Does New Orleans re-open the gun control debate?

#1
With so many armed people out there that no one can distinguish between looting criminals and desperate families, does this indicate that gun control may be a good idea after all?

Or does it indicate that once again Charlton Heston was right when he said, "guns don't kill people, apes with guns kill people"?

One thing that's become quite clear, is that when the chips are down in modern America, it's everyone for themselves.
 
#2
#3
cheesypoptart said:
One thing that's become quite clear, is that when the chips are down in modern America, it's everyone for themselves.
Whilst I enjoy a little Septic bashing, I don't think that that's reserved solely for them: survival of the fittest is what would drive us all.
 
#6
DozyBint said:
cheesypoptart said:
One thing that's become quite clear, is that when the chips are down in modern America, it's everyone for themselves.
Whilst I enjoy a little Septic bashing, I don't think that that's reserved solely for them: survival of the fittest is what would drive us all.

survival of the fittest with guns or survival of the fittest without guns? What do you reckon?
 
#7
i wonder what would happen over here in blighty, would we all meet on the church hall roof, share food and sing "we'll meet again" in true blitz spirit. Or would we break into the nearest Woolworths to steal the pick and mix.

Also where is the DEC's fundrasing for this dissaster, suppose the US can look after itself.
 
#8
BRIAN said:
i wonder what would happen over here in blighty, would we all meet on the church hall roof, share food and sing "we'll meet again" in true blitz spirit. Or would we break into the nearest Woolworths to steal the pick and mix.
I think you'd find the local Woolies would open the doors and distribute what would be ruined stock anyway. I have mentioned this on another forum but I think looting to some degree or other would happen anywhere but in the US it always seems to go OTT (see aftermath of the Rodney King incident)
 
#10
Just seen on CNN, Doctors and escourt shot at by looters, National Guard Helicopter had a pot shot taken at it and of course yesterday a New Orleans Copper shot by looters.... nothing to do with the fact that the Gun Department at Walmart got looted? Yeah you are going to have semi anarchy when the PD is unable to provide complete security due to over strech and lack of comms and command structure, and there are desperate conditions with no food or water and people awfully desperate; you will get looting, but when the looters have pinched shooters... makes the job a lot harder for the authorities who are busy search and rescueing and trying to hold on to order! Just my sixpence worth.... God Speed the men and women doing their best to try to sort everything out down there!
 
#12
I think that in a situation like this, it will always result in a level of violent intent among a certain segment of the population. If guns are available, then they will use them, if not, there will be as many violent incidents, but largely involving more 'household' weapons like knives, bats, etc. etc.

On the one hand, widespread gun ownership will probably result in more fatalities under these circumstances (guns being easier to use lethaly than a bat) but on the other side of the coin, the ease of use of guns allows 'normal' people (i.e. the chubby, pacifist middle classes) to protect themselves more effectively. Put a scrote with a bat up against my dad with a bat (for arguments sake) and the scrote will win as he is more aggressive and physically able. If they both had guns, then my dad would stand a better chance, especially as if he had a gun he would probably get at least a little bit of practice with it.

Of course, if this sort of disaster happened in the UK, you would get plenty of violence/looting, but those of us fortunate enough to have a metal box of guns would be much better off as hardly any of the scrotes would have them. :D It might even be quite good fun....I could Mad Max up the truck and go looter hunting. :twisted: Clearly, the authorities in the UK would find it easier to re-impose order as they wouldn't be up against armed opposition, but I suspect that the difficulties in the US are being over blown anyway.
 
#13
303SMLE said:
Clearly, the authorities in the UK would find it easier to re-impose order as they wouldn't be up against armed opposition
This would be why they have removed the right to own firearms from the the law abiding "naturally conservative"much abused majority while leaving the chav criminals to arm themselves as they like.
 
#14
DozyBint said:
cheesypoptart said:
One thing that's become quite clear, is that when the chips are down in modern America, it's everyone for themselves.
Whilst I enjoy a little Septic bashing, I don't think that that's reserved solely for them: survival of the fittest is what would drive us all.
I'm sorry sweetheart but I agree with the concept of 'each for themselves' and 'servival of the fitest' but shooting at the people who are trying to save is not the brightest thing the world. Darwin was right after all...

JJ
 
#15
johnojohnson said:
DozyBint said:
cheesypoptart said:
One thing that's become quite clear, is that when the chips are down in modern America, it's everyone for themselves.
Whilst I enjoy a little Septic bashing, I don't think that that's reserved solely for them: survival of the fittest is what would drive us all.
I'm sorry sweetheart but I agree with the concept of 'each for themselves' and 'servival of the fitest' but shooting at the people who are trying to save you is not the brightest thing the world. Darwin was right after all...

JJ
 
#16
johnojohnson said:
I'm sorry sweetheart but I agree with the concept of 'each for themselves' and 'servival of the fitest' but shooting at the people who are trying to save is not the brightest thing the world. Darwin was right after all...

JJ
Agreed, the logic of that did escape me too. ND perhaps? :?

This would be why they have removed the right to own firearms from the the law abiding "naturally conservative"much abused majority while leaving the chav criminals to arm themselves as they like.
Not strictly true actually, you have the right to own a shotgun, a provided the police cannot find a good reason why you shouldn't (e.g. criminal conviction, and not always then) and you can provide security for it. (A cabinet or clamp bolted to a load bearing wall) In many respects, this doesn't seem unreasonable, I wouldn't be too keen on leaving unsupervised guns kicking around the house even if it was legally ok to do so. You would probably be asked what you wanted it for, but 'clay shooting' is as much of an answer as you need to give. In general, I find those without them tend to over-rate the difficulty of getting SGC's and FAC's.
 
#17
cdo_gunner said:
survival of the fittest with guns or survival of the fittest without guns? What do you reckon?
Ultimately with whichever weaponry is available. At the start of ‘Armageddon’ I suppose a few of the better parts of the gene pool might be wiped out, in that no matter how fit, you can’t outrun a bullet (ok, there’s probably an ARRSEr who has… :roll: :D ) but once rounds run out & it comes down to guile & physical fitness, the dregs will begin to thin out.
 
#18
johnojohnson said:
DozyBint said:
cheesypoptart said:
One thing that's become quite clear, is that when the chips are down in modern America, it's everyone for themselves.
Whilst I enjoy a little Septic bashing, I don't think that that's reserved solely for them: survival of the fittest is what would drive us all.
I'm sorry sweetheart but I agree with the concept of 'each for themselves' and 'servival of the fitest' but shooting at the people who are trying to save is not the brightest thing the world. Darwin was right after all...

JJ
Sorry - I should have clarified my point (as usual I was posting in the early hours of the morning where lack of sleep & rum had addled my already challenged brain-cells!): I was referring specifically to the ‘rule book out the window’ attitude that we’d employ after only a relatively small time after the breakdown of civil society. I didn’t mean to imply that we’d pick up arms against those attempting to help us in the first few days after an incident of this magnitude, because the people in that stadium are aware that the governments (State & Federal) are trying to help them. The reports are that those who fired the shots are the kind of scum criminal who’d engage in drive-by shootings, so I’m in no way defending them. The survival of the fittest mode I was referring to is, for example, where the incident isn’t an obvious natural disaster (although we’re all aware of the top secret projects for controlling the weather – where’s my foil hat? :D ) and suddenly a community finds itself without comms. It doesn’t take much for panic to make people suspicious and begin to treat everyone as the enemy.
 
#19
Fuchs66 said:
BRIAN said:
i wonder what would happen over here in blighty, would we all meet on the church hall roof, share food and sing "we'll meet again" in true blitz spirit. Or would we break into the nearest Woolworths to steal the pick and mix.
I think you'd find the local Woolies would open the doors and distribute what would be ruined stock anyway. I have mentioned this on another forum but I think looting to some degree or other would happen anywhere but in the US it always seems to go OTT (see aftermath of the Rodney King incident)
A nice scenario if Woolies had staff to do that. What if the area involved had been evacuated, and the store was closed?

Have you seen Canadians after a Hockey game, when their team has won, or when their team has lost?

The Rodney King 'incident' was after the first trial, when some didn't like the verdict.
You didn't see it happening when OJ was acquitted, or MJ acquitted. You may have though had they been found guilty.
 
#20
Having got into a few arguements with the locals over the issue on my trips to the States - i've found that the prevailing view is that the right to own firearms is do with limiting the power of the Federal government, to protect the citizens against possible excesses of said government. This also appears to be an issue with the legislation that prevented the initial movement of regular troops to New Orleans until all the formalities were completed.

Don't forget that, the way the media has portrayed it, the weapons used are those that were looted from the stores. I doubt very much that this is correct and that the looted weapons would have contributed greatly to the chaos, but the impression will help the gun lobby to deflect the issue away from legal gun ownership.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top