Looters, armed with machetes, roaming streets in Haiti.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/14/world/worldwatch/entry6097747.shtml

Looting on Rise Amid Haiti's Growing Desperation.

A desperate citizenry combined with an absence of police forces has led to increased looting in Port-au-Prince in the wake of a massive earthquake that is estimated to have killed tens of thousands.

Video footage from the city showed bands of Haitian youths armed with machetes wandering the streets looting, as the local police were largely invisible.

"The Hatian National Police are not visible at all," said David Wimhurst, a spokesman for the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Port-au-Prince. The U.N. peacekeepers are themselves devastated by casualties from the quake.

SNIP

"It is dangerous at night. Lootings were widespread and some markets were ransacked," Oxfam spokesman Cedric Perus said in a statement to the AP. .

And the problem will likely get worse in the absence of more effective relief.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AT LINK

Guns are totally outlawed in Haiti. Civil government has completely collapsed. There wasn't much police protection for citizens before, but there is none now. People are at the tender mercy of gangs of young men with machetes. At present they are targeting stores and I don't really care that much about stores. In a disaster of this scale the stores should just give the food away.

The church that I attend helps support an orphanage in Haiti. The orpanage came through with no casualties and only minor damage. But I am concerned about how long it will be before gangs arrive to take the orphan's food. They are completely defenseless.

Here is another article: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=122&art_id=nw20100114163559294C726969
Gunshots are regularly heard. It appears that some people have guns despite the ban. The reporter thinks it is people using guns to protect themselves and their homes.

In any disaster in which civil authority breaks down, there will be some human predators who will see it as an opportunity to satisfy their own lust and will pillage and rape, because they can. For those times, the individual honest people need to be able to protect themselves, and the tools for that protection are guns.

[YOY]

1. Yup...Haiti has the load of violence and crime that comes with poverty.

It has to be expected and the Haitian people still need help.

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Absolutely they need help.

And the looters will make the help more difficult.

[slackmaster]

18. The same thing would happen in Los Angeles if it was leveled by a major quake

And that is possible.

[PavePusher]

23. Except that even in L.A., there are lots of legal firearms for defense of self and property. n/t

[paulsby]

188. rubbish

violence and crime don't "come with" poverty. many places where people are poor, crime is relatively rare.

haiti is not one of those places.

note that even in the US, where there is certainly more poverty in 2009 than in 2008 or 2007, crime still went DOWN in 2009

[TheWraith]

191. Poverty means easy recruitment for gangs.

If there's anything that's worth controlling, such as a black market, then impoverished young men with nothing left to lose and no other opportunities provide ripe fodder for organized criminal groups. So while poverty doesn't create crime directly, it provides the fuel for it to spread.

[paulsby]

196. i repeat

"Haiti has the load of violence and crime that comes with poverty"

there is no "load of violence and crime that comes with poverty"

in many societies, violence and crime doesn't come with poverty.

in others, it does.

i realize it's a common meme. i've seen it here numerous times. "poverty causes crime". it's simply not true.

i agree with you that in certain circumstances, poverty and crime are correlated.

[alstephenson]

2. I feared this would happen. eom

[peacetalksforall]

3. If this was in the last decade we could predict that Cheney would phrase a cause for invasion by our

military and he would throw in Blackwater Xe and KBR, plus Halliburton to run it all. What will Obama do about gangs? Or the French? Or... what will the UN do? What does it mean to the workers? Will they all have to have security?

Bringing in Blackwater is what happened in New Orleans.

[Euromutt]

36. Does "Operation Uphold Democracy" ring a bell?

In September 1994, Clinton was just about ready to launch a military invasion of Haiti to oust the military dictatorship under Raoul Cedras and reinstate Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Elements of the 3rd Special Forces Group and the 82nd Airborne Division were already in the air en route to Haiti when a diplomatic solution was concluded under which the members of the junta would voluntarily leave the country. US forces subsequently made a "peaceful" entry (there was some saber-rattling required here and there), and a US-led multinational force provided security and reconstruction before handing over to UNMIH in early 1995.

So we've already been there... under a Democrat.

[east texas lib]

39. An inconvenient truth...

And a good post.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. Wait, so despite total gun control...

Gangs still roam the streets during disasters using other weapons as well as some gunshots being regularly heard?

This would suggest that both:
A) Violent crime and gang violence are not made possible by the existence of firearms
B) In spite of total gun control in a very small and very controlled access country, illegal firearms will still exist.

Gee... I'm so surprised :eyes:

[benEzra]

6. The family of a coworker of mine lives in Port-au-Prince...

and they are currently outside the city, sleeping in tents. They were away from home (thankfully) when the earthquake occured, and if I understand correctly they are not being allowed back in.

The scale of the destruction there is just unbelievable.

BTW, regarding the OP, the nation's (extremely overcrowded) primary prison collapsed, and it appears a majority of the inmates escaped (some have put the number of escapees at 1000). That is undoubtedly contributing to the predation problem.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/13/world/main6092182.shtml

The majority of homeowners there are doing what they can to help each other. There always seem to be a few vultures lurking in any disaster, though.

[Tesha]

7. It's funny how we gun opponents are told it's shameful to use mass murders by gun...

to push our agenda, but here you are, a gun proponent, doing
*EXACTLY THE SAME THING*.

I always figured that argument (about shamefullness) was just so
much convenient bullshit from the gun nuts.

Tesha

[eqfan592]

8. Well, at least you've abandonded all pretexts of attempting to be rational on the issue.

Enjoy time among the true nuts. ;)

EDIT: Oh, and seriously, wtf are you even talking about? Where is mass murder by guns even mentioned in this thread? Hell, where is mass murder PERIOD mentioned in this thread???

[Tejas]

9. grabbers use their Brady decoder ring to morph facts to suit their agenda.

[eqfan592]

10. lol!

[Tesha]

13. Your reading comprehension seems to be impaired; read my post again. (NT)

[Tejas]

17. Your OP (#7) is a great example

of incomprehension of the gist of this entire thread. For some reason (known only to you) you feel it necessary to accuse somebody in this thread (the identity of known only to you) of dancing in the blood of the Hatians.

How odd. Maybe it is I who have the reading comprehension problem, because I read the OP as describing the sad situation of a country defenseless against marauding bands of machete-weilding cowards.

Me, I wish it weren't happening and also wish the citizens of Haiti could defend themselves, they probably wish they could too. But alas, for the reasons shown they able to do so.

That said, do you have any feelings/ideas concerning the plight of the citizens of Haiti, or did you just drop in to chastize those of us here wishing they had the some means, any means to defend themselves?

[east texas lib]

20. All right!

Another breathtaking communique from the latest flavor of the month courtesy of the bad ol' guns crowd. I await further annoucements in trembling anticipation.

[GreenStormCloud]

22. I personally know some of the administrators of the orphanage.

They will be helpless if the looting gangs go there.

It has happened before in Carribean islands with total gun bans. Hurricane Ivan, Jamaica, 2004.

Disasters like this happen from time to time in many different places. In the U.S., large scale looting of private people is rarely a problem. In large part because the rest of the country rushes in help, but also because the residents are armed.

It worked. Nobody looted and nobody was shot. That is a peaceful resolution. After every disaster in America, signs like this pop up.

[bertman]

26. You have to be confronted with literate gangbangers for that shit to work.

[jeepnstein]

67. If guns are banned, such signs...

would have zero credibility. Bluffing only works if it could actually be true. It was only the perception on the part of looters that the owner of the property could very well be armed that let that trick work. What would you suggest then?

[GreenStormCloud]

75. I am a gunnie. Guns are not to be used for bluffing.

Don't put up a sign like that as a bluff. Have guns, and the will to use them, to back it up.

[beevul]

27. Most of the time, it IS.

"It's funny how we gun opponents are told it's shameful to use mass murders by gun to push our agenda..."

Most of the time, it IS shameful.

Thats because most of the time, the mass murders happen in places where "gun opponents" chosen rule set is in full force.

That is - in places that are "gun free zones".

[Tejas]

11. UN official says the Haiti police force has "vanished".

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/15/content_12811686.htm


"The National Haitian Police are not visible at all," said David Wimhurst via a video conference from Port-au-Prince, the capital of Haiti. "They've simply vanished."

"Don't forget that they're Haitian too and their family homes have been smashed up or destroyed and their family members have been killed or destroyed, so they're acting to look after their nearest and dearest," he added.
-----------------------------------------------------

A little dramatic on the part of the UN spokesperson, can't blame them for taking care of family. Really a situation where push comes to shove.

[eqfan592]

12. Off topic, I know, but I wonder if the UN will be prompted to send in peace keepers.

Not that I'm every a big fan of such moves, but really, what else is the world to do? The nation is falling in on itself, and more people will die if nothing is done to bring the vultures into check again...

I'm open to suggestions on alternatives.

[Tejas]

14. Not really off-topic when you consider that

they're called "peace keepers".

Funny how that term has gained a "friendly" overtone to it over the years as to gain universal acceptance and welcome by people the world over. "peace keepers" good, "troops" bad!

------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the United Nations has 3,000 police and military peacekeepers in Port-au-Prince and by later Thursday 3,500 troops form the United States are expected to arrive.

The UN mission in Haiti, known as MINUSTAH, can request additional security support from the UN Secretariat should security deteriorate, but so far it's not necessary, said Wimhurst.

"We will, if necessary, bring troops or police from the outside areas into Port-au-Prince," he said.
------------------------------------------------------


From "peace keepers" to "we'll start shooting your a##es if we have to" in so many words.

[east texas lib]

16. The Marines are already on the way...

According to CBS news reports I heard while driving home from work today. At least a thousand are deploying, if the report I heard was correct.

[slackmaster]

19. Not surprising. Police officers have families and homes too.

And bodies that can be crushed by collapsing buildings.

[Katya Mullethov]

48. And a "constituency "

that wants to kill their corrupt asses back . The ones that aren't dead are no doubt attempting to go incognito.

[era veteran]

15. When they disbanded their Army a lot of weapons vanished

[GreenStormCloud]

21. ANOTHER NEWS ARTICLE

http://wcbstv.com/national/haiti.earthquake.haiti.2.1427143.html

Gangs Armed With Machetes Loot Port-Au-Prince
Central Business District Resembles Hell On Earth As Bodies Pile Up And Armed Men Battle Over Food, Supplies

The earthquake aftermath has brought out the best and worst of the people of Haiti.

SNIP

What made the situation that much more tense was sightings of gangs of young men with machetes. On Wednesday they were seen getting into stores and taking all the supplies they could carry. The armed men were seen marching up and down the streets with machetes raised and the competition among the gangs turned quite fierce.

Fights between gangs were seen on the streets. Machetes were flailing and it was impossible to predict what would happen next.

