Guns, Butter, and Led Zepplin

[whyBish]

Seven days to respond to an earthquake that may or may not happen, with no advance warning, sometime in the next hundred years?  That is an admirable level of preparedness.  Five days to respond to a hurricane, when multiple hurricanes hit somewhere on the American Gulf and Atlantic coasts yearly and the most likely path is known days ahead of landfall? That indicates an attitude similar to the fool who, having fallen off a skyscraper, was heard to say as he passed the tenth floor, "So far, so good."

--Pete

PS The malleability of the English language is amazing.  'Wgtn' is, I presume, 'Wellington'? :)
[right][snapback]88133[/snapback][/right]

Good point. Being prepared to survive for seven days also conveniently means that you are prepared to survive for five.

[whyBish]

*Cha Ching*  He shoots, he scores.
Occhi
[right][snapback]88180[/snapback][/right]

Obviously we see a very small part of the picture. The racism finger is currently being pointed, but the thing I haven't heard is any leadership over what is going to happen in the future for the people of NO (or at least an aim)... What happens when you poke too many people into TX? How long are they going to be able to stay there? etc.

The day after 9/11 Bush was announcing plans for retribution against perpetrators (i.e. the long term plan), where is the long term plan here? (Even if it is just a we'll take a few weeks to assess the situation).

Maybe we just don't see that over here?

[Brother Laz]

I'm European. I often don't get American politics. But why why why didn't anyone predict that 'gee, a poor city in a poor state, and all we do is tell them to leave... could it be that not everyone can do so?'.

Priority number one: get the people out. To hell with levees, even if they held there were going to be victims, billboards falling on people, houses collapsing etc etc. Things like storm-proofing the city to minimise property damage are afterthoughts, something you decide on after you make sure that the people are safe.

So 30K people were stuck in New Orleans? Wow, that's about 50-100 planes. Of course, the US gov't is so poor they can't afford to charter 100 planes to save lives. Of course, those 250 million taxpayers surely did not generate enough revenue to pay for 500-1000 buses. Or trains. Or even ships.

Those who want to leave but [gee] don't have a car or money for a hotel or family in another state should have been evacuated and if necessary crammed into a Superdome in New York or Chicago or Peru or anywhere else safe or into cheap hotels.

Even if the levees held, even if all buildings confirmed to Category-One-Proofing regulations, and even if there were no loose objects to be found in the whole damn city, there were going to be casualties. Knowing that people are going to die, being able to do something about it and not dropping everything and doing so is criminal.

Find out who had the power to charter those planes and didn't, before throwing mud about stupid levees.

[Guest]

Were not as centralised as you suppose.

Getting the people out fell on the state - although they could have asked for help.


The real problem was by the time people realized that a near worst case senerio was happening, there wasnt much time.
Up till Fridaynight it really didnt look any worse than several hurricanes did last year.

What should have been done different?

The city of New Orleans and the state of Luisiana should have had a plan in place to take all municipal busses and and to boorrow school buses from the surounding towns and use them for evacuation.

But even then you would have a pboblem with a great many elderly and sick people - and thier families who wouldnt leave with out them.

[whathuh]

BFC was an anti-gun piece that almost hit the mark.  Mr. Moore was attempting the "Gunz 'r Bad, Mkay" story but I got more out of the sections on the media and how much influence they have over the sheeple and the attitudes they propogate.  Most of the other stuff he has said since then isn't good use of the credibility he got from BFC.
[right][snapback]88201[/snapback][/right]

I agree that the real story was the media in BFC. I'm not sure whether or not he was really trying for the "Gunz 'r Bad, Mkay", but it made the whole bash of the media more effective.

[Roland]

So 30K people were stuck in New Orleans? Wow, that's about 50-100 planes. Of course, the US gov't is so poor they can't afford to charter 100 planes to save lives. Of course, those 250 million taxpayers surely did not generate enough revenue to pay for 500-1000 buses. Or trains. Or even ships.

People weren't "stuck". People refused to leave. Get your facts straight before ranting on and on about what "should" have been done.

Did it ever occurr to you that maybe people are stupider than you think, and just plain wouldn't leave?

[Occhidiangela]

I'm European. I often don't get American politics. But why why why didn't anyone predict that 'gee, a poor city in a poor state, and all we do is tell them to leave... could it be that not everyone can do so?'.

Priority number one: get the people out. To hell with levees, even if they held there were going to be victims, billboards falling on people, houses collapsing etc etc. Things like storm-proofing the city to minimise property damage are afterthoughts, something you decide on after you make sure that the people are safe.

So 30K people were stuck in New Orleans? Wow, that's about 50-100 planes. Of course, the US gov't is so poor they can't afford to charter 100 planes to save lives. Of course, those 250 million taxpayers surely did not generate enough revenue to pay for 500-1000 buses. Or trains. Or even ships.

