NationStates Jolt Archive

In the US...
The House voted Tuesday to prevent law enforcement officers from confiscating legally owned guns during a national disaster or emergency.

Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana lawmaker who sponsored the bill, said firearms seizures after Hurricane Katrina left residents unable to defend themselves.

"Many of them were sitting in their homes without power, without water, without communication," he said. "It was literally impossible to pick up a phone and call 911."

The House voted 322-99 in support of the bill. Senators voted 84-16 earlier this month to include a similar prohibition in a homeland security funding bill.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll401.xml

Yes, in the US, in the event that the government is unable to protect you, you'll be allowed to protect yourself.

Are you allowed to protect yourself in the event of national chaos, or are you expected to wait for the non-existent or severely overextended police?

So when the US government doesn't help them, at least they'll have weapons to fire at the rescuers?

From FOXNews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168112,00.html):
But across New Orleans, the rescuers themselves came under attack from storm victims hungry, desperate and tired of waiting.

"Hospitals are trying to evacuate," said Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Cheri Ben-Iesan, spokesman at the city emergency operations center. "At every one of them, there are reports that as the helicopters come in people are shooting at them. There are people just taking potshots at police and at helicopters, telling them, 'You better come get my family.'"

Well, thank goodness for some sense in our legislators. At least now idiot cops won't be wasting time confiscating guns when they should be out doing some good.

So when the US government doesn't help them, at least they'll have weapons to fire at the rescuers?

From FOXNews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168112,00.html):

Legally speaking, if you're firing AT police or rescuers, your firearms are no longer "legal".

There are plenty of people who had to keep looters out of their neighborhoods with their own firearms.

It was front page news on the Washington Post during the disaster.

You're saying that it would be ok for the looters to come loot, pillage, and kill defenseless people.

Legally speaking, if you're firing AT police or rescuers, your firearms are no longer "legal".

Yes but legally speaking, those firearms were perfectly legal until they were turned on the rescuers. If they had been confiscated while they were still legal then the incident would never have occured. ;)

You're saying that it would be ok for the looters to come loot, pillage, and kill defenseless people.

If the looters do not have guns neither, I am pretty sure people can defend from them just using pointy sticks. I don't see the need of guns in that scenario.

If the looters do not have guns neither, I am pretty sure people can defend from them just using pointy sticks. I don't see the need of guns in that scenario.

Then you're an idiot. Tell me, how is a family consisting of a 60 year old man, 59 year old woman, 19 year old girl and her 24 year old, crippled brother supposed to prevent a couple of looters taking off with everything they own, and perhaps the girl as well?

(That's not just off the top of my head, btw - I just described my neighbours.)

Yes but legally speaking, those firearms were perfectly legal until they were turned on the rescuers. If they had been confiscated while they were still legal then the incident would never have occured. ;)
Bull.

Here in the US, 80 percent of firearms used in crimes are not legally purchased.

Considering the widespread use of legal firearms for legally defending people and property, you would be creating more violent crime by confiscating the firearms of legal users.

Very similar to the concept that 94 percent of US violent crime is committed without a firearm, and 1 percent of firearms are involved in the actual firearm crimes.

Here in the US, confiscating legal firearms actually enables more violent crime to occur.

Bull.

Here in the US, 80 percent of firearms used in crimes are not legally purchased.

Considering the widespread use of legal firearms for legally defending people and property, you would be creating more violent crime by confiscating the firearms of legal users.

Very similar to the concept that 94 percent of US violent crime is committed without a firearm, and 1 percent of firearms are involved in the actual firearm crimes.

Here in the US, confiscating legal firearms actually enables more violent crime to occur.

Can you prove that the firearms used on the rescuers were not leagally owned?

Then you're an idiot. Tell me, how is a family consisting of a 60 year old man, 59 year old woman, 19 year old girl and her 24 year old, crippled brother supposed to prevent a couple of looters taking off with everything they own, and perhaps the girl as well?

(That's not just off the top of my head, btw - I just described my neighbours.)

Stop hurling insults. I didn't say none of those, ok?

Part two, I guess they would have the same chance having a pair of guns against the same pair of looters armed with several weapons and working in tandem. Perhaps in the end one of the looters would end dead, as the 19 year old girl or the 60 year old man.

