I think this just shows the failure of the US government.  We displaced how many people, and then didn’t give them shit.  What was to be expected?  Companies are not reluctant to hire poor displaced people.

As far as the call to arms, well I am for people being able to own guns.  I think there should be more to teach people on proper gun use, which is sadly not usually the case.  But if it takes a gun for you to feel safe and protected go for it.  Myself, I just live my life and do my own thing, and let people live theirs.

I think there should be more to teach people on proper gun use, which is sadly not usually the case.

Let’s take your NRA as example, it’s nothing more than extreme right wing organization.
They don’t even have gun safety rules on their site!

Let’s look at this a little more closely (and a little less emotionally...)

Out of 262 murders, police state that 59 Katrina evacuees are suspects or victims. Those 59 are from an estimated 120,000 people who are still living in Houston following the devastation. That’s less than 0.05% of the evacuees still there. Out of Houston’s total population (of which the evacuees account for around 6%), that comes out as 0.003%. The other 203 murders involve 0.01% of the general Houstonian population, 3 times as many as the Katrina victims. Yet I don’t see anyone saying which particular groups are involved in these murders. And just because someone from a particular group commits a murder, it doesn’t necessarily mean that just being a part of that group makes you more liable to be involved. As always, life is a complex business that can’t be reduced to rabid soundbites (despite the best efforts of politicos, shock jocks, nazis and other assorted scum).

Using the above ‘logic’ I’d say there was probably as strong a case for ensuring women were armed and men weren’t. After all, women are regularly violently beaten, abused and, in around 100 cases a year across Texas, murdered by an intimate male partner. But simply arming a large chunk of the population doesn’t address the reasons why men abuse.

Crass demonisation of a particular group merely serves the interests of those who were rather we were fearful of each other than concentrating on where the real problems lie (and if you can make a few more bucks along the way, even better). A system founded on brutality, inequality and raw abuse of power for the privileged few will never lead to a peaceful and just society.

We live in a society engineered to the nth degree to suit the interests of the few over the many. Given the conditions that many of us are forced to survive under I’m always more impressed by the fact that most of use, every day, get up and go about our lives without trying to fuck each other over. It doesn’t seem to me that encouraging gun ownership will make for a safer and more harmonious society in the long run. But imagine what we could do, who we could be, if we changed this world from the bottom up, where we built a world based on equality, freedom and mutual co-operation. Surely that would be preferable to a world full of guns and fear?

Love and kisses from your friendly neighbourhood anarchist x

This situation is (yet) another demonstration of people manipulating people’s fear for personal gain.  It is really such an effective sales strategy—it counts on fear’s capacity to override rational thought (as durruti so clearly pointed out). People just respond viscerally to the perceived threat. And there’s just enough truth to it to make it all seem credible—at least one evacuee has been involved in a crime, right?

It just seems that there is increasing paranoia and fear being generated by everyone from the government on down.

Using the above ‘logic’ I’d say there was probably as strong a case for ensuring women were armed and men weren’t. After all, women are regularly violently beaten, abused and, in around 100 cases a year across Texas, murdered by an intimate male partner.

You know, I kinda like that idea.

Well, yes—it is the same all over. Women are at greatest risk of being killed by the man who ‘loves’ them. Up here we don’t arm the women, but our system does require that the man obtain the wife’s (and/or ex-wife’s depending on the time frame) signature to obtain an FAC (permit to obtain and carry a firearm). My guess would be that it helps a little.

Here’s the reason why I support his remarks. The deaths involved are those in which someone else had a part. It doesn’t mean that they are actually murders. Secondly, Texas had the EXACT same problem prior to the passing of the concealed handgun act. After its passage, the number of firearm related deaths increased in Texas but the number of rapes and sexual assaults dropped by 70%. That being said, arguing that the 59 are related to the total population of Houston is simply wrong. If evacuees represent .06% of the total population, yet they account for almost .25% of the number of murders/murder victims, it shows that they are either being singled out by the population or that they are somehow more likely to become involved in these incidents. Considering that it would be incredibly difficult for me to swallow the idea that the entire city of Houston is out to get these people, I’m going to argue they are doing this to themselves. After all, look at the number of murders New Orleans had BEFORE Katrina. US Army field medics train with New Orleans Emergency Service because they see more wounds from automatic weapons than Bogata, Colombia. In fact, they usually process almost 30 a day. Well, at least they did prior to Katrina. Anyway, the overall point is, Houston opened its arms to thousands of evacuees and instead of settling in the area, they’ve become a damn leech. Statistically speaking, since their influx into the area, crime of every sort has increased. Mix that with the sentiment that there is no reasonable alternative, like getting a fucking job , and you have a veritable powderkeg.