SNIP

Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Food is often scarce. Now, with this tragedy, desperate people are doing whatever they have to do to eat. People were seen going into stores and rubble and taking anything they could find with them for their trip back to wherever they were camping out.

There was not a single sign of relief on Wednesday. No workers, packages or bottles of water have arrived from relief agencies. There was just nothing.

ARTICLE CONTINUE AT LINK

I have no problem with desperate people taking food and drink from stores. The stores should give it away in a crisis like this. But I have lots of problems with machete armed youths looting. They will quickly turn from looting stores to looting people, and it appears that some already have.

[PavePusher]

25. Looting from a store...

is always looting from "people".

[SteveM]

42. "He could steal, but he could not rob" -- John Lennon...

In the first instance, a looter stealing from a store is not directly threatening someone, though it is harmful in that a livelihood is threatened. In the second, robbing, a direct threat is made on an individual as well as a threat made on the livelihood of that person. The act of robbing is a violent crime.

[PavePusher]

71. Valid point, at least in emergency situations. n/t

[proteus_lives]

24. Another example of why banning firearms is a stupid idea.

When you need help, you shouldn't have to sit down and hope the authorities reach you before the guys with the machetes do.

[jgraz]

28. Oh for fuck's sake. People are desperate for food and water.

I couldn't help but notice that you strategically left out any part that might serve to damp down your blood lust:

Whether the machete-wielding men posed a violent threat to the rest of the city is unclear, but what is clear is that quake survivors are taking more drastic measures as relief efforts have become bogged down in what some aid workers call a "logistical nightmare."

Matt Marek, of the American Red Cross, said the widespread looting has mainly been relegated to collapsed buildings, not undamaged stores.

"There is no other way to get provisions," he told The Associated Press. "Even if you have money, those resources are going to be exhausted in a few days."

It really must be killing you that hungry people looking for food can't get good and shot like they did in New Orleans. Well, maybe y'all can make a humanitarian delivery of firearms to Haiti. That should solve all their problems.

[Tejas]

29. Thank you for that bit of rocket surgery.

Whether the machete-wielding men posed a violent threat to the rest of the city is unclear


I had missed that part, sure it's not from Reno 911?

[jgraz]

30. No. Not this time. Every piece of balancing information was scrubbed from the OP.

The intention was clear: to feed your pornographic fantasies about unleashing your beloved weaponry in such a wonderful, target-rich environment like post-earthquake Haiti. I'm surprised the lot of you haven't chipped in to charter a boat.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

31. Don't give 'em any ideas. They'll be stuffing their pop-guns down their panties and heading out to..

... enforce justice.

[eqfan592]

33. Awwww, jgraz has a friend.

How cute. ;)

Gnight folks :P

[jgraz]

35. This from someone who rarely, if ever, posts outside the gun forum.

Admit it: if you had to engage in a real debate without your greek chorus of barrel-polishers, you'd curl up in the corner and wet yourself.

[Tejas]

38. Stalk much?

[jgraz]

52. It's called Google. Welcome to Teh Internets.

[eqfan592]

65. That you took the time to do the search...

...is a sign that you have a problem.

[jgraz]

127. So you never look up anything to back up your statements?

Really? The search field is right at the top of the page, just begging to be used.

Again, posting in another forum would give you a better perspective on this. DUers do this kind of search all the time. It helps us understand who we're talking to.

[eqfan592]

179. Honestly, I've never once felt the need to check up on another poster like that.

I base my judgement of posters on the content of their posts, not on how many different forums they decide to visit. Nor do I assume that simply because a poster doesn't post in other forums they are inherently ignorant on those other issues.

I don't really see what insight any of the other forums on the DU would have likely given me on this specific issue, anyway. But as I said in another post, simply not posting in another forum doesn't mean I don't visit and read them on a regular basis.

So it's not so much that I don't ever look anything up to back up my statements, but rather that I wouldn't comment on the number of different forums a poster has posted on in the first place. ;)

[GreenStormCloud]

184. Interesting that he does that.

It does suggest a rather strong authoritarian streak, doesn't it?

If he can't win by debate, then try to silence the opposition by attempting to get them banned?

[eqfan592]

46. I don't post much outside of here....

..because I believe it's this issue that has cost the Democrats the most support over the last 15 years, and it has held the party back far more than done any actual good. Thankfully, the tide is slowly turning.

[jgraz]

53. That's a ridiculous position

Maybe if you participated in some actual political discussions, you'd have a more balanced view of things.

The Democrats haven't been active in the gun debate for years. They've basically ceded ground to the NRA because most of them are spineless weasels. That's the real reason Democrats have lost support -- they never "stick to their guns" on any principle.

If the Dems had fought hard against NAFTA and GATT and had stood up to Bush instead of rolling over, they would be a solid majority party right now, regardless of their position on guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

60. The Democrats used to be very active in the gun debates.

But seat by seat, via primary challenges, we have been replacing gun-banners with pro-RKBA elected officials.

Ann Richards lost the Texas governorship precisely over guns. She vetoes a popular guns bill that allowed shall-issue concealed carry. Bush promised to sign the bill. You know the rest of the story.

Thank you gun-banners for the Bush Presidency. (Do I need the sarcasm thingy for the last line?)

[Paladin]

64. No, You Don't Need The Thingy.

Because it's obvious that you're not dealing in sarcasm.....

[GreenStormCloud]

78. Instead of debate, you choose to insult.

Typical gun-banist. None of the gun-ban crowd can hold you own in a debate on guns so you choose to hurl insutlts and inbibe the illusion that you have won a debate.

[Paladin]

83. I'm Not A "Gun-Banist." I Happen To Own A Number Of Firearms.

I just try not to be an asshole about it. Not posting very often in the Gungeon helps a lot in that direction.

Oh, and by the way, your notion that the situation in Haiti would be improved with an infusion of guns is so wrong-headed that it hardly merits a response. Suffice it to say that if you managed to actually send 100 firearms to Haiti right now, 99 of them would end up in the hands of those mobs who now only have machetes, and the single remaining gun might end up with an honest shopkeeper, defending himself---and as a gun militant, you'd manage to count all that as a victory......

[GreenStormCloud]

86. Actually, thousands of guns are being sent.

Effective use of a gun requires training. All of us claim that. Without training a gun is hardly useful. To give a private individual in Haiti a gun right now would be of little help. Guns should have been legal all along, so that some citizens would have them and be trained in their use.

The thousands of guns that are going to Haiti have a human military peacekeeper attached to the gun. I am proposing the existance of a force of armed citizens, commonly called a militia.

And your previous post was an insult. You would do better trying to actually debate.

[jgraz]

85. Once again, your view is simplistic

Ann Richards didn't lose the governorship over guns. She lost because Texans though this woman politician was too "shrill" and Bush and Rove ran the "lesbian" smear campaign against her.

Sure, some pro-gun folks might have voted against her because of the veto, but that's at best only part of the reason for her loss. I've read many articles analyzing that race and none have given the shall-issue veto any more than a passing reference. All of them, however, talk about how Karl Rove's "Big Smear" campaign against Richards was her undoing.

[GreenStormCloud]

88. But she won re-election prior to the guns election.

I am a Texan. Texans were very angry about her veto. Since you are a gun-banist, it is not surprising that you would read books that don't give the guns issue any credit.

[jgraz]

95. See, first you whine about insults, then you throw them around

How very very "gungeon" of you. :eyes:

Show me one post where I advocate a gun ban and you can apply that epithet. Otherwise, quit using these bullshit tactics.

[GreenStormCloud]

101. In all the gun debates, you always take the anti-gun side.

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that you are a gun-banist. It is simple consistency.

IOW, Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,...etc.

[jgraz]

115. And you take the same side that a Republican gun nut would.

Do you feel that is a fair characterization of who you are?

[GreenStormCloud]

130. 21 Democratic State Attorney Generals signed an amicus brief...

for the SCOTUS supporting McDonald to overturn Chicago's gun ban.

55 Democratic Congresspersons (Both Representatives and Senators)signed a similar amicus for SCOTUS, also supporting McDonald.

I proudly share their view.

[jgraz]

137. You're missing my point (again)

Just because I share views with someone you dislike, doesn't mean I share all their views. It's the "Hitler liked dogs" fallacy.

[GreenStormCloud]

140. With one tiny exception, you have shared ALL the views of gun-banists N/T.

[jgraz]

144. Do you not understand the logical error you're making?

It's pretty clear that you made an error in your attempt to insult me. Are you just making an excuse for that error, or do you still feel the label applies?

And, since you're labeling me a "gun-banist", I'd say the fact that I've never advocated a gun ban is pretty far from "one tiny exception".

[GreenStormCloud]

148. You always side with the anti-gun people.

Therefore, It strongly appears that you share their views.

[jgraz]

157. Yes, you already said that. However, it's faulty logic.

Especially faulty given the fact that your assumption is incorrect. I don't "always side with the anti-gun people".

[GreenStormCloud]

158. You walk like a duck, quack like a duck...etc, you're a duck. N/T

[Euromutt]

161. Whoa, you're equating a single-issue position with a multi-issue position

Being pro-RKBA does not, by itself, make one a Republican. A Republican position is one that leans toward social conservatism and economic deregulation, and thee are plenty of examples of politicos who identify to a great extent with the Republican agenda despite being, by and large, anti-RKBA; e.g. Rudi Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Michael Bloomberg, Carolyn McCarthy and Sarah Brady.

You might with reason characterize GreenStormCloud as a "gun nut" based on his position with regard to private firearm ownership, but if you were to characterize him as a "Republican gun nut" you would be making a pronouncement about his stance on a wide range of issues other than private ownership of firearms, based solely on his position on that one issue. Thus there is a false equivalence in comparing it to characterizing you as "anti-gun." If he'd characterized you as, say, "Tammany Hall anti-gun," then you might have a point.

[Euromutt]

162. Didn't you say recently that you "don't play the 'I only understand literal text' game"?

Why yes, you did: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=282461&mesg_id=282473

Seems to me that it's a bit contradictory to claim for yourself the right to "not play the 'I only understand literal text' game," and then insist that those who disagree with you must only cite literal text to support their point.

Even if you haven't ever actually stated, explicitly and unequivocally, that you oppose private ownership of firearms (except, possibly, subject to extremely stringent regulation), it's hardly illegitimate on the part of your interlocutors (myself included) to draw certain inferences from the opinions that you have stated. You've supported the claim that keeping firearms for defensive purposes fails to produce any beneficial effect (dismissing the findings of the 1993 Kleck-Gertz study as "fraudulent") while directly increasing the risk of violent death or injury in the household in question. Your particular hobby horse is that gun manufacturers knowingly "oversupply" the private market, not merely in the knowledge, but with the intention that some of their product will be funneled into the criminal circuit, in order to maximize their profits. You've advocated (patronizingly) that those suffering from depressive disorder should be protected against themselves by not being permitted to keep firearms, and how exactly would that be achieved except either by violating doctor-patient confidentiality, or by the simple expedient of at least prohibiting privately owned firearms from being kept in the home (but instead, in the custody of some government-approved custodian)?

