appear that the leaders of Louisiana and New Orleans - the people with the most to lose and the direct authority to make such an order, had no intention of maintaining order, or even giving the appearance of trying to do so.

They would rather blame the Federal government than take responsibility for their own halfwit incompetence.

http://www.wwltv.com/sharedcontent/nationworld/katrina/stories/090105ccjcwccwMainKatrina.4c55a2f6.html

New Orleans has slipped into anarchy, as we all know, but now it might return to law and order. Governor Kathleen Blanco has ordered the 300 members of the Arkansas National Guard that has redeployed from Iraq to New Orleans to restore law and order, using any means necessary.

"They have M-16s and they're locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so, and I expect they will," she says.

What is your opinion on this? I say shoot the fuckers that are looting and killing. Good luck to the National Guard.

Shoot to kill. So now we have martial law in one area. How long before that spreads? Why stop at New Orleans? There are people who steal and rape everyday. Let's shoot them too. And the protesters, buncha noise makers, shoot them too.

Where does it end?

On first glance I agree with you... but then you have to realize that it sets a VERY bad precedent.

No, not really. When enough of the looters have been shot by the soldiers, the surviving looters will know that they should put down their weapons and get the hell out of the city, which is the thing that everyone want to do. That, combined with the fact that Gov. Blanco have authorization to order the National Guard to shoot the looters en masse and the fact that the looters drew first blood gives the government legal rights to do so. Plus it will set an example for other potential looters.

http://www.wwltv.com/sharedcontent/nationworld/katrina/stories/090105ccjcwccwMainKatrina.4c55a2f6.html

New Orleans has slipped into anarchy, as we all know, but now it might return to law and order. Governor Kathleen Blanco has ordered the 300 members of the Arkansas National Guard that has redeployed from Iraq to New Orleans to restore law and order, using any means necessary.

"They have M-16s and they're locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so, and I expect they will," she says.

What is your opinion on this? I say shoot the fuckers that are looting and killing. Good luck to the National Guard.

Sounds like the first days of Iraq without Saddam's rule. I guess it's good training for Iraq for those guys.

Shoot to kill. So now we have martial law in one area. How long before that spreads? Why stop at New Orleans? There are people who steal and rape everyday. Let's shoot them too. And the protesters, buncha noise makers, shoot them too.

Where does it end?

Here in Northern Virginia, we have many people walking around carrying concealed and some carrying openly.

We have 65 percent less violent crime than a demographically identical county to the north of us, in Maryland, where no one is carrying a gun.

It ends when bad people realize that if you do something bad, someone nearby will put a bullet through your head.

The effect is primarily psychological. Few bad people want to test the theory.

I carry 100 percent of the time. It works quite well for me, and the police I know personally like the idea that I'm around with a gun.

Only left-wing politicians who believe in the nanny state want you to be disarmed here. The majority of police on the street here appreciate the help.

http://www.wwltv.com/sharedcontent/nationworld/katrina/stories/090105ccjcwccwMainKatrina.4c55a2f6.html

New Orleans has slipped into anarchy, as we all know, but now it might return to law and order. Governor Kathleen Blanco has ordered the 300 members of the Arkansas National Guard that has redeployed from Iraq to New Orleans to restore law and order, using any means necessary.

"They have M-16s and they're locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so, and I expect they will," she says.

What is your opinion on this? I say shoot the fuckers that are looting and killing. Good luck to the National Guard.
Arrest murderers or those committing major crimes. Focus on rescuing those in dire need, and forget everything else. Shooting looters is murder the way I see it, and only adds to the problem at hand.

People should put all their focus on saving lives and nothing else!!

Arrest murderers or those committing major crimes. Focus on rescuing those in dire need, and forget everything else. Shooting looters is murder the way I see it, and only adds to the problem at hand.

People should put all their focus on saving lives and nothing else!!

Hard to do when people are shooting at you when you try to rescue someone.

Until law/order is somewhat established, getting people out is going to be hard.