Let’s take your NRA as example, it’s nothing more than extreme right wing organization.
They don’t even have gun safety rules on their site!

You didn’t put much effort into looking.

Proper gun use eh? To a certain degree, yes. There are four basic weapon safety rules that are taught within the military that I think best apply to almost every situation.
1. Never point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot, kill, maim, or destroy.
2. Keep your trigger finger straight and level and off the trigger until ready to fire.
3. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
4. Keep the weapon on “safe” until ready to fire.
I believe in gun ownership simply for the fact that were someone to invade my home with the intention of harming myself or my family, they will die. I think, honestly, that its a question about the value of human life. I’m a realist, I realize that human life is precious and should be preserved at all costs, but I also realize that the phrase works both ways. I would be willing to kill in self defense or for a variety of reasons, but there must be a justification.

My point is, the figures are miniscule in relation to the size of the general population, and to demonise tens of thousands of people for the actions of a tiny fraction is not only illogical, it’s dangerous. Just look at what Hitler managed to do. Your ‘leech’ comment sounds ominous in that respect.

Perhaps the people from Louisiana have actually brought money into your city, perhaps they’ve taken up jobs and are contributing to the local economy, perhaps some of them have decided to settle and make Houston their new home, with all of the positive possibilities that brings. Without knowing the whole story, I wouldn’t feel comfortable about making such blanket statements about a whole swathe of the population.

I’m ambivalent about the questions of gun ownership, but I can certainly understand where you’re coming from in wanting to do everything to defend yourself and your family. However, that is a different argument. The issue here is one of creating fear and prejudice where none ought to exist. Don’t you think that the vast majority of people from Louisiana would also like to see an end to violence and crime in the community too? If it’s anything like my city, a lot of crime is committed by a tiny handle of folk, and much of that stays within criminal circles. The rest of us, regardless of where we’re from, would like to see the anti-social criminals removed from our communities, and we’re generally happy to work together to make that happen. It seems counter-productive for the local population to seek to divide itself from the ‘outsiders’ over this when there appears to be such a strong shared interest. Perhaps getting to know some Louisianites (?!) personally would help.

There are far more murders committed in Houston than there are in my home city in the UK (which is a bigger city). But I certainly wouldn’t brand all Houstonians as far more liable to murder me just because of a few bad apples, and I wouldn’t be demanding arming the population if we faced an influx of Houstonians! Although I would be quite keen to ask you to leave your guns at the door

You didn’t put much effort into looking.

And you looked to wrong site:
http://www.nra.org/
They should have safety information and links to it directly on their front page or then they should also move all scheisse about blessedfulnes of guns similarly behind pages.

I believe it would be dangerous to label all of the evacuees as criminals and thugs. There is no doubt in that, but I AM a realist. Not all snakes are poisonous, but its good advice to keep your distance. As far as the leech comment, well, I had good reason to make it. The public school system has been strained to the tune of paying an additional $180,000 per day. In addition to this, over $400,000,000 every year on additional housing and $6,500,000 per year in overtime police costs for additional patrolling. You have a valid point, blanket statements can be harmful, but when a blanket statement is accurate in describing the majority of the group, well, I’ll defend a blanket statement. Not only that, but the murder rate is only one piece of the pie. Out of ALL violent crimes reported in Houston last year, Katrina evacuees were involved in almost 68%. This is course, could be directly related to the evacuees contribution to the economy.....a whopping average of $160,000 a day. Why you might ask? Because evacuees have swamped local relief agency and have sent most of the money back to Louisiana. Essentially, money and resources have been sucked out of Houston on massive scale with nothing in return except for a higher crime rate. If this were in the short term, it wouldn’t necessarily be a problem, but out of the estimated 150,000 evacuees who were taken in by the city of Houston, an estimated 10,000 have returned to Louisianna to date. As for gun ownership, when you can comfortably say that overall crime rates in your community have risen over 120% in a year, I believe it would be in your best interests to carry a form of protection.

