I think this argument originates all on Bush and the fact that the American people voted for a conservative government. There is little room for socialist issues on the US doemstic agenda, and this is what happens when domestic disasters happen in these kind of areas.

I will retract my earlier comment that looters are idiots. Looters are people pissed off with the incompetence of the government.

Actually your wrong here. There are many people pissed off at the government but they dont loot.

The looter fall into 2 main categories.

Survial looters
Non-Survial looters

Survial looters are people trying to get food, water, medince, for their family.

Non-survial looters are broken down into these catergories

drug addicts
heathens
crackheads
homeless people
mental ill people

This is the kinda of people in down town New Orleans right now.

I have a friend that lives in Lafayette, Lousiana. Which is housing about 20,000-40,000 evacuees.

He told me, evacuees are going around slashing people tires. It was over heard that "If we dont have cars and we cant drive, neither can they"

These arnt people pissed at the government, its people are messed up in the head, thugs, theives, mental ill, drug users, and it has broken into a class war.

Then answer me this. Is the number of looters/vandals significant?

If so: then there are some severe social issues here. It is unlikely that a significant number of people are all mentally ill.

If not: Then the matter can be dissolved down to serious-scale criminal opportunism. Again a problem, but a far easier one to tackle.

You may note however 11b, that in your category if non-survival looters, youre missing atleast one category: Political activists. 25 years ago in Italy, a socialist activist group against the infamous Italian fascism and corruption operated looting of commercial buildings linked to the corruption.

Perhaps, the majority of the people looting (if significant) are doing so because of their disgust at government. The issue is very real, as i well know and you should consider it for your categories.

1. If they're all so poor they can't afford transportation, why the fuck didnt the government make some effort? Is it so much to ask you send a few hundred buses up to a state in order to evacuate some humans that you are supposedly looking after in all your wisdom?

2. Even poor people can walk.

Seriously though, this isn't like 9/11. They didnt know that was gonna happen, but even here in the UK we knew 3 or 4 days before hand that staying in N.O. would be a dumb thing to do, so why did no one go and evacuate the place? Even if they'd had organised police officers physically round everyone up and march them out!

edit: considering most of the crap that goes on in the world (especially if you believe the things you post about conspiracies etc) they woulda done better evacuating the animals and leaving the humans to drown.

Derf, I just dont think people breaking into hospitals stealing drugs has a political motive.

Look, im not saying all these people are mentally ill. What I am saying is most of these people are of the lowest common denominator. It was a social nightmare before the storm, the storm just shed light on the situation.

NO isnt the problem now, the problem is the other cities that are absorbing the evacuees. They now face increased crime and joblessness.

Youre right, this, as you describe it with your words is not political motive. But please tell me the numbers here are insignificant, because if they are then its a simple matter of bands of troubled people. If they are significant, then it is evidence for a serious social problem.



That puts light on the subject much better now, thanks. I was ready to pounce on the consideration that N.O. was similar to any other US city. But you seem to point out that it seems to be some kind of exception. This is a fair point, and very interesting.

I think the biggest and highest priotity proplem now is saving as many lives as possible, forget the jobs.

Yea, I mis-spoke. I mean obviously we need to finishes saving everyone.

The reality is, after everyone is saved, other cities are going to have to absorb the city of New Orleans, people are not going to move back, they have nothing to move back too!

This is going to strain cities to a max. Crime will rise and so will joblessness. Now you might say "so" but that will turn other cities into what NO was, so instead of 1 NO now you have 15 NO's. See what I mean?

Dallas is already feeling the burden. Last I heard, we were absorbing 25,000 refugees. Violent crime is already up. The refugees are primarily the trash of society. We basically just absorbed 25.000 poor people, of which I'm sure a sizeable portion were criminals in NO. However, unlike NO immediately after this disaster, we have police and even military available. I think it's bad to begin with, but after we legally kill a bunch of the worst fuckups, the rest will bounce back into line.

I hate trash. And I'm glad I have weapons. If someone tries some shit with me, they'll be having a deep conversation with my 9mm or rifle.

I forgot you were in PA, 11b. You must be seeing alot more shit than I am.

I know what you mean. Economic problems are practically guaranteed after such disasters.

All I got to say is I am friends with a Dallas police officer and we are scheduled for lunch this week - however upon our talk - he told me in one day of these people being brought to Dallas, now in good conditions with no reason to act in an uncivilized manner, there had been 3 murders and like 10 rapes, and lots of theft. Great now they bring more bad shit to my city where the cops are already being told that they use to much force? This is not wise - now is sounding like a better time to move. I will now agree to get my CHL - as I feel with these people obviously do not care that we try to help them and I must feel safe. As is I cannot walk in Dallas in the evenings alone. That is sad. Now it is much worse I fear.

I work in Port Arthur Satis, I live in Bridge City. Im 15 miles away from Beaumont.

Yea, right down the street from where I work there is a church that is housing 90 people?

A church down the street from where I live is housing about 20.

All over this area churches and arena's are housing people.

They already have plans to put these kids in school, which has some people upset because Beaumont schools are already over crowded.

Sorry to bother about the problems about safety but can I ask about the gun issue? Most people in America claim it is their right to own a gun, however, reading Bill Hick's stand-up, the section in the constitution that refers to it is referring to the National Guard. Does that mean only the militia can carry guns then?

This is the ammendment, verbatim:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

here's a definition of militia from dictionary.com

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.


Anyway, basically this right can be viewed as the right of anyone of military age to be allowed to keep and have weapons. Also, please notice that it mentions militia at the beginning, but then goes on to say "the right of the peopole to keep and bear Arms"...implying all people have that right.

Considering the US had just recently come out of a revolutionary war with its mother country, I'm pretty sure the gentlemen that wrote the bill (all revolutionaries) were very suportive of the idea of an armed populace. After all, the only reason that their revolution succeeded was because the populace was armed.

Also, at the time there really wasn't anything to distinguish military and civilian arms. Civilians didn't have cannons, but wtf are you gonna do with a cannon? So, if you want to get real technical, the prohibition against me having machineguns (or rocket launchers, for that matter) is unconstitutional.

You guys who think we shouldnt carry guns.

What would you do, if 10 guys came to your door and where trying to break in? What would you do? If you dont have a gun, they are coming in.

What would you do if a natural disaster hit your town, and people came to loot your house? What if you had a your wife and 14 year old daughter inside? hell, just 2 or 3 thugs, looking to loot your house and rape your wife and daughter. What the hell are you going to defend yourself with? A knife? lol.

Thing is, if regular people arnt allowed to carry guns, that means that the police and crimnals will.

and you know, I love Bill Hicks, hes hilarous and he raises some interesting questions, but hes a comedian. Hes tells jokes.

If im alone, run out the back door. Claim the insurance on any damages The neighbors will be witnesses. Take pictures if possible from the outside. Call the police.

If theres familily in the house and theres no way of getting them to run out in time, then me along with my dad and brothers will grab 2 baseball bats from upstars, kitchen knives from downstairs and do battle in the bottlekneck of the porch.



Police here is out of the question. Again i'd do battle. Probably pick a baseball bat.




The chances of a robber coming into my house with a gun is negligible. If he did, i'd comply with everything he said. Except, if he wanted to rape my wife, id gladly take 10 bullets to put the guy to his death with my bare fists.