They would rather blame the Federal government than take responsibility for their own halfwit incompetence.

So true.

No, not really. When enough of the looters have been shot by the soldiers, the surviving looters will know that they should put down their weapons and get the hell out of the city, which is the thing that everyone want to do. That, combined with the fact that Gov. Blanco have authorization to order the National Guard to shoot the looters en masse and the fact that the looters drew first blood gives the government legal rights to do so. Plus it will set an example for other potential looters.

No, you're missing my point.

My point is who decides when a situation has gotten bad enough to sic the National Guard on American citizens?

Arrest murderers or those committing major crimes. Focus on rescuing those in dire need, and forget everything else. Shooting looters is murder the way I see it, and only adds to the problem at hand.

People should put all their focus on saving lives and nothing else!!

Shooting looters is not murder. Under martial law, it is perfectly legal.

Killing, perhaps, but murder is a legal term with a legal definition.

Where do you put the people you arrest? There isn't a jail. You need some serious education on the meaning of martial law.

If the Governor of Louisiana had declared martial law in advance of the storm, they could have forced the evacuation of the city rather than letting people be left behind or choose to stay. They could have IMMEDIATELY quelled looting and murder because people would have realized IN ADVANCE that it would not be conducive to their longevity.

In desperate situations, the only thing that most people understand is life and death. You obviously have never been in such a situation. Pie in the sky morality has no place in such a situation, and endangers the lives of rescuers and law enforcement alike.

Maybe if your Goverment gave each soldier and policeman a crate of bottled water and a package of food, that they could hand out to looters, many of the looters may stop looting.

Im not talking baout anyone they catch with a DVD player, or TV, but anyone forced to risk their life through the waters to find food or water for themselves their family or others should be given a medal not threatened with being shot.

After all it is now 4 days that some have been without food or water, and if rumours are to be believed it could be another 4 days before any of the reuired Personnel or equipment arrive back from Iraq, The Tsumani relief effort and Africa to be able to load and complete food/water drops in the area.

I'm watching "Good Morning America" right now, and the Governor of Louisiana said that the "shoot to kill" order is not directed at those who are trying to get food and provisions. She said it's specifically directed toward those who are threatening the safety of other people on the ground. Given the reports of violence, that doesn't seem unreasonable.

well good for people in florida then they passed a law allowing you to use lethal force on a person in the open if a life is endangered :sniper:

I say shoot the fuckers that are looting and killing. Good luck to the National Guard.

So you shoot if they are taking food (which will go off well before any sort of normality returns)? What if they are simply recovering good from their own property? You want joe six pack who joined the National Guard to shoot guns to be making these decisions?

If you anwsered yes to all 3, Well done, you've just become a third world country.

Heres a better idea, ship in trucks/boats anything and *remove* people from the cesspit they're in. Ah, problem there is it highlights that you didnt get them out 2 days ago...

No, you're missing my point.

My point is who decides when a situation has gotten bad enough to sic the National Guard on American citizens?

well they waited until this abhorrent behavior in Nawlins became tough to curtail... lawlessness abounds there, and really, for the safety of those NOT looting/shooting at aid workers/hijacking supply trucks... it's probably a good idea.

This will only happen (and should only happen) in moments as dire as these.

Heres a better idea, ship in trucks/boats anything and *remove* people from the cesspit they're in. Ah, problem there is it highlights that you didnt get them out 2 days ago...

According to the experts who were on Talk of the Nation on NPR yesterday, evacuation is the sole and primary responsibility of local government.

That is, the Mayor of New Orleans could have declared martial law in advance of the storm, commandeered every vehicle in town, and driven people out of harm's way.

The Governor of Louisiana could have done the same thing - even summoning the National Guard in advance of the storm.

Neither official did anything of the sort.

And now, both of them have the gall to blame the Federal government - who have NO responsibility under the law for evacuation, and who were prepositioning relief supplies BEFORE the hurricane hit.