E.T.: whats your point?  That the NRA is an irresponsible organization?  I never said they were, and I am not a member.

E.T.: Let’s take your NRA as example, it’s nothing more than extreme right wing organization.
They don’t even have gun safety rules on their site!

Which was exactly my point from above

Webs: As far as the call to arms, well I am for people being able to own guns.  I think there should be more to teach people on proper gun use, which is sadly not usually the case.

Notice where I put the focus.

Neodromos: There are four basic weapon safety rules that are taught within the military that I think best apply to almost every situation.
1. Never point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot, kill, maim, or destroy.
2. Keep your trigger finger straight and level and off the trigger until ready to fire.
3. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
4. Keep the weapon on “safe” until ready to fire.

I couldn’t agree with you more here and now that I read these four points I realized my friend from the military got the same training.  Because these are four important points he went over with me when he should me his gun.  I had to understand these main points before I held his unloaded gun.

Can I just check something- is this the same NRA whose response to proposed firearm legislation was to Government “Remember who has the guns”? (Presedent of NRA C Heston) (Yes that C Heston) Is there any other interpretation to this other than armed resistence to Federal Law?

What is the source that quotes Heston (or any NRA representative) as saying “Remember who has the guns”?  None of the usual search engines can find it.

Yeah, let’s kill all the brown people from Louisiana because they’ve been “shown” to be marginally more violent then the “normal” population of Houston.

What a load of absolute horseshit.  It’s amazing that someone can say something so blatantly racist and the argument is over gun ownership.

And if anyone honestly thinks that they wouldn’t turn to crime as a last resort to survive, they’re living in a fucking fantasy world.

LastHussar,

Armed resistance to Federal law is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.  Our Founding Fathers had had a donnybrook with the King.  The UK had the best army and the biggest navy and they still lost because there were enough Americans with firearms to be able to convince the French the Americans stood a good chance of winning.  The Founding Fathers feared that government could become tyrannical, thus they ensured that, worse come to worse, the people would always be able to resist or, if necessary, overthrow the government.

Lobo.....a word of advice before you label someone as a racist, you MIGHT want to check before you speak. Yes, I am white, but were I a racist, I think it would be a bit awkward that I married a black woman. I don’t honestly believe that anyone who is “brown” is a damn thug. That’s stupid. What I DID say was that the area concerned has one of the highest crime rates in North America(Lousiana). Now, given that the majority of the population is African American, it would make sense to say that there is at least a decent chance that a large number of the crimes being committed are by African American......fucking duh. That doesn’t make me a racist, it makes me a realist you twit. As for the who racist bit, I’ve been labeled a racist almost my entire life because I’m white and from the South, and you know what? I’m fucking sick of it.

Poor, poor, pitiful Neodromos.  If you don’t want to be called a racist you should probably stop talking like one and maybe put some effort into recognizing when some gun-happy jackoff good old boy is trying to rile people up against the “other”.  Then you should probably not fall all over yourself to agree with him.  There is some USEFUL advice for you.

You aren’t being a realist, you’re being an ignorant cracker.

So you’re sick of it?  So fucking what?  What you are sick of is none of my damned concern.  Translation:  Take your fake fucking outrage and meaningless advice and stick it straight up your, well you know.