As far as I can tell, you're solidly anti-RKBA, in that you certainly think private citizens shouldn't be allowed to bear arms, and insofar as they might be permitted to possess them, shouldn't be allowed to keep them under their own auspices, but that the storage of these weapons should be entrusted to another party, and their owners should only be allowed access under restricted circumstances.

I'm less than impressed with your application of the "iverglas defense," which is to emphasize what you did not (explicitly and unambiguously) say, while simultaneously refusing to reject that which you do emphatically did not say (i.e. you don't point to posts where you explicitly oppose a gun ban, presumably because there aren't any) and refusing to (explicitly and unambiguously) commit to a particular position. I've told my three year-old on several occasions this week alone that I'm not interested in hearing what he doesn't want; I want to hear what he does want. The major difference between dealing with you and dealing with my three year-old is that when my three year-old doesn't want something, he makes it clear he doesn't want it, rather than going "I didn't say I want that; show me where I said want that."

[SteveM]

44. Gonna cut & run? Have anything to offer? Enjoy hating? nt

[eqfan592]

32. *cough* bullshit *cough*

"Balancing" my fucking ass. You're extra information did not a single fucking thing to shed any sort of "new light" on the issue that the OP was supposedly attempting to hide.

Maybe in fantasy land where you live that was the case?

Ah, and I LOVE how you try to paint the OP as having "blood lust" and trying to urge people looking for food to be shot, when the OP said SEVERAL FUCKING TIMES that he had zero problem with people getting food and drink from stores.

Seriously jgraz, it's the same old game as usual with you. Distort as much as humanly possible when possible.

[jgraz]

34. Of course it doesn't shed any light for you.

You have to first be capable of seeing light. Someone who would use this tragedy as another way to justify their personal fetish is beyond the possibility of shame or enlightenment.

[eqfan592]

47. Anybody who explains a valid political position..

...as a "fetish" is beyond any possibility of shame or enlightenment, and is more akin to a religious zealot than anything else. Especially given that your primary attack right now seems to be an appeal to emotion more than anything else ("How can anybody dare to attempt to objectively review the circumstances that led to what is happening now? The MONSTERS!").

[paulsby]

189. would this poster refer to a person who stayed mainly in a women's rights forum

and posted mostly on choice, as an "abortion fetishist?"

of course not.

fwiw, i'm not saying he/she is a gun banner. maybe they are, maybe they aren't. but the fetish comments, the barrel polishing comments, etc shows that the poster has some sort of weird gun-penis fixation

[GreenStormCloud]

58. So what if I only occasionally go to other forums?

Is there a DU rule that requires a certain ratio of forum and posts?

I have stated before that I don't enjoy echo chamber postings. If you, in another forum say something I agree with (And you have), and everybody else in the thread is saying some version of, "Me too." then I don't really have anything to contribute. I don't see how another, "Me too." adds anything. For me it is boring. I enjoy debate with an opposing side. The only place that I can really have that is here in the gungeon.

As regards guns, I am very knowledgeable about guns, and about their use, and about statistics, so I believe I have something to contribute to this forum.

I notice that you rarely attempt to debate on this forum. Basically you just post insults, or twist and distort what we have said. Only once, sice I began posting here, have I seen you attempt actual debate at that was a rather weak attempt. When your points were rebutted your posts became angry insults instead of debate.

[eqfan592]

66. Sums things up well.

I'm of a very similar mindset as you GSC, which is why I only occasionally post in the other forums. I have no need to join any sort of "me too" society or mutual admiration club.

[PavePusher]

72. The Irony, of course, being in that you just commited...

an act of "Me Too".

:evilgrin:

I live to serve... :hide:

[eqfan592]

73. LOL!

Well, isolated acts of it are OK I guess :P

[jgraz]

81. Oh come on. How can you pretend to dislike echo chambers when you post in the Gungeon?

Also known as the biggest echo chamber on DU. At best, you get a debate like this one, which ends up being 6-on-one. Usually, you get a thread where everyone struggles to find new ways to agree with each other.

I notice that you rarely attempt to debate on this forum. Basically you just post insults, or twist and distort what we have said. Only once, sice I began posting here, have I seen you attempt actual debate at that was a rather weak attempt. When your points were rebutted your posts became angry insults instead of debate.

That may be a fair point in some cases, but it's also extremely one-sided. In future threads, notice how often insults are directed at *anyone* who dares deviate from approved NRA dogma. How many times have we seen the "grabber" epithet applied to someone merely asking a question or taking issue with one particular line of reasoning? I've never advocated a ban on handguns, yet I'm called a "grabber" nearly every time I post here.

Something else about this group: most of the members are not interested (or perhaps capable of) honest debate. Instead they play silly little games, like pretending to misread a post so they can argue against a straw man, or nitpicking wording in an attempt to make their opponent argue semantics instead of the core issue. This happens in almost every thread. In the end, all threads on this group devolve into the same ongoing argument, or rather, the same, ongoing argument about the argument.

If you've seen my posts on other forums, you know that I'm perfectly willing to engage in good-faith debate. I just don't see much of that on this group.

[eqfan592]

84. Perhaps you are too emtoinally involved to be able to enter into a...

....good faith debate about firearms? It's not unheard of for there to be a particular issue that an otherwise rational person is incapable of speaking on rationally.

"Something else about this group: most of the members are not interested (or perhaps capable of) honest debate. Instead they play silly little games, like pretending to misread a post so they can argue against a straw man, or nitpicking wording in an attempt to make their opponent argue semantics instead of the core issue. This happens in almost every thread. In the end, all threads on this group devolve into the same ongoing argument, or rather, the same, ongoing argument about the argument."

I find it terribly fascinating that you seem to think this is a major problem on the pro-gun rights side of the issue here. But it seems to me that, more often than not, it's that's side thats posting up the actual data to support the assertions they make. What's amusing is how often the debate ends when such data does appear because the other party, being unwilling to admit they might be wrong, decides to discontinue posting.

That you call the Guns forum the biggest "echo chamber" on the DU is simply laughable. You do not find nearly as many heated discussions or debate in most of the other forums on the DU as you do here. I know this because, even if I don't post in other forums, that doesn't mean I don't read through them.

But in the end, this is all really WAY off topic from the OP. So perhaps, in the future, I would recommend keeping your blood lust fantasies to yourself so as to avoid derailing future threads.

[GreenStormCloud]

94. Here I find people I disagree with, like you.

I haven't seen you try a good-faith debate in this forum. And I have often seen you distort statements of myself and other gunnies.

You always agree with the gun-ban side, so it is fair to conclude that you are a gun-banist.

On other forums, there isn't much debate. They are mostly, "Me too." The exception would be the forum that all the 9-11 conspiracy theories are sent to. There is lots of debate there, but I have never posted there, and I never will. That forum is just plain crazy.

[jgraz]

109. OMG, have you *been* in GD:P lately?

I don't know how you can say "there isn't much debate" if you've spent five seconds in that forum.

I haven't seen you try a good-faith debate in this forum. And I have often seen you distort statements of myself and other gunnies.

You may not *perceive* that I've tried to engage in good-faith debate, but that perception is not accurate. Again, pay attention going forward and watch how many times a good-faith argument is met with insults on this forum. Extra points if you call out your fellow gunnies for doing what you just complained about.

You always agree with the gun-ban side, so it is fair to conclude that you are a gun-banist.

And you always agree with the Republican gun position, so it is fair to conclude that you are a Republican. Right?

[eqfan592]

113. In all fairness, jgraz...

...you did start off your first post on this topic by accusing the OP of experiencing a form of "blood lust," which set the tone for every reply after, and is not really a typical action for somebody looking for a "good-faith debate."

And I don't spend much time in GD:P, but I do go into GD on occasion (something your google search should have turned up ;) ) and I have to say that there's usually some pretty heated discussions going on there as well (which is why I enjoy going there :P ). The only other forum I check out from time to time is my home states forum, which is usually fairly dead.

[jgraz]

116. I'll accept that.

The OP really did piss me off. I had just gotten off the phone with my mother in Florida and we were talking about ways that we could help. She's medically trained and we're trying to find a way to get her down there. A post using the circumstances to advocate for gun ownership was not what I wanted to see right then.

Next time I'll count to 10 before posting. Or 100. Or 100000.

[eqfan592]

118. lol, fair enough :)

As a former Red Cross Disaster Action Team responder, I know a bit about what some of those folks are going through, though nothing I ever responded too comes close to the level of destruction that's taken place there. So I can sympathize entirely with the need to try and do SOMETHING when you see that sort of suffering.

[Tejas]

37. I am glad you hate guns.

"to feed your pornographic fantasies about unleashing your beloved weaponry in such a wonderful, target-rich environment like post-earthquake Haiti. I'm surprised the lot of you haven't chipped in to charter a boat."



That is a sick fantasy, if I were you I'd watch what I post on the internet.

[jgraz]

54. What I "hate" is fundamentalism

Why is it that any event, any news story is always spun to mean "we need more guns"? More crime? We need more guns! Less crime! Cool, guns work! Therefore... we need more guns!

I was hoping that some tiny sense of propriety would keep this group from exploiting such a horrible tragedy to feed their obsessions, but I was clearly far too optimistic.

[GreenStormCloud]

61. You conflate Legal ownership of guns with Illegal ownership.

To you it is all the same. But it is people who own guns illegally that are causing all the problems. People who own guns legally rarely cause a problem.

I would very much like to see people who are barred from owning guns actually kept from getting them.

But I see no reason to remove guns from legal gun owners. We aren't causing the problems.

[jgraz]

63. Do you really see no causal relationship between the wide availability of legal guns

and the wide availability of illegal guns? It's not like criminals can mix up a batch of guns in their basement.

[eqfan592]

69. Do you really see your failure to actually PROVE such a causal relationship?

Outside of your own mind that is? Seriously, if there IS a causal relationship, there should be evidence supporting it. Would you care to present it?

[jgraz]

80. Really? You need this explained to you?

This is why I get irritated with the gun group. Things that are dead obvious to most people need to be debated over and over again like they are some radical new theory of particle physics.

OK... let's start with this: do you know where guns come from? Do you think there's a gun tree that drops ripe little guns on the ground for anyone to pick up? You might be surprised to know that guns are manufactured by companies in response to market demand. Without the demand for guns, none would get manufactured.

This is where all guns come from. Not from the Gun Fairy, but from companies manufacturing guns to meet demands. The more demand, the more guns get manufactured. Without market demand, there would be no impetus to manufacture personal handguns. There would certainly be no need to manufacture the vast number of personal firearms that populate the illegal market.