Looks to me like the City of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana is populated by incompetent leaders and foolish nanny-state citizens who don't have the brains to leave when they see disaster coming. And they won't EVER accept personal responsibility for what happened - they would rather blame someone else for their own stupidity.

Here in Northern Virginia, we have many people walking around carrying concealed and some carrying openly.

We have 65 percent less violent crime than a demographically identical county to the north of us, in Maryland, where no one is carrying a gun.

It ends when bad people realize that if you do something bad, someone nearby will put a bullet through your head.

The effect is primarily psychological. Few bad people want to test the theory.

I carry 100 percent of the time. It works quite well for me, and the police I know personally like the idea that I'm around with a gun.

Only left-wing politicians who believe in the nanny state want you to be disarmed here. The majority of police on the street here appreciate the help.


Oddly, I live in the second safest town in America according to police records of 2004. The safest is about a 1/2 mile away. Less than 1% of the population of either of these towns own firearms. And the population of my town is nearing one million. Let the police do their job, not the vigilantes. The police here are grateful the citizens don't have weapons, it makes their jobs easier.

Statistically, in countries were the populace is not allowed to own weapons, crime is tremendously lower.

Oddly, I live in the second safest town in America according to police records of 2004. The safest is about a 1/2 mile away. Less than 1% of the population of either of these towns own firearms. And the population of my town is nearing one million. Let the police do their job, not the vigilantes. The police here are grateful the citizens don't have weapons, it makes their jobs easier.

Statistically, in countries were the populace is not allowed to own weapons, crime is tremendously lower.

So, the three times in my life that thugs attempted to beat and rob me, I should have just pulled out my cell phone and called police?

Not pulled my gun and told them to run?

If I had followed your advice, I would have been in the hospital three times at the very least, and perhaps even dead or crippled. That's outstanding advice you're giving. I'm not a vigilante - I have the legal right to protect my life - and no court in the US is going to take that right away.

Each time, I suffered no wounds, no loss of property, no death, no legal repercussions - and there were no dead felons either.

Statistically, in counties in the US where people are allowed to carry concealed, the violent crime is lower on average than counties where people are forbidden to do so.

The studies have been done, and are incontrivertible.

You can't compare other countries to the US.

Here in Northern Virginia, we have many people walking around carrying concealed and some carrying openly.

We have 65 percent less violent crime than a demographically identical county to the north of us, in Maryland, where no one is carrying a gun.

It ends when bad people realize that if you do something bad, someone nearby will put a bullet through your head.

The effect is primarily psychological. Few bad people want to test the theory.

I carry 100 percent of the time. It works quite well for me, and the police I know personally like the idea that I'm around with a gun.

Only left-wing politicians who believe in the nanny state want you to be disarmed here. The majority of police on the street here appreciate the help.


I guess believe in whatever fairy tale logic that will get you through the day. Have you actually asked a policeman if he was grateful you were carrying a gun. Im for gun control and not every gun happy idiot shoul have one...... However in the Katrina situation I hope all those miscreant deviants who are hindering and hurting the rescue get a bullet through the brain! They are now raping and beating others, believe me if a soldier comes accross an idiot with a gun , he or she will kill the idiot very quickly. I dont think anyone should cry boohoo for a rapist. No excuse for stealing TVS....think about it? what are you going to do with it?...this is armageddon in New Orleans and its time for some strict rule enforcement. They need to restore order by whatever means possible. Only the foolish and truly disgusting will perish.

Oddly, I live in the second safest town in America according to police records of 2004. The safest is about a 1/2 mile away. Less than 1% of the population of either of these towns own firearms. And the population of my town is nearing one million. Let the police do their job, not the vigilantes. The police here are grateful the citizens don't have weapons, it makes their jobs easier.

Statistically, in countries were the populace is not allowed to own weapons, crime is tremendously lower.

Statistically, the crime rates were lower than the US before the gun bans were in place.

The police have no obligation to protect you and some of the most violent cities have the strictest gun laws.

There is no absolute causality.