Armed resistance to Federal law is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

I am now racist because of what? Statistics? Let’s review the current situation for a moment. The city of Houston shelters a large number of evacuees from Louisianna. Afterward, the number of crimes committed within the city increase by just over 100%. Let me use an example. A man walks into a building with matches and a gallon of gasoline, he emerges several minutes later when the store becomes engulfed in flames. I would argue that its safe to assume he started the fire. Now, there is of course the possibility that he didn’t, but Vegas odds says that you’ve got a better bet with your money on him as the culprit. Secondly, a majority of those evacuated are African American. Now, me being a barefoot gun-toting cracker, I’m going to assume that there is at least a chance that a large number of the crimes that have been committed by evacuees were committed by *gasp* African Americans. That doesn’t mean that they are inherently evil, it just means that the odds are against them. I admit, that might be construed as racist because the subject is touchy. I was upset before when I posted because several hours earlier, I detained an African American man who had assaulted a 13-year-old girl with a shoe. We had to transport her to the local hospital and he labeled me a “honky”, “cracker”, and a “fucking pig”. Why? because I was obviously a racist for puttin him in handcuffs. The race issue is blown entirely out of proportion. The truth is, police use racial profiling because it works. For whatever reason, there is tends to be a large number of crimes associated with African Americans. I never said that was fair or right because I don’t believe it is. What I do believe is what I learned while working for my degree in criminal justice....while statistics can be misleading, they do not lie and the statistics for Lousianna show a predominantly African American population and one of the highest crimes rates in the country. I ask, what does that tell you? Furthermore, I realize its none of your concern how many times I’ve been labeled a racist and just why I believe its upsetting. Why should it? After all, its not as though what I do here has any real affect on your life. It might in the sense that your somehow related to someone I know or work with, or possibly even one of the people living in the government housing areas my shipmates and I patrol every night to keep safe. I’m assuming you’re not in the military either, so it wouldn’t matter ever time I go downrange its so someone else doesn’t have to leave their family. So you know what? You’re absolutely right, I wouldn’t know a damn thing about Law Enforcement,job experience and accredidation aside, nor would I know anything of what’s really happening in Houston. Of course, it wouldn’t matter that most of my family now lives in Houston. So fuck it. I’m wrong. Its not prudent to own a form of protection when the crime rate in your neighborhood increases, nor is it wise to advertise such in a public forum. As for for the last remark concerning turning to crime to survive, well, there is always another way. It may not be as easy, but there is always another way.

consi- when did you last read the Bill of Rights?  Don’t you remember this:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right [...] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor[...]

Of course, what that means is that if the Feds are on your case, accusing you of something, you can point a gun at them and say “Take that back, or else”.  That’s armed resistence to Federal law.

At least I think that’s what it means.  However, I bow to your legal acumen in this matter.

Lobo- I’ve never been to New Orleans or Houston, and I don’t need to pack heat here in peaceable Vienna, so I won’t address the ins and outs of the issue proper.  But calling someone a racist is pretty nasty in my book, and I don’t see any justification for calling Neodromos a racist.  If I said there were proportionally more blacks in prison than whites, is that racist?  No, it’s just a statement of fact.  Now, if someone says “there are more blacks in prison than whites because blacks are inferior”, that’s racist.

Neodromos- keep up the good work.

I think you’re getting a bit out of line there, Lobo. While I don’t necessarily agree with Neodromos’ original entry I did think it was worth discussing. Neo has been an SEB regular for a long time and, while it’s true that I don’t know him personally, he’s never given me the impression of being overly racist.

I use the word overly because everyone has a certain amount of prejudice that they hold as, much like religious belief, it’s an outgrowth of how our brains work. It’s something you can’t escape so what matters is whether you recognize when you’re letting those prejudices rule your better judgment and what you do about it.

I find the whole topic of race annoying for the same reason Neo does. It’s so blown out of proportion that you can’t have an honest discussion about it without half the people involved being labeled as racist and if you’re a white male your chances of being labeled racist are pretty high regardless of how deserving you are of the label.

To deny that the black community has a number of problems the white community doesn’t that aren’t directly related to The Man trying to keep them down is dishonest, but as a white male I’m not allowed to discuss those problems lest I be tarred as a racist.