Those who want to leave but [gee] don't have a car or money for a hotel or family in another state should have been evacuated and if necessary crammed into a Superdome in New York or Chicago or Peru or anywhere else safe or into cheap hotels.

Even if the levees held, even if all buildings confirmed to Category-One-Proofing regulations, and even if there were no loose objects to be found in the whole damn city, there were going to be casualties. Knowing that people are going to die, being able to do something about it and not dropping everything and doing so is criminal.

Find out who had the power to charter those planes and didn't, before throwing mud about stupid levees.
[right][snapback]88315[/snapback][/right]

Laz

1. You may not grasp the complexity of moving tens of thousands via air. The Air Traffic Control system can't handle that kind of surge, typically when hurricane weather is upon you. The available wide bodies, ground capacity (the Air Force calls it MOG/Max on Ground) and throughput is absolutely not trival, particularly when dealing with undisciplined and untrained citizenry. It is tough enough to manage with disciplined military troops.

2. I live in a hurricane zone. In any city of this sort, there is a certain percentage of people who WONT leave. Too stubborn, I guess. My inlaws are among those, and to be frank with you, I am of the same mind. I have m y reserve supplies stored away, and I intend to deal with any looters down here with hot lead.

Problem is, some folks who won't leave then whine after it was worse than they expected. I am still curious, not sure I will ever find out, what the agenda and aim was of the various criminal gangs who hung around and organized resistance to the relief effort.

While some folks were unable to evacuate, some believed that the Superdome option and the Convention Center option were viable. They had been advised to go to both places. They too probably assumed that the plan in place included sewage that worked. They also likely assumed their fellow citizens would not prey on them.

OOPS, the local plan was not that robust, and faith in humankind misplaced. Again.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Obviously we see a very small part of the picture.  The racism finger is currently being pointed, but the thing I haven't heard is any leadership over what is going to happen in the future for the people of NO (or at least an aim)...  What happens when you poke too many people into TX?  How long are they going to be able to stay there? etc.

The day after 9/11 Bush was announcing plans for retribution against perpetrators (i.e. the long term plan), where is the long term plan here?  (Even if it is just a we'll take a few weeks to assess the situation).

Maybe we just don't see that over here?
[right][snapback]88293[/snapback][/right]

1. Different context, completely. Please don't compare apples and wingnuts.

2. Read "Project for a New American Century" and see why the response to a terror attack was already well in hand.

3. Defense planning and disaster planning are two completely different animals. I have done both. The limits on the proactive capacity of any plan is contingent on Mother Nature's caprices, both in earthquakes and hurricanes. Tornados are even more random.

4. The racism crap is pure, pure, politics. Unless you think Mother Nature sends class 4 hurricanes to attack certain demographics in New Orleans. :P

Occhi

[eppie]

2.  I live in a hurricane zone.  In any city of this sort, there is a certain percentage of people who WONT leave.  Too stubborn, I guess.  My inlaws are among those, and to be frank with you, I am of the same mind.  I have m y reserve supplies stored away, and I intend to deal with any looters down here with hot lead. 

Occhi
[right][snapback]88334[/snapback][/right]

That's the spirit. I think we all have been very happy, that there were at least some guns available in New Orleans. :blink:

[eppie]

4.  The racism crap is pure, pure, politics.  Unless you think Mother Nature sends class 4 hurricanes to attack certain demographics in New Orleans.    :P 

Occhi
[right][snapback]88335[/snapback][/right]

Of course racism is not the point here, it is just the amount of money you have. It is however true that most of the victims of the hurricanes aftermath are poor people. And that is not only because the refused to leave.
But I also see the larger perspective here. It teaches us how vulnerable we are if things like this happen, civilization ends in just a few days.

[Guest]

Yay - for another no value Euro post.






Not to imply that all many Euros dont contribute great stuff, but you are an example of those who dont.

[Occhidiangela]

That's the spirit. I think we all have been very happy, that there were at least some guns available in New Orleans. :blink:
[right][snapback]88352[/snapback][/right]

You come and loot in my neighborhood, I'll shoot you. That is called a deterrent to looting. The "gun problem" of THE IDIOTS SHOOTING AT RELIEF HELICOPTERS is not germane to shooting looters on sight. Guns are not the issue, eppie, criminal jerkoffs are.

Got it?

You don't prevent looting by being a sheep and relying only on government to protect you. Sheep get sheared, buggered, and eaten, depending on the ethics and preferences of the shepard.

Don't be a sheep, unless you like the above options.

Occhi

[Doc]

Occhi, as far as shooting looters goes, do you favour the 22 because it's a varmint slayer, or do you go for the Human Hamburger Cannon?