Im just happy living in a country (Wales - UK) where any violent crime, including the odd gun crime is still so rare it makes first News Story and pages 1 through 10 in the national papers for 3 or 4 days at time.

You can keep your concealed weapons and your gun laws Im happy as we are.

It ends when bad people realize that if you do something bad, someone nearby will put a bullet through your head.

The effect is primarily psychological. Few bad people want to test the theory.


What about when there aren't any people around like, er, night-time?

So you shoot if they are taking food (which will go off well before any sort of normality returns)? What if they are simply recovering good from their own property? You want joe six pack who joined the National Guard to shoot guns to be making these decisions?

If you anwsered yes to all 3, Well done, you've just become a third world country.

Heres a better idea, ship in trucks/boats anything and *remove* people from the cesspit they're in. Ah, problem there is it highlights that you didnt get them out 2 days ago...


They are NOT worried about people stealing food...did you watch the news..these assholes have stolen GUNS and are now acting like it is their town to do with as they please....RAPES are occuring (( kicking people when they are already down...even more despicable)) SHOOTINGS and sniper fire at the rescue workers...THIS is what they are worried about....HELL even Walmart on TV said they didnt care about that store that they destroyed..just to get these people out and fed and sheltered. Shoot the assholes who are out to do no good and dont care what they do....they are asking for it!

I guess believe in whatever fairy tale logic that will get you through the day. Have you actually asked a policeman if he was grateful you were carrying a gun. Im for gun control and not every gun happy idiot shoul have one...... However in the Katrina situation I hope all those miscreant deviants who are hindering and hurting the rescue get a bullet through the brain! They are now raping and beating others, believe me if a soldier comes accross an idiot with a gun , he or she will kill the idiot very quickly. I dont think anyone should cry boohoo for a rapist. No excuse for stealing TVS....think about it? what are you going to do with it?...this is armageddon in New Orleans and its time for some strict rule enforcement. They need to restore order by whatever means possible. Only the foolish and truly disgusting will perish.

According to the recent police chief polls (anonymous so they can keep their jobs due to political hacks) about 95% support CC laws.


Agreed on the after "however" part.

http://www.wwltv.com/sharedcontent/nationworld/katrina/stories/090105ccjcwccwMainKatrina.4c55a2f6.html

New Orleans has slipped into anarchy, as we all know, but now it might return to law and order. Governor Kathleen Blanco has ordered the 300 members of the Arkansas National Guard that has redeployed from Iraq to New Orleans to restore law and order, using any means necessary.

"They have M-16s and they're locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so, and I expect they will," she says.

What is your opinion on this? I say shoot the fuckers that are looting and killing. Good luck to the National Guard.

yah, how insane is that? i'm sure battle stress will make them a little trigger happy...

Statistically, the crime rates were lower than the US before the gun bans were in place.

The police have no obligation to protect you and some of the most violent cities have the strictest gun laws.

There is no absolute causality.

It's a not-uncommon mistake: confusing gun control & crime control. Most gun crime is carried out with firearms costing less than you can get out of an ATM in one hit. Small (easily concealled) firearms with a large magazine capacity and good rate of fire are ideal for criminal endeavour, whereas large, slow firing weapons (shotguns, rifles, ) are not so, although a shotgun is still ideal for sorting out unwanted nocturnal visitors. Fred Barras take note.

Hey, I'm all for shooting the people committing actual violent crimes. For looting, absolutely not. Nothing they could possibly be stealing is equal in value to a human life.

I'm a shooter, too, and I also have my CCW (concealed carry license).

One of my favorite stories from the range goes something like this:

Many years ago, there was a riot in a town in Texas. The police were outnumbered and outgunned and the town had descended into chaos. The major decided he needed to call in the Texas Rangers. After not much waiting, a train pulls into the town. The mayor rushes up to greet the reinforcements, only to be surprised by a sole Ranger stepping out of the coach.

