Well, I think it has more merit than you give it credit for. While the invading force would necessarily be very large and powerful, having every citizen you come across taking shots at you is very taxing for them. Look at the American experience in Vietnam and now in Iraq. The irregulars did and are doing a much better job than their respective regular armies, even though the regulars were better armed, trained and organized.
My post clearly stated that your life was not in jeopardy in the said situation. Wanna try again to respond?
Looters having guns is a problem. Roxran wants to insure that they all have guns or can easily loot them from sporting good stores or perhaps his own or neighbor's houses. as they flees a natural disaster. After all, even Roxran, if forced to choose between taking only 4 of his guns or drowing, and leaving the other 25 at home, would probably flee like most other people. I guess he can use his guns in the shelter or wherever.
but how does he know that? your in a crisis situation and strangers barge into your home? I'm with ROXRAN and I shoot first, ask questions later
but when the SHTF, and by "SHTF" I am hypothesizing a zombie scenario, what happens when you get bit? Then you'll not just be a zombie, you'll be a zombie WITH guns and ammo. Personally, I prefer the bow and arrow and regular fighting skills. If I turn into a zombie, zombies have bad coordination so they won't be able to use the bow and arrow. I would hate to have my weapons cache used against my loved ones. Also, using a bow and arrow looks cool. Zombies using a bow and arrow just looks stupid. That's why the uruk-kai in LOTR used crossbows. I know Orcs are not Zombies, but you get the point.
How many times do I need to repeat myself? You saw what happened, you warned, they didn't listen, they grabbed stuff and tried to run away from you without having any physical contact of you. Now answer the questions, you shoot or not? If yes, shoot where? ...
So those thugs and looters who probably damn well stole those firearms from places of business, represent an argument for gun control? Are you silly or disillusionized or both? Grizzled, you are right! fantasy land is great. In my fantasy world, I also wish there were no guns in citizens hands at all around the world, 100%, I wish there was no Grizzly bear fatal attacks in the woods, I wish there was no automobile accidents, In my fatasy world people would not drink and drive, fat people would not exist, and Canadians would not exist...It would be so great! But this is the real world, and this is how I roll biatch! I am prepared and ready for the uneventful, when I have to be...My call is for responsible citizens to be as well!
I think his argument is if there are extreme limits on gun ownership, then demand would be significantly lower, and there wouldn't be places of business everywhere with guns and ammo stocked on their shelves for people to steal. He has a fair point that don't see this kind of mess in other countries facing national disasters, certainly not after the tsunami. Whether that is just a result of American media covering this in more detail or not, I don't really know.
Actually there were many parts of Sri Lanka where armed rebel fighters kept aid workers from coming in and distributing aid. It got so bad that at one point the Sri Lanka gov. resorted to air dropping aid into areas held by the Tamil Tigers.
But how do you know the people shooting at the police didn't get their guns legally and are licensed gun owners? Being a legal gun owner doesn't automatically make someone moral and civil minded.
Agreed and I was primarily just making a historical point. Anyway if the rebels weren't armed the NGO's could've gone in and distrubeted aid.
To be honest, I would want to kill a looter regardless of the situation. If you want my valuables, prepare to fight.
Your ideological commitment to guns must make you blind to reason. That’s the only reason for a post like this that I can think of. Gun control means that those guns for the most part aren’t in places of business to steal. There aren’t very many guns shops because there is virtually no market for handguns, and in the few shops that exist they are kept under strict lock and key with firing pins by law having to be kept in a safe, IIRC. Businesses don’t have them. Citizens don’t have them, save a few. Are you getting it yet? Roxran, open your eyes and have a look at what happens in the real world. After the tsunamis in S.E. Asia aid got in quite quickly, even considering the great distances and isolation of some of these places. There were very few reports so shooting or of aid workers being endangered so they could and did get in and save people and property. In the recent floods in Europe there were few if any reports of shooting and looting. NO is mere hours away from tens of millions of people, and yet still days later thousands of people are stranded and dieing and even today aid workers are having to pull out of places because it’s too dangerous for them. They are being regularly shot at! These are the consequences of having 18th century guns laws. If you have that many guns amongst the general public many of them WILL get into the hands of criminals, and they will make criminals out of many “shoot first ask questions later” people like your self too. You are a murderer waiting to happen with a mentality like that. In places with 20th century gun laws this just doesn’t happen, or only happens as a rare and isolated occurrence. These are the clear and obvious real world facts of the matter. By owning guns and promoting 18th century gun laws you DON’T protect your family or your community, you endanger them. If you really want to protect your family and community then you will get rid of your guns and lobby to bring your gun laws into this century. If this is just political for you, then you will carry on with the empty rhetoric, but note that all objective thinkers can clearly see the price of having 18th century gun laws in the blood being spilt on the streets of New Orleans as we speak.
You da man, Grizzled. "Murderer waiting to happen" is exactly what's bound to happen in a situation like this where material loss is going to be "compensated" by possible human lives. It's really sad to see that all of sudden, FranchiseBlade, Grizzled, and wnes are the only "liberals" left in Clutch BBS who refuse to use firearms to confront looters for fear of causing unnecessary casualties. You are right, this shoot-first-ask-later cowboy gun culture isn't a new phenomenon. In 1992, a 16-year-old Japanese exchange student in a suburb of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was tragically shot to death after mistakenly approaching a private property in a Halloween night.
come on now, you can't possibly compare the situation in NOLA right now with anything you or anyone else in America has experienced... when law enforcement has broken down, when there is no food, no water, nothing but chaos and anarchy, you have to put yourself and your family first - protecting them from looters breaking into your home is not something that is up for debate IMO - and I am about as liberal as they come
I believe in reason, and individual accountability, and it is wholly reasonable on assigning responsibility towards a person's actions, and not assigning blame on inanimate objects which would not garner blame in any politically-influenced fashion sans the actions of the individual...The point is that there are bad people out there, and SHTF events can happen...If you took every firearm away, there will be bad people who exploit another type of tool or object for gain, if you took that away, there will be some other type of tool or object to take it's place...The root of stopping the actions is not the tools or the objects used, but to hold those responsible for wrongful actions...In the meantime, I live in the here and now, You may think Canada is Soooo great. fine, I believe the United States of America is far superior to any country for so many reasons, but that is my opinion, it is also my reasoned opinion that the right to defend myself and bear arms is a monumentous, and glorious right I value from the bill of rights...You don't fine. You have that choice. I don't believe it is reasonable to have myself or my family defenseless in a SHTF situation. I don't know what Canada home invasion laws are but if someone breaks into my home against my will, it is fine and dandy to defend yourself...