Is that enough? Do you need me to supply links to gun manufacturers? Some proof that the Gun Fairy is a myth? Just let me know.

[eqfan592]

90. Wow, what a jaw-droppingly arrogant...

....yet shockingly stupid reply.

Thank you for demonstrating that you have a basic understanding of supply and demand economics. I don't believe anybody here has ever hinted at or even implied that guns aren't manufactured (this is something that drives me nuts about people like you, you manage to come up with the most dumb-fuck shit to debunk, then apply it to the other party in the discussion as though they came up with it ).

So are you supposing that if it weren't for gun manufacturers in the US, that there would be a significantly reduced crime rate? And I said CRIME RATE not GUN CRIME RATE because I could give two shits less about the GUN CRIME RATE. If you ban guns, and the gun crime rate drops, but the overall crime rate stays the same, then you have effectively accomplished NOTHING.

But all that aside, is that what you are arguing? That US manufacturers and civilian market demand for firearms are what's to blame for our "high" crime rate (it's in quotations because the crime rate has been on a downward trend for some time)?

Do you HONESTLY believe that such an action would immediately create a massive black market for firearms, and that arms manufacturers in the shittier parts of the world, who give a shit less about law, wouldn't still be supplying firearms to criminals if they wanted them?

Seriously, you have the entire argument screwed around. The problem isn't the demand for legal firearms, the problem is the demand for ILLEGAL firearms. And you can't reduce THAT demand, nor can you significantly harm the supply, but messing around with gun rights and legal firearms sales. You need to attack the CORE CAUSES of crime, and we have been hampered in doing so because of the political capital we, as a party, have squandered over the years pursuing totally USELESS measures similar to what I think you're suggesting.

Contrary to what you want to try and promote, legal gun ownership in the US is not the primary cause of crime. it's not even the primary cause of gun crime. Poor education, poverty, gentrification, and other socioeconomic factors are what we need to be concentrating on, but doing so is made all the more difficult when people like you go around saying "It's the gunzzz that are the problem!"

*whew* Sorry for the much more lengthy rant than I originally intended.

[jgraz]

105. Statement above: "You conflate Legal ownership of guns with Illegal ownership"

It's, like, right up there ^^^.

I realize you desperately want to argue about crime rate, but that isn't the discussion at hand. It's a very basic fact that you don't seem to grasp: no one manufactures guns for the criminal market (at least, they don't do it openly). All the guns that criminals currently have were manufactured, ostensibly, for legal trade in firearms.

That's the only point I'm making. It's really very simple. I don't know how I can make it plainer for you.

[eqfan592]

108. Fair enough, but I still think your wrong.

I promise you that there are, in fact, manufacturers out there in the world to do specifically target the criminal markets. Or at a minimum, suppliers that the manufacturers sell too, and the manufacturers are willing to turn a blind eye to what the suppliers they sell too are doing.

But lets assume you are right, to what end does your point bring us? What actions do you believe are necessary?

[jgraz]

111. Yep, Many American manufacturers did create guns specifically to supply the American criminal market

-- but under the guise of manufacturing to meet legal demands. And, of course, when citizens wanted to sue those manufacturers for the illegal guns in their communities, Congress, under pressure from the gun lobby, stepped in and removed their constitutional access to the courts. (Something which is cheered on this allegedly "pro-civil rights" forum.)

What do I think is necessary? For one, I don't think an outright ban would do any good. Never have. But a campaign to reduce demand for firearms could be effective, much like the campaign to reduce smoking was effective. Attack the root causes of crime, be HONEST about the personal dangers of owning a handgun and work to create a social zeitgeist that is less worshipful of handguns and vigilantism. That would be a good start, and nobody would have to have their guns "grabbed".

[eqfan592]

117. Interesting points.

First, I'm assuming you are speaking in reference to the inexpensive firearms that some manufacturers have produced, and which are popular among many criminals. Part of the problem, though, is that for many poor individuals looking for a defensive firearm, these firearms are their only options.

And I'm not in favor of suing firearms manufacturers unless a firearm they make has an honest to god defect that harms somebody. It just, in my book, doesn't make sense to hold a manufacturer responsible for the illegal usage of their product by a criminal, unless it can be proven that the manufacturer in question went out of their way to place that firearm in the criminals hand.

I also don't believe any such campaign to promote the "personal dangers of owning a handgun" would be effective, mainly because there are too many people out there right now who already know better. The dangers have not been underplayed, but rather have been inflated. This inflation is, in part, what has created the recent backlash against the gun control community.

And while I'll never be a supporter of vigilantism, I think too often people label clear cut self defense situations as "vigilantly justice." And terms like "handgun worship" ring very hollow among those who are or know your average handgun owner. Oh yes, I don't deny that some are obsessive about their firearms, but this is a very small minority, but such minorities exist in every group out there. Most others either see it as a means of protection, or are an enthusiast, similar to any other enthusiast.

But one thing we can agree on is attacking the root causes of crime.

EDIT: And just for the record, even though I obviously disagree with many of your points, I don't think you're a bad or horrible person or an idiot or anything like that for thinking that way. I was just laying out what my thoughts are, and to some degree why I thought that way. :)

EDIT2: Just to be clear, even though I do believe the dangers of firearms in the home has been inflated, I do think we need to continue to expand education programs so that if somebody DOES decide to keep a firearm in the home and/or on their person (CCW) that they know how to do so safely.

[jgraz]

119. Here's the problem with prohibiting lawsuits

And I'm not in favor of suing firearms manufacturers unless a firearm they make has an honest to god defect that harms somebody. It just, in my book, doesn't make sense to hold a manufacturer responsible for the illegal usage of their product by a criminal, unless it can be proven that the manufacturer in question went out of their way to place that firearm in the criminals hand.

How, exactly, would an ordinary citizen prove this if they aren't allowed to bring a lawsuit? Currently the gun industry is the only industry protected, by law, from lawsuits for negligence. They can only be sued for negligence per se, which means they have to have knowingly violated a current statute.

For example, there is currently no law against serving alcohol at parties, but a host can be sued for negligence if they let a drunk guest drive away and that guest kills somebody. And, before this law, gun manufacturers could have been sued for knowingly oversupplying certain markets where they knew there was a large trade in illegal weapons. Now they're immune from such lawsuits. Does that seem fair to you?

[eqfan592]

120. Hmmm, good points!

I honestly hadn't thought about it from that particular angle before. So would a possible middle ground be leaving open the possibility of a law suit in the circumstances you lay out, while prohibiting more frivolous lawsuits where a specific gun is simply used in a specific crime, with no other apparent connection to the firearms manufacturer?

[jgraz]

121. Anyone can be sanctioned for frivolous lawsuits

Look what happened to Birther Queen Orly Taitz. Pre-judging an entire class of suits as "frivolous" is a straight violation of constitutional rights, akin to "prior restraint" of the press.

And, let's face it. The reason this law was pushed through is not because of frivolous lawsuits. It was because the suits had merit, and gun manufacturers were losing. The discovery phase of these trials was showing that manufacturers were, in fact, intentionally supplying criminals with weapons. That's why the courts approved the class-action "public nuisance" suits, which were a real threat to the gun business.

Trust me, no corporation is afraid of frivolous lawsuits. What they're scared of is *valid* lawsuits brought by citizens who've been truly harmed by unethical business practices.

[GreenStormCloud]

136. Defending against frivolous lawsuits still costs money.

Not a single manufacturer lost any of those suits. But the legal costs were piling up. BTW - Lots of Democrats voted for that bill, in both houses. Certain high profile Democrats voted for it, namely Kennedy, Kerry, Obama, and Clinton.

BTW - It was in a losing rider to that bill that Kennedy tried to get the venerable .30-30 banned as a cop-killer. Obama voted for that amendment.

[jgraz]

193. So does defending against criminals with guns

You're clearly willing to pay that price to protect your rights, but the thought of some corporation having their profits dented by citizen action is just too much for you to bear.

[GreenStormCloud]

200. Drowned into bankruptcy by frivilous lawsuits is a bit more than a "dent in the profits".

It is gun-banists trying to gain by the courts what they can't achieve by the ballot box.

[GreenStormCloud]

135. If Ruger sells to Joe, then Joe sells to Sam, how is that a defect on Ruger's part?

A person can tell if there is a mechanical defect in the workmanship of a gun. They can sue over that. Who eventually ends up with the gun is something that Ruger has no control over.

Gun companies oversupplying a market is a gun-banners canard. Oversupplying a market means that the excess supply didn't sell, or had to be reduced in price to generate sales. There isn't a set market.

Your example of alcohol at a party is false. A correct example would be a store selling a sealed bottle of whiskey to a person, and two years later a third person drinks the booze and kills somebody.

[jgraz]

141. You misunderstand the concept of negligence.

You don't have to prove a product defect to prove negligence. What Congress did was give immunity to gun manufacturers for anything but product defects and knowing violation of existing law. That's a protection that no other industry has -- though conservatives are trying to push it for many other industries.

For example, one area where the corporatists want this immunity is in the area of GM foods. In order for a farmer or consumer to sue Bayer or Monsanto for contaminating food crops, they would have to show that the food itself is somehow poisonous or that the corporation knowingly violated existing law. Showing that they merely didn't give a shit if their genetically modified corn contaminated every corn crop in the world would not be sufficient.

Similar laws have been proposed for polluters and other industries. This law has some pretty ominous implications that extend far beyond protecting negligent gun makers.

[GreenStormCloud]

143. You can only be negligent if it is something that you have control over.

I can't control the weather, so I can't be successfully sued if next year's summer is a really hot one. But if I were sued for that, I would still have to defend against the suit and that would cost money.

It is impossible for Ruger to control who will eventually possess their gun. Since they have no control, and can't have any control over that, then there is no negligence. But they still have to defend against the suit, and that costs money.

The suits were simply a scheme by the gun-banists to make it too expensive in legal costs to make guns.

[jgraz]

145. You can only prove negligence if you're allowed access to the courts

In this case, private citizens have been banned from the courts. They will never have the chance to show that gun makers knowingly oversupplied unscrupulous dealers, because they can never force those companies to testify in open court.

[PavePusher]

149. I still don't understand your fixation on "over supply".

So what? If the dealers buy too many guns, that is not the fault of the manufacturer. All it does is cause a drop in retail prices (and possibly wholesale) until the demand clears the supply. That is part of what we call a free market. This would also presumably cause manufacturers and dealers to make a lower profit margin per item, so I don't see why they would do so deliberetly.

I are confused, please expound.

[jgraz]

175. On oversupply: this is a well-understood problem in retail

I learned this all too well during the tech bubble collapse. The first canaries in the coal mine were consumer product manufacturers like Apple who issued profit warnings based on movement of merchandise through the retail channel.