They mayor freaks, "We've got a full-scale riot going on here, people are dying by the dozens, and they only send ONE Ranger?!??! What are we supposed to do with ONE Ranger? What are you going to do by yourself alone?!?!"

The Ranger caresses the .44 at his side, "Of course they only sent one Ranger, you've only got one riot, right?"

He then proceeds to shoot dead the first three rioters he sees.

The riot ends.

Tough situations call for tough justice. I say put 2 in the chest and 1 in the head. That's what I'd do.

Shooting looters is not murder. Under martial law, it is perfectly legal.

Killing, perhaps, but murder is a legal term with a legal definition.
You have people dying because they can't get the necessities of life and you want to concentrate on shooting someone stealing a TV or whatever? This only adds to the problem. Concentrating on evacuating the people or supplying aid is the most important task at hand.

And, however you want to call it, as far as I am concerned, shooting someone because they are stealing something in this case, is murder. It may be legal but it is murder.

Where do you put the people you arrest? There isn't a jail. You need some serious education on the meaning of martial law.
Where do you take the people that have been shot? Leave the corpse to rot or take the injured looter to the over burdened hospitals? Priorities are helping those in need FIRST. Evacuate the city or tend to the peoples needs.

If the Governor of Louisiana had declared martial law in advance of the storm, they could have forced the evacuation of the city rather than letting people be left behind or choose to stay. They could have IMMEDIATELY quelled looting and murder because people would have realized IN ADVANCE that it would not be conducive to their longevity.
Hindsight is 20/20. You can't change what has happened, so deal with the realities at present.

In desperate situations, the only thing that most people understand is life and death. You obviously have never been in such a situation. Pie in the sky morality has no place in such a situation, and endangers the lives of rescuers and law enforcement alike.
Concentrating on shooting looters only adds to the chaos and confusion. Stabalize those in need, provide comfort and care, THEN deal with the lawless ones.

BTW, Canada has offered assistance and your government has not responded? Why is that?

(snip)

And, however you want to call it, as far as I am concerned, shooting someone because they are stealing something in this case, is murder. It may be legal but it is murder.

(snip)
Sorry to point out your mistake, but by definition, if it's legal killing it's not murder. murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of a person.

i can get the actual definition if you want....

So, the three times in my life that thugs attempted to beat and rob me, I should have just pulled out my cell phone and called police?

Not pulled my gun and told them to run?

If I had followed your advice, I would have been in the hospital three times at the very least, and perhaps even dead or crippled. That's outstanding advice you're giving. I'm not a vigilante - I have the legal right to protect my life - and no court in the US is going to take that right away.

Each time, I suffered no wounds, no loss of property, no death, no legal repercussions - and there were no dead felons either.

Statistically, in counties in the US where people are allowed to carry concealed, the violent crime is lower on average than counties where people are forbidden to do so.

The studies have been done, and are incontrivertible.

You can't compare other countries to the US.


More Guns in Citizens' Hands Can Worsen Crime, Study Says
The Los Angeles Times ^ | 1/23/03 | Aparna Kumar

Posted on 01/23/2003 8:53:32 AM PST by Gothmog

WASHINGTON -- State laws that allow private citizens to carry concealed weapons do not reduce crime and may even increase it, according to a study released Wednesday by the Brookings Institution.

The findings, by Stanford University law professor John Donohue, contradict an influential study by economist John R. Lott Jr., a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who in 1997 concluded that by adopting such laws, states can substantially curb violent crime.

This article is from the LA Times and addresses the issue that most gun toters put up. The only report that ever stated that gun ownership helped deter violent crime was Dr. John Lott. He has continually been shown to be a fraud and to have misused polls and information to support his and IRA's ideals.

Every other scientific source of research on the issue proves that an increase in gun ownership leads to more violent crimes.