Good points all. I admit, that given my background, I am predisposed to a certain racist agenda, as we all are. (Kudos Les)As to the issue of gun control, well, its a touchy subject as well. Gun control works, in that, with fewer firearms and with restrictions on ownership, it makes it difficult for ANYONE to obtain one, criminal or no. I believe that gun control is necessary but I also believe that gun ownership is sound advice for those who know how to properly handle a firearm. Essentially, a firearm is a force equalizer. With regard to Law Enforcement specifically, it takes a great deal of effort to restrain an individual who is determined to resist. Case in point, almost any object can be utilized as a weapon that could very well inflict greivous bodily harm or death. Within our training regime, we list seven circumstances in which deadly force is authorized:

1. Self defense and defense of others.(members of security details and force components)
2. Assets involving national security.(nuclear weapons materials)
3. Assest NOT involving national security but inherently dangerous to others.(arms, ammunition, explosives)
4. Serious offenses against person. (generally anything that would constitute more than a year in confinement; specifically serious forms of assault, etc.)
5. Protection of public health and safety. (attempts to contaminate water supplies, chemical weapons attack, etc.)
6. Arrest or apprehenstion. (used as a last resort with a patrolman has probable cause to believe that the individual concerned has just committed an offense that would warrant deadly force and would otherwise escape and present the same danger to others)
7. Escape. (this one is tricky because the use of deadly force on the individual concerned must be approved by the secretary of the respective department; a perfect example would be a known terrorist who is being transferred to a military brig)

The reason why I mentioned the above circumstances is to show that self defense in the face of imminent death, is NOT the only justifiable means for the use of deadly force. If that were true, it would be akin to arguing that the victim would have died had the attack been consumated. An attempt, however, could warrant its use as well. My point, more precisely, is that there are a number of possible situations an individual could face in which he or she can justifiably use deadly force and a concealed weapon levels the playing field. For instance, if a 105lbs, 5’8” female is being physically assaulted by a man who outweighs her by 50lbs or so, he has the advantage and his actions could lead to her death. However, a loaded weapon is the ultimate equalizer and puts gives the one who carries it, the advantage. After the concealed handgun law passed in Texas, the number of sexual assaults and violents crimes decreased, but the number of deaths associated with firearms increased. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Not really, its entirely relative. One could easily argue that those who died as a result had brought it upon themselves. Alternatively, one could argue that ANY death at the hands of another is unjustified. The jury is still out on this one, but I support the former of the two. So, as to the issue of gun control, I believe it is has its benefits, but absolute gun control is dangerous to a certain extent. More importantly, I don’t believe ANYONE should handle a firearm without an appreciation for what it really is: a tool, but a very dangerous one in the wrong hands.

Of course, what that means is that if the Feds are on your case, accusing you of something, you can point a gun at them and say “Take that back, or else”.  That’s armed resistence to Federal law.

That was funny. I would like to point out that such nonsense is a theoretical reality though.  All one has to do to get there in the theoretical is to apply a reading of the Constitution, which of course includes pneumbras and enamations, and all that horse cockey that is found in some of the more controversial Supreme Court decisions the Left is fond of for some unknown reason.

Just so you know Neo I don’t think your a racist and you have excellent points about gun control but…

Gun control works, in that, with fewer firearms and with restrictions on ownership, it makes it difficult for ANYONE to obtain one, criminal or no.

I would really like to see stats that backs this up.  When you outlaw something like guns, you make it easier for criminals to get them because the black markets start up faster then the gun control laws are pushed through. 

I have heard interviews of gang members before where they claim that criminals love gun control laws because it makes it harder for individuals to protect themselves.  The gang member claims every time the police take a weapon away from him, he gets 4 more the night he is released from custody. 

As far as I see it, if you want to make it safer for the average citizen there should required training by those that legally sell weapons, for proper gun use.  Strip the gun control laws, and spend the resources fighting the black markets.

Like you said, level the playing field so the 100lbs female has a chance against the rapist.

It’s long term, but I have a simple answer to the gun control problem. First, there’s a new tech that allows guns to be imprinted to their owner. Only fireable with the right fingerprint squeezing the trigger. This tech should be put into place on ALL guns. Couple that with some kind of imprint mark on the bullet that shows precisely what gun fired it, all tracebable to a central database, of course. All law abiding citizens would be offered new, high tech guns in exchange for what they own. All the old guns would be destroyed. All guns taken from criminals are also destroyed. It would take time, but eventually all the old guns would be weeded away, citizens can still possess guns and all is right with the world.