No company that sells a consumer product can survive without tracking every point in their retail sales organization. Gun makers had to know which dealers were selling far too many weapons for the local market, yet they kept supplying them. The Barnes case was able to convince a jury that these gunmakers purposely overproduced for the domestic market, knowing that some of their dealers were selling to criminals.

[PavePusher]

187. I can't even make sense of this.

"Gun makers had to know which dealers were selling far too many weapons for the local market, yet they kept supplying them."

Is there some fixed number of guns that should be sold per geographic location? How does one determine this number?

As far as I know, when your distributer places an order, you fill it (if you want to stay in business and make a profit). You don't say "Well, they've sold too many guns this month, I will refuse their order". Insanity.

I am a legal resident of Vermont, stationed on Arizona, and occasionaly buy guns in Utah on visits to family. Who's sales am I throwing out of whack, and how should the firearm manufacturing industry respond?

At this point I think you are grasping at straws.

[GreenStormCloud]

152. This was never about negligence.

It was always about drowning the gun companies in legal fees.

The legal sophistry is just that, sophistry.

Please don't piss on my leg and tell me that its raining.

[jgraz]

156. Yes, that's always been the gun lobby's position

However, it turns out to be false. Gun manufacturers were not afraid of legal fees, they were afraid of massive judgments against them due to their unscrupulous behavior. My guess is they were also afraid that discovery would lead to criminal charges against them.

[GreenStormCloud]

159. I am pleased to inform you that Congress saw through your bull.

You may notice that the vote on the bill was overwhelming. Despite all of your side's sophisty, Congress was able to see that the gun-banists were trying a backdoor way to ban guns, and acted to prevent it.

[jgraz]

165. You have no idea what Congress did.

What they did was grant almost total immunity from citizen lawsuits to a predatory industry. If the corporatists succeed in extending this precedent, you'll find yourself powerless to protect yourself against polluted air, filthy water or tainted food, among other things.

Once again, in your zeal to cling to your gun, you happily gave up a much more important right.

[GreenStormCloud]

176. I can certainly read what they passed. It was a fairly short bill.

It shut down the gun-banists attempts to drown the firearms industry in legal fees.

[PavePusher]

123. "specifically to supply the American criminal market"

Wow. Got any support for that assertion?

Because otherwise, you just opened yourself up to an enormous slander suit...

[jgraz]

124. It's called "oversupply", and was alleged in many of the late '90s lawsuits

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19981224&id=WnIVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oOsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6570,6495628

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st223?pg=3

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/23/us/cities-turn-to-us-gun-tracing-data-for-legal-assault-on-industry.html?pagewanted=3

This year a Manhattan lawyer, Eliza Barnes, won the first judgment in a lawsuit that charged gun producers with negligently distributing firearms, using the bureau's gun-tracing data as ''the structural foundation for everything that followed in our case,'' Ms. Barnes said.

Truth is always an absolute defense.

[PavePusher]

125. Actually, I think the correct phrase is "free market".

There does not seem to be an 'over supply' of firearms when I go gun shopping.

"Negligent distribution"? Manufacturer sells to licenced dealer, after which their responsibility ends. It's up to the BATFE to ensure the dealer is responsible. That's why we have that pox-ridden agency, supposedly. If that's not working, it's <gasp!> the fault of government, not Smith & Wesson or Remington or Jiminez.

[jgraz]

126. A court of law disagreed with you.

And many more were set to do so when the lawsuits were peremptorily dismissed by an unconstitutional act of Congress.

[PavePusher]

128. I submit to you that the courts have been wrong frequently.

As many anti-arms rights persons have stated.

And as far as Congress protecting a Civil Right being an unConstitutional act, well, frankly, I laugh.

[jgraz]

129. In what way were they wrong in the Barnes case?

Can you cite any legal point that was in error?

[PavePusher]

151. Let me brush up on that one, it's been a while. n/t

[eqfan592]

131. A couple of points.

Just figured I'd continue our conversation down here. First, thanks for raising the points you have and for doing so without trying to make me feel like a total dumb-ass for not agreeing with you 100% of the time. ;)

Second, and back to the topic at hand, while a jury trial did appear to be very winnable in this case for the cities in question against the gun industry, I'm not entirely confident of using that as a slam dunk that the industry was, in fact, attempting to feed guns to criminals. My personal experience with juries has been that some jury's are very susceptible to emotional pleas, and I can easily see the families of those shooting victims coming up with some whoppers in that category.

But, that aside, my biggest area of confusion is on the blame being leveled against the manufacturers instead of the retailers that actually sold the guns. It doesn't appear that the retailers actually broke any laws, and that what we have here is an issue with straw purchasers in a very bad way, but even if that's the case, if anybody is to be sued, why wouldn't it be this small minority of retailers that appear to be responsible for such a large percentage of the firearms used in crime? My understanding of how the system works is that the retailer sends in a purchase request from whatever supplier/manufacturer they wish to purchase more guns from with the intent of reselling them, not that the manufacturer picks which stores will get how much supply at any given time. Is the argument being made that the manufacturers should have worked under some sort of self imposed limit for the number of firearms sent to any one store?

Sorry if I'm just totally missing something here, but it's been a long day for me and I'm not the brightest when it comes to the law as it is when I'm fully awake!

[jgraz]

132. That's the difference between negligence and negligence *per se*

If you leave a crack in your driveway and I trip on it, I can sue you for negligence. There's no law forcing you to fix your driveway, but if someone hurts themselves you can still be sued.

What Congress did was to give gun manufacturers immunity from anything but "negligence per se". Before any lawsuit can even be considered, the plaintiff must demonstrate that an actual law has been broken.

The people bringing the lawsuits had a good point, IMHO. Any business has to track demand and movement through the retail channel. Otherwise, they risk manufacturing products that no one will buy. The gun makers had to know that there was more demand than legal purchasing could account for, yet they chose to keep supplying those dealers. With a product as potentially deadly as firearms, supplying dealers without tracking the purchasers constituted negligence and/or a "public nuisance".

By dismissing all suits that weren't negligence per se, Congress essentially said that gun makers were immune from being sued for supplying the offending dealers. The fact that the NRA backed this law shows their hypocrisy, IMHO, since they are supposedly against putting guns in the hands of criminals.

[eqfan592]

134. Thank you for explaining it to me.

That makes a bit more sense now.

I can't say I'm totally on board with your point of view on the issue, but I will say that it's given me much to think about, and I believe further research is required on my part now on this particular issue.

Oh, and by the way, your analogy was right on, for me at least. My grandparents were sued for a crack that had formed in the public sidewalk in front of their home that they were unaware of, so I immediately understood what you were getting at. ;)

[jgraz]

138. I feel about access to the courts the way most of you feel about guns

Allowing private citizens the right to sue is often the last line of defense against exploitation by the wealthy and powerful. Taking it away in this case sets a horrible precedent.

[GreenStormCloud]

142. What court has held the act to be unconstitutional? N/T

[jgraz]

146. The Indiana Supreme Court, for one.

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/01/21/indiana-supreme-court-allows-gary-gun-lawsuit-to-proceed-to-trial/

[GreenStormCloud]

153. SCOTUS upheld that law, Dec 2009

A state court can't rule a Federal law to be unconstitutional. In December, SCOTUS rejected hearing a challenge to that law, effectively upholding it.

Your side lost. It is constitutional.

[jgraz]

166. Wrong. They refused to hear a case. Very different.

No ruling, no dissents and, most importantly, no precedent. In other words, the law has never been tested by the SOTUS.

[GreenStormCloud]

177. Refusing a case has the effect of letting the lower courts ruling stand.

The lower court ruling then becomes the precedent. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act stands, your side lost.

[jgraz]

181. Absolutely incorrect.

The only way the Supreme Court can set precedent is to rule on a case. Letting a lower court ruling stand is not a ruling. Basic law.

[GreenStormCloud]

185. Read what I actually say, NOT what you imagine I say.

When the SCOTUS refuses to hear a case, it is true that the SCOTUS does not set a precedent on that case. And it is true that by letting the lower court ruling stand is not a ruling by SCOTUS. But it is a way that the court uses to establish law.

The court can only hear a limited number of cases per year. So they refuse to hear cases in which they view the lower court as having been obviously right. Be refusing to take a case, the SCOTUS allows the lower courts ruling to become the precedent. That is what happened here.

Your side lost.

BTW - Perhaps you may wish to request a refund from that Internet University Law School. You got cheated.

[X_Digger]

155. Ahh, but it didn't hold it unconstitutional..

"The Court of Appeals held on October 29, 2007, that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not shield gun manufacturers from liability for sales practices that knowingly violate Indiana’s public nuisance statute."

Aka, Negligence Per Se. (Which is considered fair game per Sec 4 (5)(a)(ii) of the PLCAA

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-397

"In General- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
<...>
The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--
<...>
an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;"

The provision also applies to individuals..

"IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action.
...
shall not include an action brought against the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.
"

[jgraz]

171. Sadly, you're right.

If this survives a real Supreme Court test -- which is likely, given the current court -- you're going to see a whole slew of follow-on laws protecting every corporation with enough money to buy a congressman. Your life is going to get significantly worse in ways that no gun will be able to protect against.

[X_Digger]

173. Hell of a thing to hang your hopes on though.. nuisance law..

"If public nuisance law were permitted to encompass product liability, nuisance law ‘would become a monster that would devour in one gulp the entire law of tort.’ If defective products are not a public nuisance as a matter of law, then the non-defective, lawful products at issue in this case cannot be a nuisance without straining the law to absurdity… To extend public nuisance law to embrace the manufacture of handguns would be unprecedented under New Jersey state law and unprecedented nationwide for an appellate court."

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

And btw, nice slippery slope there. What other industry was getting slapped with frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to pursue via one branch of the government (judiciary) that which they could not accomplish via another (legislative)?

[jgraz]

174. It's not an imaginary slippery slope.

The corporatists in Congress are trying to do this for Monsanto and other agribusiness giants. It turns out that the companies have allowed their GM'd grains to contaminate other people's crops. This is a pure negligence liability that could possibly bankrupt these companies, due to the fact that most corn crops have already been contaminated.

So, instead of punishing these corporations for contaminating the global food supply, we're going to use the gun shield legislation as a model to keep citizens from suing them.

Sounds pretty slippery to me.

[GreenStormCloud]

178. Only because you are trying to put gun lube on that slope.

It isn't slippery at all. Big difference between GM foods and guns.


I can't really comment that much on GM foods due to personal ignorance. Sorry, but I just can't be up to date on all subjects.

I can see both pros and cons to GM foods.