They are NOT worried about people stealing food...did you watch the news..these assholes have stolen GUNS and are now acting like it is their town to do with as they please....RAPES are occuring (( kicking people when they are already down...even more despicable)) SHOOTINGS and sniper fire at the rescue workers...THIS is what they are worried about....HELL even Walmart on TV said they didnt care about that store that they destroyed..just to get these people out and fed and sheltered. Shoot the assholes who are out to do no good and dont care what they do....they are asking for it!


first of all your making a big assumption that your getting a complete and fair picture of the situation on the ground. Im not saying stuff isnt happening, just that it might not be as bad as is mad out: 1 incident gets recalled by 20 people and it sounds like its going on everywhere. by the very lawless chaotic nature of the city, there's no way to verify whats going on. Some of the "shooting at rescue workers" stories have already been found to be false.

Secondly, and most importantly, youve missed the point. YOU arnt worried about people stealing food, but the Governor just gave a company of part time soldiers carte blanche to shoot at anyone they suspect of breaking the law. They are judge and jury, with an M16 in their hand. You think that's going to solve anything? Those National Guardsman are potentially no better than the looters and gangs. Soldiers have been known to stray for the rules in the past.

You have people dying because they can't get the necessities of life and you want to concentrate on shooting someone stealing a TV or whatever? This only adds to the problem. Concentrating on evacuating the people or supplying aid is the most important task at hand.

I'm not saying concentrate on shooting looters. But it only takes a second to do so - and if you're not an emergency medical worker, you're not of much help to the wounded. Additionally, I believe that shooting rioters and people who are shooting at medical personnel IS a priority for law enforcement and military - you can't render aid when people are rioting or shooting at the medics.

And, however you want to call it, as far as I am concerned, shooting someone because they are stealing something in this case, is murder. It may be legal but it is murder.

It is not murder. Murder is a legal term. I suppose that if a looter were trying to bash your head in with an iron pipe, you would gladly stand there and let him do it, rather than try to kill him before he kills you.

Where do you take the people that have been shot? Leave the corpse to rot or take the injured looter to the over burdened hospitals? Priorities are helping those in need FIRST. Evacuate the city or tend to the peoples needs.
Everyone I ever shot died on the spot. In such situations, there are already thousands of rotting corpses. A few more won't matter at all.


Hindsight is 20/20. You can't change what has happened, so deal with the realities at present.
If you believe that, then the mayor of New Orleans needs to shut his mouth.


Concentrating on shooting looters only adds to the chaos and confusion. Stabalize those in need, provide comfort and care, THEN deal with the lawless ones.
Try telling that to the people at Charity Hospital. They can't move their patients because of the gunfire. You've obviously never been in a situation where people shoot at you. You need to kill those people who are shooting at you before you can render aid.

BTW, Canada has offered assistance and your government has not responded? Why is that?

Probably because the offer just came in. Interesting, isn't it, how no Europeans or other nations offered any aid until DAYS after?

And the same nations that criticized the US for "only" sending a carrier and billions of dollars to Indonesia in the aftermath of the tsunami - what REAL assistance have they offered?

I see no planes full of supplies warming up on Canadian airfields, ready to parachute the supplies into New Orleans - oh that's right - Canada doesn't have that capability.

Anything less than billions of dollars from Canada is a token gesture. I don't see billions of dollars coming, do you?

Sorry to point out your mistake, but by definition, if it's legal killing it's not murder. murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of a person.

i can get the actual definition if you want....
There is no mistake. That is my belief.

The only report that ever stated that gun ownership helped deter violent crime was Dr. John Lott. He has continually been shown to be a fraud and to have misused polls and information to support his and IRA's ideals.


You must be forgetting Dr. Kleck's studies. You obviously aren't well read on the literature, either.

Of the Kleck studies (which have other studies which back them up as well, including some by the government), the peer reviewer said:

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.

You also have no way to explain why two demographically identical counties adjacent to each other have a 65 percent difference in violent crime (Part 1 Felonies) - Fairfax County, Virginia is a gun carrying county and Montgomery County, Maryland is not - but Montgomery County is far more violent, and has nearly twice the number of police.

Keep dreaming.