With the pointy sticks, perhaps it could be a little less messy. Plus trying to defend a home with four pointy sticks against two pointy sticks is still a good chance. Or at least as good with two guns against two guns.

Can you prove that the firearms used on the rescuers were not leagally owned?

There was a major front page story in the Washington Post at the time of numerous legal uses of firearms to defend people and property at the time.

If we extrapolate the standard stats on the proportion of violence and illegal guns, there's an 80 percent chance the firearms involved in shooting at rescuers were illegally obtained.

Stop hurling insults. I didn't say none of those, ok?

Part two, I guess they would have the same chance having a pair of guns against the same pair of looters armed with several weapons and working in tandem. Perhaps in the end one of the looters would end dead, as the 19 year old girl or the 60 year old man.

With the pointy sticks, perhaps it could be a little less messy. Plus trying to defend a home with four pointy sticks against two pointy sticks is still a good chance. Or at least as good with two guns against two guns.

I must respectfully disagree. Two guns versus two guns is more likely to result in the looters moving off in search of easier pickings.

With pointed sticks, you can pretty much guess the fitter person is going to win, probably without serious injury. With guns, it's a crap shoot. Looters may be dumb, but they aren't that dumb.

In the US...


http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll401.xml

Yes, in the US, in the event that the government is unable to protect you, you'll be allowed to protect yourself.

Are you allowed to protect yourself in the event of national chaos, or are you expected to wait for the non-existent or severely overextended police?

Nutty. :)

So when the US government doesn't help them, at least they'll have weapons to fire at the rescuers?

From FOXNews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168112,00.html):


And now for the reality:

http://www.reason.com/0512/co.mw.they.shtml

More important, there has been no official confirmation that a single military helicopter over New Orleans—let alone a National Guard Chinook in the pre-dawn hours of September 1—was fired upon. “I was at the Superdome for eight days, and I don’t remember hearing anything about a helicopter getting shot at,” says Maj. Ed Bush, public affairs officer for the Louisiana Air National Guard. With hundreds of Guard troops always on duty inside and outside the Superdome before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina, if there had been gunfire, “we would have heard it,” Bush maintains. “The instant reaction over the radio would have been overwhelming.”

The Air Force, to which the Air National Guard reports, also has zero record of helicopter sniping. “We investigated one incident and it turned out to have been shooting on the ground, not at the helicopter,” Air Force Maj. Mike Young told The New York Times on September 29.

I must respectfully disagree. Two guns versus two guns is more likely to result in the looters moving off in search of easier pickings.

With pointed sticks, you can pretty much guess the fitter person is going to win, probably without serious injury. With guns, it's a crap shoot. Looters may be dumb, but they aren't that dumb.

But if everyone has guns, who would be the easier picking?

The police should have greater concerns during an emergency than violating the rights of law abiding citizens.

But if everyone has guns, who would be the easier picking?

An uninhabited house. Or they might just give it up as a bad job and go home - looters are basically cowards and opportunists, after all.

An uninhabited house. Or they might just give it up as a bad job and go home - looters are basically cowards and opportunists, after all.

What if they organize into larger groups so they can actually pick off mostly any family for lacking of an easy pick?. It happened exactly that way in Venezuela in 1989. Groups of a dozen or more armed assailants went to sack houses defended even by armed families, and were succesfull in making things even worst than just robbing, like raping and abusing. The amount of weapons made the situation escalate to a larger body count, including both defenders and looters...

What if they organize into larger groups so they can actually pick off mostly any family for lacking of an easy pick?. It happened exactly that way in Venezuela in 1989. Groups of a dozen or more armed assailants went to sack houses defended even by armed families, and were succesfull in making things even worst than just robbing, like raping and abusing. The amount of weapons made the situation escalate to a larger body count, including both defenders and looters...

And yet, w/ the increase in civilian firearms in the US, "Castle Doctrine" laws, and CCW, it hasn't happened.

Do you have a link for this?

What if they organize into larger groups so they can actually pick off mostly any family for lacking of an easy pick?. It happened exactly that way in Venezuela in 1989. Groups of a dozen or more armed assailants went to sack houses defended even by armed families, and were succesfull in making things even worst than just robbing, like raping and abusing. The amount of weapons made the situation escalate to a larger body count, including both defenders and looters...

Sure, I've no doubt it can happen. But if a group like that comes after you, you're dead regardless of whether they're armed with guns or sticks. I'd rather have a handgun, and maybe take a few of them with me.