[jgraz]

180. No fair! You can't just throw out the phrase "gun lube" when i have to leave for the day!

Oh, the possibilities... :rofl:

[SlipperySlope]

202. Who's not imaginary?

[GreenStormCloud]

133. What guns were aimed at the criminal market?

You are not being totally honest about the lawsuits. There was a plan some years ago to sue gun manufacturers out of business. The gun industry is actually fairly small and does not have the ability to absorb continued high legal fees. The idea was to sue them whenever a criminal used their product. The would be like suing Ford because a Ford was used as a getaway car and the driver ran over somebody while escaping. That campaign met with partial success as Colt stopped selling any guns on the private market. They fill government contracts only.

A person can still sue a gun maker if the gun itself is defective. They can't sue for the actions of an unrelated third party.

For one, I don't think an outright ban would do any good. Never have. First time I have seen you post that. Congratulations.

We are strongly honest about the dangers of owning a handgun. But there are two different pools and you can't mix them, although you try. I will instantly agree that guns that are owned by illegal owners are very hazardous. Well, not the gun precisely, but the illegal owner is a very high risk person. Drug dealers are much more likely to get into a deadly altercation than a retired senior citizen. However, a legal owner is a very safe person. We aren't involved in the illegal activities that are a magnet for violence.

A social zeitgeist has been created. Look at the number of states that have become shall-issue. Look at the number of states that now have Castle Doctrine laws, and Stand-Your-Ground laws.

Self-defense is NOT vigilantism.

[GreenStormCloud]

77. Criminals will still get guns.

They can smuggle them in from other countries, just as they do drugs.

They can make them. In the 1950s zip guns were well known. Zip guns were crude singleshot guns made by the street gangs of those days. It took only a few mintues to make one.

After a quick trip to the hardware store, I would be able to make a shotgun, from scratch, in just a few minutes.

With some home machine tools and some practice a person could start turning out guns. After all, the first Colt revolver was made using the technology of 1835. It isn't rocket science.

[jgraz]

87. Really, and how many criminals would make their own guns?

How many of *them* would make their own ammo?

There are many things to debate about gun policy, but this is not one of them. If not for the large market demand for legal guns, there would be far fewer firearms in the hands of criminals.

[GreenStormCloud]

91. Mostly, they would likely be smuggled in.

Mexico has draconian gun control, and the criminals are well armed. The have GENUINE full-auto guns, grenades, rocket launchers, and you don't get those at American gun-shows.

If guns became rare enough, some would start making them. Cap and ball ammo is very easy to make.

[eqfan592]

92. Would this result in a lower crime rate?

Assuming you were 100% correct (which you're not) would that actually result in a lower crime rate? Do you have PROOF that crime rates in other nations were ever significantly impacted by a reduction in legal (or even illegal) gun ownership?

[jgraz]

96. Different subject. Do you have PROOF that guns prevent tooth decay?

Hey, if we're randomly shifting topics, I can do that too.

[eqfan592]

102. Not a random topic shift in the least.

What other purpose would you have for wanting to ban or severely limit firearms and their ownership? If it's just because "you don't like them and therefore nobody should get them" then that says a great deal about the strength of your character.

Or do you think that people killed with guns are somehow more dead than those not (while ignoring defensive gun use in it's entirety)?

So please, enlighten the rest of us with what you hope to accomplish with your plans?

[jgraz]

106. I never said I want to ban anything. At present, I'm trying to establish a very basic fact

And that fact is: you cannot have modern firearms without legally operating light industry. All the guns currently illegally owned were, at one time, manufactured legally. The idea that legal demand for guns does nothing to feed the criminal market is just plain wrong.

[eqfan592]

110. What do you think we should do with this fact?

Again, I'm not saying I agree with you that this is a fact (that without a demand for legal gun ownership, that the demand for illegal gun ownership would not still cause certain manufactures to continue to produce and sell these firearms to those groups), but let's assume that you are correct. What do you propose we do?

[jgraz]

112. Post 111

Attempting to consolidate some of these threads...

[GreenStormCloud]

139. Not precisely correct.

You can't make guns in large quanity without operating light industry. But you can make cap and ball revolvers with 1835 level technology. My reason for choosing cap and ball guns is that ammunition does not need to be cased. For cased ammo, one can make guns at home. It isn't that hard. The guns would not be anything I would want to stake my life on in a gunfight, but they would do for simple armed robbery. Street hoods in the 1950s used to make zip guns all the time.

[Euromutt]

160. Does the term "zip gun" mean anything to you?

Rather popular among New York City street gangs in the 1950s, I gather. Improvised firearms, I acknowledge, and almost as likely to inflict damage on the firer as on the target, but it does serve to illustrate how far criminals will go to acquire firearms--even improvised ones--if they feel they need them.

Ammunition would admittedly be more difficult to manufacture from scratch than firearms (assuming you're not willing to go flintlock), but then again, ammunition would be easier to smuggle than complete firearms.

If not for the large market demand for legal guns, there would be far fewer firearms in the hands of criminals.

Experiences from western Europe over the past decade and a half or so contradict that assertion. There is no legal market in the UK for any handgun, or any long gun that is not single-shot or bolt-action. In the Netherlands, legally acquiring a firearm requires going through a tortuous licensing and registration process, and as a result, legal demand for firearms is extremely low (the Netherlands has one of the lowest rates--possibly the lowest--of private firearms ownership in Europe). In spite of this, use of firearms in violent crime has increased steadily in both countries, and where criminal use of firearms once consisted almost exclusively of (semi-)organized criminals bumping each other off, it has increasingly spread to muggings, robberies and the like.

Similarly, it's in effect impossible as a "private" citizen to legally own a firearm in China, but the criminals element does not want for firearm, which are readily "diverted" from armaments factories (due to a combination of corruption and bad record-keeping). Firearms and ammunition are similarly "diverted" in places like Croatia, Bulgaria, and probably Russia as well. Since a lot of these arms are intended for export, it is quite likely that the notion that "every firearm started off as a legal firearm" is not true: quite a few were never intended for sale to private citizens in their country of origin, and may never have been properly registered in any way.

[eqfan592]

68. What a load of crap.

This isn't about "any event" or "any news story" being "spun." Haiti had a very specific set of laws that seem to be at play in making people defenseless in the wake of this tragedy. Examining the effects of these laws is perfectly valid and topical given the forum we are posting on.

So seriously, get over yourself. Just about nobodies buying what you're trying to sell.

[jgraz]

82. This is why you should venture out of the gungeon cocoon once in a while.

You might learn that there are many people who have views that differ from yours. You may also learn some proper spelling and grammar.

[eqfan592]

93. Ohhh, the dreaded "spelling and grammar" attack!

When all else fails, attack their spelling and grammar.

And honestly, anybody who would suggest that a person could learn "spelling and grammar" from a message forum is about as mentally incapacitated as somebody who actually thinks 100% proper spelling and grammar is the most important thing for a forum post.

[jgraz]

97. No I think reading comprehension and command of the issues are more important.

Shall we discuss your deficiencies in those areas?

[eqfan592]

104. Lol, clever.

In all seriousness, that was a pretty good comeback. :)

[GreenStormCloud]

41. You missed the part about armed gangs battling for food.

How much chance do women and children and old people stand of getting food when machete armed young men control it?

Relief agencies are being told to provide armed security for their workers. But ordinary citizens can't defend themselves against machete yielding young toughs.

I repeat that I have no problem with people taking food and drink from stores in this kind of crisis. The stores should just give it away. But I have every problem with machete armed gangs taking over.

[jgraz]

55. Assuming the stories are accurate, how would it be better if the gangs had guns?

Which, according to stories posted today, many now do. So they now can stop relief trucks and take entire shipments. Try doing that with a machete.

[GreenStormCloud]

56. It would be better is the CITIZENS could defend themselves afrom the gangs.

But then you seem to always be against self-defense. It seems that you consider mathete gangs vs unarmed citizens to be a fair fight.

[jgraz]

57. You're advocating an arms race.

What makes you think that these so-called "gangs" (something never applied to groups of white people roaming around with weapons -- see New Orleans) would not have guns if they were available? Many now do.

Again, no matter what the problem is, your solution is MORE GUNS. Decades of exploitation by richer countries, a completely degraded infrastructure, an overpopulated, impoverished city and we solve all those problems with MORE GUNS. Are you really unable to see how insane that is?

[GreenStormCloud]

59. I never claimed that guns are a solution to all problems, that is your distortion.

I have claimed that guns give the citizens a chance to defend themselves.

Humans as a species, have some members that are very aggressively violent. The only way that humans have found to counter those predators is to meet them with greater violence. So it is actually more violence as a solution to violence. But many members of our species are not able to deal out greater violence, so they become victims. The arms race is already there.

Guns are a plateau in the violence. It is very difficult to get to a greater level of violence without having access to genuine, expensive, military hardware. So citizens with guns are on an approximate level with the gangs with guns. As we are fond of saying, "Sam Colt made all men equal."

You said: Decades of exploitation by richer countries, a completely degraded infrastructure, an overpopulated, impoverished city and we solve all those problems with MORE GUNS. Please show where I have claimed that.

[jgraz]

62. It's not a distortion, it's my perception of the arguments put forth on this group.

When I heard that looting was starting, my first reaction was, "shit, they need to get supplies in there ASAP." Your reaction seems to be, "shit, they need to get some guns in there ASAP."

The reason there are people looting are the reasons I mentioned above. It's not that store owners don't have guns. It's that people are desperate for food. You read that same story, edited out any ameliorating text and saw "aggressive violence" that calls for arming all citizens.

That's why the perception is there. I don't see a lot of your posts in other groups on this site. All I see is this constant advocacy for proliferation of guns, no matter what the situation.

[eqfan592]

70. Your "perception" is inherently distorted.

As you've proven time and time again with your total lack of rationality when it comes to this issue. You have no idea what anybodies first reaction was to this story. That GSC posted about this story does not mean it was his or anybodies "first reaction."

You're pissed that this story is being talked about at all, and you're obviously even more pissed that you are totally incapable of rationally countering the arguments presented.

[PavePusher]

76. In Somalia, the more supplies brought in...

the more the armed factions took... with guns. (Bad) Had there been an impartial or civically run counter force to ensure equitable distribution... Maybe a better situation. No guarantees, but at least a fighting chance to accomplish good.

[GreenStormCloud]

79. Not very familiar with anarchy, are you?

Any time civil government breaks down and there is no law enforcement, violent human predators will crawl from beneath their rocks to prey upon whomever they can. For those machete armed looters, it isn't about food, it is about being able to let their evil natures run wild. Such evil ones can only be contained by violence directed against them, and guns give the victims the ability to defend themselves against such.

The machetes should be a huge clue for you. Why are they carrying machetes around?

Are you aware of the news stories about aid agencies needing to have armed security?

What good does it do to send in food if machete armed young toughs are able to take all of it?

[jgraz]

89. Did it ever occur to you that people might be scared?

Let's deal with one of the parts you edited out: why are only the collapsed stores being "looted"? If there really were "violent human predators" running around, would they really care if a store had been destroyed or not?

I agree there are bad people in the world, but why do you advocate that citizens be allowed to carry weapons (guns) for protection and then assume that anyone seen carrying a weapon is automatically a bad guy? Is it the type of weapon that makes one good or evil? :shrug:

And there were news stories about aid agencies needing security during Katrina. In that case, it was because they were being shot at.

[GreenStormCloud]

98. Damaged stores are usually looted first.

I use looted in its broadest sense there. Remember that I believe, as do you, that in a disaster of this scope ordinary people will need to do things that they would not ordinarily do, to survive. Anyway, damaged stores are easy to enter, so they will always be hit first. Then other stores. In total anarchy, the strong will begin to prey upon the weak, just because they can.

I agree there are bad people in the world, but why do you advocate that citizens be allowed to carry weapons (guns) for protection and then assume that anyone seen carrying a weapon is automatically a bad guy? Is it the type of weapon that makes one good or evil? That one is easy. The weapon of choice is a machete, and that is a weapon that is not as easily wielded by the weak, the elderly, and women, as it is by young male toughs. Weaker people need weapons that don't require special strength to use to defend themselves. If I had to use a machete to defend myself against a 21 year old criminal with a machete, I would be in a very bad situation. But with a gun, I can neutralize his youth and strength. The combat field becomes much closer to level. In fact, my (probable)greater skill will give me an edge. (Usually criminals are terrible shots.)

There were stories about aid agencies being shot at during Katrina, but there are also counter claims that the reports were false.

[jgraz]

99. You didn't answer the question

In a previous post, you said this: For those machete armed looters, it isn't about food, it is about being able to let their evil natures run wild.

No one is arguing that a machete is a poor weapon choice for the weak. What I'm asking is why do you make the above statement about citizens carrying machetes, when you are simultaneously advocating that citizens carry guns?

[GreenStormCloud]

100. Sam Colt made all men equal.

A weak person with a gun has a much closer chance against a criminal with a gun than does a weak person with a machete against a young strong person with a machete.

A weak person, knowing that a machete is nearly useless for them will be far less inclined to carry one. The ones choosing to carry a machete will be those who believe they can use it effectively.

[jgraz]

103. I don't think you're understanding my point

I'm making no statements about who would win in a fight. I'm asking you why *you* assumed these men were criminals because they were carrying machetes? If they were carrying shotguns, would you still assume they were criminals?

You agreed that people are currently just taking what they need. There are no reports of anyone being attacked by machete (at least none in the article you posted), yet somehow you feel that you can make this statement about them:

For those machete armed looters, it isn't about food, it is about being able to let their evil natures run wild

Here's the question again: why, given the information you currently have, do you think that these people are letting "their evil natures run wild"?

[eqfan592]

107. Hmm, this is actually an interesting point.

Though I have to say it's unlikely that groups of young people armed with machete's are just "trying to get by" but at the same time, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that these groups of young people were out looking for supplies for their own families, and given that they are younger, stronger and healthier, they were the most equipped to do so.

Am I close to the mark here, or did my poor reading comprehension throw me off the mark here? ;)

[jgraz]

114. You got it.

The American news media LOVES to sensationalize the idea of rabid black people running around with weapons. The tropical black man with a machete is an almost iconic image in the MSM.

Face it, if you had to go out in that environment to forage for food and water, wouldn't you want to take some sort protection along?

[GreenStormCloud]

150. Definately, I would want protection.

Since I am a senior citizen, I can't use a machete effectively, so I would want a gun. But a machete wielded by a young man in a place where there all guns are illegal, allows the young man to do as he wishes. Who can stand against him?

[jgraz]

169. Can you answer the question? Why did you assume these armed people were evil?

While at the same time, you were advocating that they arm themselves?

[GreenStormCloud]

182. You are twisting my words, as usual.

I said that the citizens needed to be armed, with guns, to be able to protect themselves from the armed gangs.

Why do I assume the armed gangs are evil. Since the general populace is completely disarmed, then why are they armed? Further, there are news reports about machete armed gangs fighting. I posted a couple of news reports for you. I will google again and see what I come up with.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1243718/Haiti-earthquake-Machete-wielding-gangs-roam-streets-fears-grow-death-toll-hit-200-000.html

Haiti earthquake: Machete-wielding gangs roam streets as fears grow death toll could hit 200,000

Machetes gripped firmly in their hands, they walk brazenly through the streets of Port-au-Prince in broad daylight.

They are among a menacing band of young men and teenagers who had armed themselves with long blades and other weapons to fight over goods looted from the capital's quake-hit shops and homes.
The chilling image, shown last night on ITV News, illustrates how pockets of lawlessness have flared up in the wake of the disaster.

BIG SNIP

Three days after the quake, gangs of robbers had begun preying on survivors living in makeshift camps on streets strewn with debris and decomposing bodies, as aftershocks rippled through the hilly neighborhoods.

I "preying on survivors" good behavior in your book?

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-world/coordination-problems-dog-haiti-relief-effort-20100116-md3o.html
Coordination problems dog Haiti relief effort
SNIP
But on the ground, after isolated reports Friday of machete-wielding gangs terrorizing survivors overnight, there were growing signs of unease.

More good behavior?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8462949.stm
Security fears stalk Haiti as quake survivors await aid

There are mounting security concerns in Haiti's earthquake-hit capital as distribution problems continue to hamper getting aid to survivors.

Days after the quake devastated Port-au-Prince, killing tens of thousands, there are some reports of gangs preying on residents and looting.

Officials say thousands of prisoners are unaccounted for after the main prison was destroyed.

BTW - You may want to read up on the history of machete gangs in Haiti.

[GreenStormCloud]

147. The news article said that machete armed gangs were battling for food.

I agreed that most looters were taking from need. So why do the guys with machetes need them for taking food from stores?

Anyway, let's take a look at the latest news, shall we?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5irFaS-I42NVauCpGyZdfflHVQD8A

The fourth night after the quake brought fresh fears for many families already terrorized by armed gangs.

"Men suddenly appeared with machetes to steal money," said Evelyne Buino, a young beautician, after a long night in a neighborhood not far from the ruined city center. "This is just the beginning."

"We need to protect and guard (our home). There are many armed men, a lot of looting," Eglide Victor, whose shabbily built house was the only one left standing on his street in the heart of the Haitian capital, told AFP.

http://fto.co.za/news/haiti-machete-gangs-take-over-port-au-prince-2010011516351.html

Haiti machete gangs take over Port-au-Prince

It is has been proven over and over again that when there is a collapse of state or some kind of catastrophe, then chaos ensues. Haiti who has been hit by a 7 magnitude earthquake has been left devastated. But as help fails to reach certain areas people has become desperate to survive and there are some who has taken advantage forming gangs with machetes taking whatever they want.

Even though this sounds shocking this is not a new problem in Haiti its just worse in the face of their current situation. There has always been a gang problem with machetes. There is a history witch machete attacks a tool that was originally designed for harvesting sugar cane crops and for moving into dense forests.

THERE IS A GOOD VIDEO AT THIS SITE. HEARTBREAKING. ALSO SHOWS SOME ARMED GANGS.

[Paladin]

122. But What About Your Post 86 On This Thread?

You know, the one where you so sanctimoniously state that training is needed for guns to be effective? That a citizens' militia needs to be formed? Do you really believe in such training and organization, or did Mr. Colt just take care of things without all those bothersome details? Get your fucking story straight......

[GreenStormCloud]

154. No conflict. Different situations.

For my personal protection, my guns may me and my wife as big as any football linebacker. Like any tool, we had to learn how to use the guns. In my case, I grew up with them and used them all my life. In her case it was a new thing and she had to learn. But it is an easy skill to become competent at.

But one person can not deal with a large scale breakdown of order. At that point, local militias, using their own guns from their homes would be needed until government order was restored. Exactly that has been done repeatedly, on small scales, in American cities and town for short periods after natural disasters. Neighbors get together with their guns and take turns watching each other's homes and business in the neighborhood.

See? The two stories mesh perfectly.

[Paladin]

164. "Two Stories" Is The Proper Way To Phrase It.

And you mention your wife. Does that mean you feel that Sam Colt made all women equal, as well as men? Careful---that might be construed as a quasi-liberal sentiment down here in the Gungeon.....

[GreenStormCloud]

183. I have noticed that all the regular gunnies are strongly in favor of women having guns.

My wife's gun made a would-be mugger run from her a few years ago. She is a tiny, older woman, and he was a young male.

So her gun, along with her training and determination not to be another crime statistic, made more than the mugger's equal.

[PavePusher]

74. And your solution seems to be to ignore history.

Just a hint: Rocks, knives, spears, bows, guns and cannon, missiles and now energy weapons... all an arms race since the begining of the opposable thumb. And the arms race is always about how to defend the good from the bad. Unfortunately, sitting around singing "Kum Ba Ya", has a poor record of success.

Now, I'm off to go practice with my modern equivalent of a rock.

[SteveM]

45. Hmm, sounds like you have some personal fantasies...

Are you panting much? Always here to show it off, too.... your hate-on, I mean.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Why do they need machetes to carry off food and drink?

A machete is useless to cut concrete and rebar. You can't use it as a rescue tool.

[Euromutt]

163. I notice this point hasn't received a response

Because it struck me, too, that there's an elementary distinction between people foraging/pilfering supplies from collapsed and abandoned buildings on the one hand, and people roaming around with implements that have no immediate purpose in the circumstances other than as anti-personnel weapons and who evidently intend to acquire their needs by taking them by force from other on the other hand.

I acknowledge that the term "looter" does not distinguish between the two, but it seems no huge leap of the imagination to me that one might advocate the use of armed force to defend against the latter while not necessarily condoning the use of armed force against the former.

That said, though, I doubt Haitian weapons laws would have made a whole lot of difference; it's not like your average Haitian citizen could afford a firearm, or the ammunition required to become proficient in its use. Nevertheless, it does provide a salutory lesson to those of us who, at present, can afford a firearm and ammunition, namely that when natural disaster strikes, one must be prepared for the contingency that among one's erstwhile fellow citizens will be those who will not inclined towards overcoming adversity through cooperation, but will instead seek to prey upon those weaker than themselves.

[jgraz]

167. You notice poorly

You advocate that Haitians be allowed to arm themselves with guns while at the same time complaining about Haitians arming themselves by other means. You use the same anti-self-defense rhetoric you deplore to attack poor black people foraging for food.

What are you, some sort of machete-grabber?

[Euromutt]

170. Codswallop

You really are working that false equivalence skill in this thread, aren't you, jgraz? It couldn't possibly occur to you that it's one thing to arm yourself against possible marauders coming to your house to take whatever supplies you have, and another to roam the streets in armed groups, could it?