It is not murder. Murder is a legal term. I suppose that if a looter were trying to bash your head in with an iron pipe, you would gladly stand there and let him do it, rather than try to kill him before he kills you.

Way to put words in Canuck's mouth there. There's a clear difference between killing someone who's trying to kill you, and killing someone who's trying to run away with your VCR.

Furthermore, killing in defense of property is not legal in all states.

Probably because the offer just came in. Interesting, isn't it, how no Europeans or other nations offered any aid until DAYS after?

And the same nations that criticized the US for "only" sending a carrier and billions of dollars to Indonesia in the aftermath of the tsunami - what REAL assistance have they offered?

I see no planes full of supplies warming up on Canadian airfields, ready to parachute the supplies into New Orleans - oh that's right - Canada doesn't have that capability.

Anything less than billions of dollars from Canada is a token gesture. I don't see billions of dollars coming, do you?
Canada offered assistance on Monday or Tuesday as I recall, but got no response. There is already a rescue team there. (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1125629846148_165?s_name=&no_ads=)

Other than that, your poltical swipe is crass. :eek:

I am sure the people of New Orleans would be happy to know that you put your political agenda above their salvation.

Under circumstances like those in New Orleans, where people's lives are endangered by starvation and dehydration, I agree that people who obtain those supplies by raiding unattended stocks should and likely will be permitted to do so. A wrecked convenience store's bottom line is secondary to the survival of disaster victims.

However a DVD player or widescreen TV or a new laptop are not essential items, and stealing them is not a matter of suvival- it's opportunism and greed. There's a big difference between stealing bread and water to keep your family alive, and stealing expensive electronics because you see an opportunity to take by force something that you could not otherwise earn honestly. Even if you don't causeThere's a big difference between stealing bread and water to keep your family alive, and stealing expensive electronics because you see an opportunity to take by force something that you could not otherwise earn honestly. Even if you don't cause physical harm to another human being in the process, you are attacking society. You are exploiting the moment of weakness to violate the laws and principles that otherwise govern your civilisation, which is a form of violence towards the pyschological well-being of your community.

People so emboldened by the the breakdown of law inforcement that they begin indulging their greed are more also more likely to participate in other anti-social behaviours besides theft, such as assault and rape, or using violence (or the threat thereof) to get 'their way' (ie. people shooting at evacuation helicopters expecting to coerce the crews into rescuing them first). Just as communities banding together to help one another in times of crisis says something about people's capacity for nobility, taking advantage of vulnerability to submit one's self to one's baser instincts is reflective of character. Such people represent a real threat to society and should be treated with extreme prejudice.

Let people carry away bread. But those who are stealing property just because it's something they want- shoot them. Start with shooting a few in the hands, as an example. If others persist, shoot them dead. And the rapists. And the murderers. In the aftermath, fewer violators will remain, and those who do will think twice before indulging their anti-social impulses.

There is no mistake. That is my belief.

well, your belief is wrong. Fact always trumps opinion, and this case, your opinion is trumped back fact.


it's sad when someone would rather believe something false over a truth.

You must be forgetting Dr. Kleck's studies. You obviously aren't well read on the literature, either.
Kleck's studies have been debunked by the CDC. Welcome back WL.

How are things in gun happy Richmond?

and something more on topic...

I work at a hospital in dallas, and one of its sister hospitals is closing down because armed assailants carjacked a truck full of supplies for the hospital.

We're seeing an influx of people from there to here, and even had a few babies born here from refugees from NO :P

well, your belief is wrong. Fact always trumps opinion, and this case, your opinion is trumped back fact.


it's sad when someone would rather believe something false over a truth.Check your reasoning level. How can MY beliefs be wrong??

Killing people for looting is immoral.

You must be forgetting Dr. Kleck's studies. You obviously aren't well read on the literature, either.

Of the Kleck studies (which have other studies which back them up as well, including some by the government), the peer reviewer said:

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.

You also have no way to explain why two demographically identical counties adjacent to each other have a 65 percent difference in violent crime (Part 1 Felonies) - Fairfax County, Virginia is a gun carrying county and Montgomery County, Maryland is not - but Montgomery County is far more violent, and has nearly twice the number of police.

Keep dreaming.


Dr Kleck's studies were done on the basis of Dr. Lott's analysis. After re-analyzining Dr. Lott's data, Dr. Kleck withdrew his argument. He is now a major supporter of gun control and helped develop the study that disproved Lott.

He also stated publicly that he was embarassed for having been duped by Lott.

In addition, I've looked at the records for your nearly identical counties.

Fairfax County:
1) Rural
2) Population approx 1 Million
3) Lower income predominate
4) Further away from any Major Metropolitan area

Montgomery County
1) Suburban
2) Population approx 1 Million
3) Mid-High middle class income predominate
4) Close to Washington, D.C.

This is all Census information available to anyone. Your "identical" counties are hardly identical. Of course there is less violent crime in Fairfax, it's a country county.

It saddens me to think that it is ok to kill someone on suspicion of stealing.

Dr Kleck's studies were done on the basis of Dr. Lott's analysis. After re-analyzining Dr. Lott's data, Dr. Kleck withdrew his argument. He is now a major supporter of gun control and helped develop the study that disproved Lott.

He also stated publicly that he was embarassed for having been duped by Lott.

The dream survives.

Unfortunately, you're quite misguided on that. I've met Dr. Kleck. He hasn't withdrawn anything, and his studies are not based on Lott's data.

Unfortunately, you're quite misguided on that. I've met Dr. Kleck. He hasn't withdrawn anything, and his studies are not based on Lott's data.

Okay. I met President Bush and he said you're ridiculous.

Come on. I'm not buying that. Dr. Kleck is published.

Also, I addressed the Fairfax vs. Montgomery issue in my edited post (didn't want you to think I was ignoring it, just clicking a bit too hastily).

Check your reasoning level. How can MY beliefs be wrong??

Killing people for looting is immoral.

at this point, your comments was saying legal killing was murder. i was pointing out it's not.

i didn't saying killing a looter was moral or immoral. we were discussing the definition of murder.

However a DVD player or widescreen TV or a new laptop are not essential items, and stealing them is not a matter of suvival- it's opportunism and greed.

Let people carry away bread. But those who are stealing property just because it's something they want- shoot them. Start with shooting a few in the hands, as an example. If others persist, shoot them dead. And the rapists. And the murderers. In the aftermath, fewer violators will remain, and those who do will think twice before indulging their anti-social impulses.
I understand that you are refering specifically to the situation in New Orleans, but I just wanted to check that you are not seriously advocating the death penalty for theft? Is that essentially what you are saying?

Where do you draw the line? How desperate are desperate circumstances?

It's worrying to see poeple so quick to pull a trigger rather than attempt negotiation or disarming those hindering the rescue. I guess it's the same people using terms like "nanny state" who advocate such extreme measures.

One must ask why the people of New Orleans are reacting this way. It was pointed out to me by an American friend earlier today that usually when natural disasters happen in the USA there is significantly less of this behaviour (looting etc). Why is this case different? The scale? The location? The delay in aid?

Trouble is, from what I've seen members of the US public who advocate the use of firearms don't have much interest in examining sociological issues. I wonder what that in itself says?

Killing bands of looters is not our priority. Our priority is to put our efforts towards saving the survivors. Securing the few remaining shops in a city that is literally underwater is not important. Keeping the peace is fine, but killing isn't. It would just bring more insecurity to the area.

at this point, your comments was saying legal killing was murder. i was pointing out it's not.

i didn't saying killing a looter was moral or immoral. we were discussing the definition of murder.
Wrong again. I wasn't talking about the definition of murder at all, you are. I simply stated that I think that it is immoral to shoot looters. I prefer to call it murder. That is MY belief, and I won't be changing it because YOU think I am wrong.

Concentrating on relief efforts is the most important job at hand. Once the rescue mission is complete, then the authorities can deal with the looters.