[jahcs]

Occhi, as far as shooting looters goes, do you favour the 22 because it's a varmint slayer, or do you go for the Human Hamburger Cannon?
[right][snapback]88386[/snapback][/right]

I know it's directed at Occhi but the .22 isn't a proper defense weapon, as I'm sure you're aware. Displaying a firearm can be a deterrent, in which case a .22 is adequate. But if you display a firearm you better be ready to use it. (I won't display a firearm unless I feel the situation will demand it's use.) Without expert shot placement (and even some luck) the .22 is not an adequate defensive round. Besides, the sound of a .22 going pap, pap, pap isn't much of a deterrent either.

[Doc]

I know it's directed at Occhi but the .22 isn't a proper defense weapon, as I'm sure you're aware.  Displaying a firearm can be a deterrent, in which case a .22 is adequate.  But if you display a firearm you better be ready to use it.  (I won't display a firearm unless I feel the situation will demand it's use.)  Without expert shot placement (and even some luck) the .22 is not an adequate defensive round.  Besides, the sound of a .22 going pap, pap, pap isn't much of a deterrent either.
[right][snapback]88392[/snapback][/right]

Bah! That was an underhanded commentary about looters NOT BEING HUMAN but but being vermin.

**Bangs head on desk**

[jahcs]

Bah! That was an underhanded commentary about looters NOT BEING HUMAN but but being vermin.

**Bangs head on desk**
[right][snapback]88393[/snapback][/right]

;) I did notice that but I wanted to catch the folks who might not know the .22 round isn't a proper defense round as soon as possible.

I actually heard a radio caller this morning wondering why NO homeowners didn't stock up with camping gear and a few .22's for defense :wacko:

Now if you had said .223 as a varmint round I'd have let it slide B)

[Doc]

;)  I did notice that but I wanted to catch the folks who might not know the .22 round isn't a proper defense round as soon as possible.

I actually heard a radio caller this morning wondering why NO homeowners didn't stock up with camping gear and a few .22's for defense :wacko:

Now if you had said .223 as a varmint round I'd have let it slide B)
[right][snapback]88395[/snapback][/right]

Lately, I have been using a bow and arrow for varmint hunting. That, and a 200 pound xbow with a scope. I am, I am ashamed to say, somewhat out of practice with my archery skills.

Humans are big varmints. I would want something with range and damage. My guess, a 44-40 or the old reliable 30/30.

[kandrathe]

Occhi, as far as shooting looters goes, do you favour the 22 because it's a varmint slayer, or do you go for the Human Hamburger Cannon?
[right][snapback]88386[/snapback][/right]

I got it. :)

Perhaps the humanitarian vigilante would use blanks or buckshot for the "providing food for the family" looters, and whatever the hell else you got for the lawless brigands taking advantage of a lack of civil protection.

[Doc]

I got it.  :)

Perhaps the humanitarian vigilante would use blanks or buckshot for the "providing food for the family" looters, and whatever the hell else you got for the lawless brigands taking advantage of a lack of civil protection.
[right][snapback]88398[/snapback][/right]

White people find food. Only brown people loot.

Edit.

I should add, if I were to go find food, I'd be a looter.

Don't hate me because I am right.

[eppie]

You come and loot in my neighborhood, I'll shoot you.  That is called a deterrent to looting.  The "gun problem" of THE IDIOTS SHOOTING AT RELIEF HELICOPTERS is not germane to shooting looters on sight.  Guns are not the issue, eppie, criminal jerkoffs are. 

Got it? 

Of course I got it, what do you keep me for?

I just have a problem with people that like to say (as much as possible) that for something done to them they will start shooting people, you obviously don't mean it so bad, but that kind of talk serves no purpose, nor does it help in ending conflicts.

And of course guns are not the issue, but don't judge to quick who is a criminal and who isn't. Somebody who shoots at aid workers has to imagine he can be shot for this (but these guys I believe were all junks who needed their heroine...and then you get crazy.....these people are also likely not scared of you threathening them, because they don't think straight anymore.

People that loot shops because they need food and drink should not get shot.

And those three and a half people that were going around looting houses for valuable are almost not worth mentioning.

People that do that to your house will also get a reaction..of course.

But when somebody just starts stating that when somebody is breaking in to his house he will shoot them, it says more about the person itsself. Looting and killing are different things....killing is worse......and who will tell (when the police arrives) if the people you shot were looting....are that you are some guncraze lunatic that likes to kill people.


So please don't keep for an idiot (I won't even respond to ghostiger, because he doesn't even take time to come with an intelligent response), I know you, I won't loot your house, and I don't think we should discuss on the lounge how we want to kill other people.