And yet, w/ the increase in civilian firearms in the US, "Castle Doctrine" laws, and CCW, it hasn't happened.

Do you have a link for this?

Make a wikipedia search for caracazo, or a google search over "riots in venezuela in 1989, 27-28 february.

In any case, most of the sources are in spanish. I could link you to my own newspaper archive over those facts, but it has no translation available...In any case, I was there watching, if you can take my word as a guarantee.

Sure, I've no doubt it can happen. But if a group like that comes after you, you're dead regardless of whether they're armed with guns or sticks. I'd rather have a handgun, and maybe take a few of them with me.

Point taken. I, however, would flee. They can take my stuff, it's better than take my life or my...honor?

Point taken. I, however, would flee. They can take my stuff, it's better than take my life or my...honor?

That's your choice, and I for one would think no less of you in that situation. My choice, I think, would be to fight - as I see it, both for my meager possessions, and for one of the basic principles of civilization - to be left in peace.

Make a wikipedia search for caracazo, or a google search over "riots in venezuela in 1989, 27-28 february.

In any case, most of the sources are in spanish. I could link you to my own newspaper archive over those facts, but it has no translation available...In any case, I was there watching, if you can take my word as a guarantee.

Hmm, interesting.

I'll don't know if I'ld "take a few w/ me" like D states, but w/ against numbers like that, even fleeing doesn't increase your chances. There's likely to be some waiting.

Yes but legally speaking, those firearms were perfectly legal until they were turned on the rescuers. If they had been confiscated while they were still legal then the incident would never have occured. ;)


Of course there will never be any true evidence to back this up, but I am willing to bet any weapons fired toward rescuers and helicopters werent obtained legally to begin with.

Bull.

Here in the US, 80 percent of firearms used in crimes are not legally purchased.

Considering the widespread use of legal firearms for legally defending people and property, you would be creating more violent crime by confiscating the firearms of legal users.

Very similar to the concept that 94 percent of US violent crime is committed without a firearm, and 1 percent of firearms are involved in the actual firearm crimes.

Here in the US, confiscating legal firearms actually enables more violent crime to occur.
Yet I have never seen a good correlation of that study … you know as well as I do that you are just inferring off of stats rather then actually using them to PROVE that less guns = more crime

Its not false reasoning just sneaky and often unjustified


But if we want to dance over the stats once a again :)

And now for the reality

bah. everyone knows that poor black people are too violent to be allowed guns, and everyone knows that they went around attacking rescuers, hospitals, each other, etc in the aftermath of katrina. and if everyone knows it, it must be true, despite a complete lack of evidence for it and significant evidence to the contrary.

Are you allowed to protect yourself in the event of national chaos, or are you expected to wait for the non-existent or severely overextended police?
After a spate of gun violence (a new phenomenon in Ireland) a gun amnesty was declared recently.

bah. everyone knows that poor black people are too violent to be allowed guns, and everyone knows that they went around attacking rescuers, hospitals, each other, etc in the aftermath of katrina. and if everyone knows it, it must be true, despite a complete lack of evidence for it and significant evidence to the contrary.

Exactly. And a lack of and contrary evidence to is perfect justification to confiscate firearms.

Then maybe people would think twice before picken on anybody.


But if everyone has guns, who would be the easier picking?

Are you allowed to protect yourself in the event of national chaos, or are you expected to wait for the non-existent or severely overextended police?
nobody else has guns round here, so the problem of 'defending yourself' isn't nearly as severe.

plus in this country the army tends to get involved with the police in such events (not that we actually have 'disasters' so to speak), without the need for "marshall law" or whatever, which generally helps.

Gun confiscation would not have happened to me if I'd lived in NO during Katrina. Do you know the reason why?






I'd have gotten the hell out of there as soon as I'd heard that Katrina was coming. I'd have been in Texas, Mississippi, or Arkansas with my firearms and other valuables when the cops/national guard were going door to door.

If the looters do not have guns neither, I am pretty sure people can defend from them just using pointy sticks. I don't see the need of guns in that scenario.


bet you will be successful fending off a rape in the hot dark at 00:30 am too with a pointy stick

you want to be a sheeple w/o means to defend yourself, ok, please post a no firearms sign outside your house and report what happens in the next month please

:rolleyes: