September 01, 2005

From bad to worse

People whined and moaned about how we should have understood the reasoning behind the looters that ransacked jewelry stores, Wal-Marts (and we all know Wal-Mart is evil), etc. We should apparently just let them be...let them do as they pleased. Sure...they're desperate for that big-screen tv or the big gold chains. Yeah...the roving bandits hijacking vehicles and attacking police officers are just acting out against their oppressors (let me be clear that I'm not talking about necessary food supplies here).

Yesterday I wondered if the people understood that there was a direct correlation between regaining civil order and saving lives. When I talked about gaining civil order, I was talking about using whatever means are necessary to stop the threats. In a time such as this, when society breaks down in an area, there's only one language that's understood...and it begins at the end of a barrel. I make no apologies for my words because you are seeing the harsh reality of life outside of reason and societal order.

Police are having to deal with the problem now taking much needed resources away from the rescue efforts. Helicopters are being shot at forcing rescue efforts to halt at the Superdome. Why? Because the problem wasn't dealt with as it should have been from the very beginning, and it has now escalated to the point that it is costing lives...just as I said.

Get over yourselves and face reality. It's not pretty. It never has been, and it never will be. You can make yourselves think that we are such an enlightened society that violence is never necessary. You think that we should try to understand criminal elements, but you do so at your own peril and at the cost of innocent lives. Then, when things go from bad to worse, you blame the ones that told you the truth. True to form...true to form.

More: SayUncle asked a good question yesterday...semi-related:

So, for all you anti-gunnies out there: what do you do when the system breaks down, there is neither law nor order, and your protection is up to you?

I don't know...maybe some love and understanding might help you out there.

More II: Ted Frank speaks his mind:

I fully acknowledge that shooting looters is an inappropriately disproportionate response if one views looting as mere larceny. But one doesn't shoot looters to protect property, one does so to protect order. Somebody is going to suffer unjustly when society breaks down. I don't understand why Muller thinks it preferable for the law-abiding citizens to be the cost-bearers. History has shown repeatedly that the way to stop an anarchic riot is an early display of substantial force.

Exactly.

(ht: Instapundit)

More III: Nathan Moore is keeping a list of what he calls the "Pro-Looter Lobby."

Also, here's another story for the "pro-looter lobby" to make excuses for.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

"Heh." In your world innocent people would walk the streets alongside the guilty at their own peril. Shoot a couple of children just standing by in the head? That's the price you pay for getting the guilty ones and for protecting one more pair of Adidas from being stolen.

Posted by: S-townMike at September 1, 2005 10:42 AM

we'll be waiting here on earth when you get back, mikey

Posted by: at September 1, 2005 10:53 AM

Those ain't kids with guns there, Mike.

Posted by: Drake at September 1, 2005 12:07 PM

Is S-Town blogging from New Orleans? If not, maybe he should travel down to help keep the peace.

He can hand out flowers and cash--that should stop the madness.

Posted by: at September 1, 2005 03:47 PM

The unnamed and unidentified minions here have joined Blake in beating a dead horse.

1,500 NO police have been standing post protecting property for nearly 24 hours now, while trapped people go unrescued, thousands at the Conv Ctr and Superdome have not eaten in 4 days, sick people go without medication, and violent crimes against people continue around the city.

If you look at the latest video from NO it looks like a 3rd world country, but at least the shoes are still in stock.

You got what you wanted. Are you never satisfied?

Posted by: S-townMike at September 1, 2005 05:59 PM

All those looters ended up stealing guns so now they are all taking pot shots at rescuers causing the police officers to be pulled away from rescue! It's now costing more lives because it wasn't taken care of from the beginning! How can these idiots not see that????

Posted by: Ripper at September 1, 2005 09:06 PM

Whoa Blake, your starting to sound like me. Heh!

Posted by: Glen Dean at September 1, 2005 10:21 PM

Where did they steal the guns from? Was it gun stores? Hmmm, so if it weren't legal for guns to be sold on every street corner, there probably wouldn't have been any guns to steal, as I seriously doubt the criminals would have broken into the police station to steal weapons. To me, this is the greatest argument ever for resticting the sale of guns.

I sure am glad Bush was able to get that repeal on the automatic weapon ban last fall. I'm sure all the police and National Guardsmen on the streets of New Orleans feel the same way.

You guys are so sure that guns and frontier justice are the solution. In reality, they are the problem.

Posted by: Captain T at September 2, 2005 08:13 AM

Captain, smell some of what you are shoveling. Automatic weapons, unless class 3, are still illegal. If you are referring to the assault weapons ban it expired like many pieces of legislation do. Bush had NOTHING to do with that.

Your hatred of guns blinds you.

Posted by: Drake at September 2, 2005 08:43 AM

Er...education might help your argument a little more...but it would still ultimately fail.

There was no automatic weapon ban repealed. Automatic weapons were regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act as well as the Hughes Amendment to the gun control act of 1986.

What you are apparently talking about is the 1994 "Assault" Weapons Ban which expired last year, but it really didn't ban any weapons. All it banned were physical features on firearms which didn't make a bit of difference in how the firearm operated.

The bad guys are going to get guns no matter what (this goes for non-"shtf" scenarios especially), and the legal ownership of firearms is necessary. Not only that, but we (civilians) have other reasons to own firearms which gets into another subject all together (Constitutional law, reasoning behind the second amendment, etc).

Posted by: B at September 2, 2005 08:46 AM