Congratulations on inserting the thinly veiled accusation of racism in there; yes, obviously, what I really object to is the notion of anyone with a different skin pigmentation from my own doing anything that might help them survive. Clearly, despite the images from Rwanda 15 years ago, the idea that black people with machetes roaming the streets might have other than peaceful intentions could only stem from my own racial prejudices.

Get a fucking stepladder and get over yourself already.

[jgraz]

172. Congratulations on outing yourself

Clearly, despite the images from Rwanda 15 years ago, the idea that black people with machetes roaming the streets might have other than peaceful intentions could only stem from my own racial prejudices.

Clearly, the most important thing to you about Rwanda and Haiti is that both populations are <gasp> black! Not that they're poor, not that they both suffered under horrible dictatorships, but that these two completely ethnically unrelated populations share a certain abundance of melanin in their skin.

Yeah, you're not racist. You're just pointing out the obvious. How could anyone possibly look at these two completely different situations and notice anything besides the color of their skin? :eyes:

Tell me, oh non-racist Euromutt (telling name, that), did images of Bosnia give you the willies about armed white people roaming the streets? I'm guessing not.

[Euromutt]

190. There's that assimilation bias again

Clearly, the most important thing to you about Rwanda and Haiti is that both populations are <gasp> black! Not that they're poor, not that they both suffered under horrible dictatorships, but that these two completely ethnically unrelated populations share a certain abundance of melanin in their skin.

Oh, silly me, I thought it was the fact they were both roaming the streets carrying machetes that was the most important thing. Funny how you glossed over that detail.

Tell me, oh non-racist Euromutt (telling name, that), did images of Bosnia give you the willies about armed white people roaming the streets? I'm guessing not.

I love this talent you have for making assumptions about people, and then sticking your foot into it up to your thigh. I worked at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for about three and half years, in the Office of The Prosecutor's Information and Evidence Section. My co-workers and I periodically processed stuff for our "cousins" at the ICTR, as well. I left ICTY in 2001, but some of my former co-workers have worked for the Special Court for Sierra Leone since then, too. You don't want to know how much I used to drink back in those days. One of the things my co-workers and I would speculate about while drinking was how easy it would be to do organize a Milosevic-style land grab/ethnic cleansing campaign in our own countries; how many football (excuse me, "soccer") hooligans, sets of camo fatigues and crates of rifles we'd need; how to seize control of the civil authorities, and get the police on board, etc.

So you guess wrong: the idea of armed people of any ethnicity coming down the street disturbs me. Especially if they're in uniform and confiscating privately owned firearms "to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists," which is something the police and "party militias" of the various factions would do in villages they were planning to ethnically cleanse the following week. I have a certain fear of government power falling into the hands of people who might hate me (atheists are "the most mistrusted group" in American society, after all).

And do tell me: what's so telling about the handle "Euromutt," other than that you (correctly) deduce from it that I'm white? Did it also tell you that I adopted it as my handle (long before I ever came to this particular discussion board) because I'm originally from the Netherlands, grew up partly in England, that the earliest ancestor (in the male line) that I know of was a German peddler who set up shop in the eastern Netherlands in the 1580s, while my mother's side of the family is Frisian? Hell, given my family and cultural background, if a bunch of armed blacks came down my street, I'd probably breathe a sigh of relief that they'd be unlikely to be German. (Yes, I'm well aware the Germans have come to terms with that particular period of their history in exemplary fashion.)

[jgraz]

192. Wow, you almost convinced me. Too bad about that post right up there ^^^

Clearly, despite the images from Rwanda 15 years ago, the idea that black people with machetes roaming the streets might have other than peaceful intentions could only stem from my own racial prejudices.

Those aren't my words, they're yours. Your explanation for your assumption of evil intent on the part of the Haitians -- that they share a skin color with other people who have acted badly in the past.

Instead of giving us your resume, perhaps you'd care to explain why you feel racial profiling is an appropriate reaction to this crisis.

[Euromutt]

194. "How about learning to identify sarcasm?"

Do those words sound familiar? They should, because you wrote them five days ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=282461&mesg_id=282471

I know it's a new concept for you, but once in a while, you might want to try to following the advice you so freely dispense to others.

[jgraz]

195. Ah, now it's sarcasm

See, I actually understand what sarcasm is. What you posted wasn't sarcasm. You were seriously suggesting that your assumptions were justified by the color of the Haitians' skin.

Look, I don't have a lot of reason to think you're personally a racist. But you did make a race-based assumption about the guys carrying machetes. Those sorts of unspoken assumptions are present all the time on this group and, for once, you inadvertently brought them out into the open.

Consider that possibility the next time someone starts railing about "criminals" and how they need to be shot.

[Euromutt]

198. "I don't play the gungeon 'I only understand literal text' game."

Now, who was it that said that again? Oh, right, it was you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=282461&mesg_id=282473

Evidently, you do play that particular game when it suits your purpose. Why don't you just change your sig line to "do as I say, not as I do" already?

[jgraz]

199. Except you *did* mean it literally

If not, what were you trying to say? In my case, the sarcasm I was referring to was a phrase "the magic CCW fairy dust removes all risk of violence". I can tell you exactly what I was trying to communicate with that sarcasm: that the gun group places too much faith in the permit process to reduce the risk of personal handgun ownership. I clearly did not mean that actual fairy dust exists, nor did I mean that 100% of pro-gun people believe that a carry permit makes a gun owner 100% safe.

Now, you say that the following is sarcasm:

Clearly, despite the images from Rwanda 15 years ago, the idea that black people with machetes roaming the streets might have other than peaceful intentions could only stem from my own racial prejudices.

If so, what message were you trying to communicate? Is there some other meaning to this message other than an attempt to justify fear of armed black people by pointing to a 15-year-old situation where other people with black skin acted badly?

Go ahead, convince me.

[Euromutt]

201. No, you just chose to read it that way because it suited you

Let's think: why would I mention Rwanda? Would it be because the atrocities there were committed by black people (albeit with a serious dose of French complicity), or would it be because it's the foremost instance that comes to mind of a massive body count being racked up using machetes?

See, here's the thing about cutting implements like machetes, parangs, goloks, bolos, coas and cane knives: they're most common in equatorial developing nations, where the population tends to be predominantly non-white. When it comes to angry mobs composed of white people, the classic association is with pitchforks, grain flails and scythes (though these days, pickaxe handles, hatchets and short or folding shovels would be more readily available). When it comes to atrocities inflicted using Kalashnikovs, sniper rifles and heavy artillery, rest assured I'll think of Vukovar, Sarajevo, Srebrenica and Grozny long before I think of any instance involving any perpetrator with a skin pigmentation other than lily-white (or slightly ruddy).

I don't know if that convinces you. I doubt it will, mainly because I don't think you actually believe that I literally meant what I wrote, and that you're just trying to needle me into losing my rag. That, or simply delusional. The fact is, you've already had to conveniently ignore various parts of what I wrote to make your argument, like the passage "with machetes" in the quoted sentence, or the preceding sentence:

<...> yes, obviously, what I really object to is the notion of anyone with a different skin pigmentation from my own doing anything that might help them survive.

Do you think--or are you going to claim you thought--that I meant that literally as well? If not, why would you conclude that I meant the sentence immediately following it literally (other than that it suited your purpose to do so)?

I can tell you exactly what I was trying to communicate with that sarcasm: that the gun group places too much faith in the permit process to reduce the risk of personal handgun ownership.

Yeah, I got that part. That doesn't make sarcasm and a straw man fallacy mutually exclusive, though. It's quite possible to sarcastically misrepresent your opponent's position. Because I don't think any pro-RKBA on this forum (or elsewhere) has ever claimed that one becomes less prone to criminally violent behavior as a result of acquiring a CCW permit, magically or otherwise. Rather, the claim is that the kind of person who gets a CCW permit is, on average, less likely to engage in criminally violent behavior (or indeed, any kind of criminal behavior) than a member of the general public. On average. There are undoubtedly specific individual CCW permit holders who are more prone to violent behavior than specific individual non-permit holders, but we're talking entire populations here. And it's not a very controversial assertion that someone with criminal intent is unlikely to get a permit that requires making one's fingerprints available to state and federal law enforcement.

But you knew that already. You're just not willing to accept it.

[jgraz]

168. Why does someone need a gun to walk into a bar?

Are you anti-self-defense? :shrug:

[GreenStormCloud]

186. I have already answered that, several times. So has Euromutt.

That you don't like the answer about gangs with machetes is not our problem. It appears that you support armed gangs, but do not support the weak having the ability to defend themselves against such gangs.

Perhaps you may want to read up a bit on the history of machete gangs in Haiti.

[SteveM]

43. Anytime I hear accusations of bloodlust, it comes from the lurid gun-controllers...

who have no interest in gun-control, but who have a flame in their loins to beat down on others with whom they disagree. Fortunately, they look like the fulminating jack-asses that they are.

[taurus145]

50. Scrubbed?

I guess that's why there was no link to the story. You know, that nonsensical looking blue underlined thing we usually see in an OP.

:spank: That's being disingenuous.

[taurus145]

49. Interesting

I admit that I haven't read every post yet, but I must make an observation.

Guns bad. Banned in Haiti.

Crooks turn to machetes. Not banned in Haiti. Machetes bad. Must ban.

Just filling in until the grabbers show up in force.

[jeepnstein]

51. Given the conditions before the earthquake...

I'm astonished with how well the Haitians are handling this crisis.

Gangs armed with machetes have a special meaning in the Haitian context. How do you suppose the average Haitian would react to the possibility of the Ghost of Baby Doc coming back at the hands of the Tonton Macoutes? I'm thinking swimming for it and taking my chances with the sharks and drowning would be a reasonable response.

What I want for Haitians is for them to have the opportunity to really have ownership over their own country. That was not the case before the vast majority of them before the quake and I suspect it will not be the case during the recovery. They will remain defenseless against those who would do them harm, personally and as a nation. When someone waves a machete in your face and takes your food, it's a crime. When your government takes money meant for your aid and blows it on who-knows-what, it's corruption. Either way you're still hungry.

[GreenStormCloud]

197. UPDATE: Lynch mobs turn on looters amid Haiti aid crisis

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6991810.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

Mobile water stations were mobbed by crowds who have lived without basic sanitation for nearly a week. By text message and word of mouth, reports spread of a woman decapitated for whatever she had been carrying near one of the few functioning markets. Police shot and killed a man suspected of looting. Where police failed to intervene, crowds resorted to lynching, leaving fresh bodies on streets just cleared of those left by the earthquake

That is real vigilantism. And it is never a good thing. Death penalty because a mob is angry. No trial, just an execution.