How do you feel about guns?

Guns

  • Have no place in this world. Should be abolished like slavery.

    Votes: 33 36.7%
  • Are every human's right.

    Votes: 57 63.3%

  • Total voters
    90
Answer: will America survive another terrorist attack?

Answer: did government breakdown during hurricane Katrina?
I don't see why not to the first question (they've survived every attack they've faced in the past after all) and yes to the second.

If there is no government, what law? Once again you asssume that everything is functioning and that everything is running smoothly, as if you cannot even imagine the possibility of a lawless environment. Watch the video of hurricane Katrina, or of any riot.
I think you'd find that in Katrina, the majority of the people did act peacefully. While there was a disastrous response to Katrina and some horror stories, there were also some inspirational stories that emerged from the disaster. Yes a few acted like asshats, but the general majority did not. Now lets just look at one of the shelters for example where thousands ran for shelter and where the cameras always panned to show the human tragedy that was the hurricane. Think how much worse it would have been if everyone had been armed. They were all stressed to an extreme. They were all facing a disaster that had destroyed their very lives. Yes. I guess they are the ones I'd want to see with guns because then everything would be soooo much better..:rolleyes:

Alright, so you are supporting the private policing idea? We should pay a security company? What's your idea?
Did I say that? I said that some firms and establishments need to have a private security force because of the nature of their business. I did not say that everyone should be their own private policeman, nor did I say we all need a private police force.

If people are not going to police themselves, they will have to pay someone else ot do it.
*Sigh* you're insane.

When your country is attacked by terrorists, faced with the avian flu, and natural disasters, there won't be any police, the police will have run away, and you'd be left to die. That's generally what happens, because police aren't equiped to deal with EVERYTHING.
Refer to above in regards to "insane"...

Duh! Now who guards your property? Right, no one, because you don't own what you cannot protect.
So what exactly do you think I should do TT? Sit out on my front porch with a loaded shot gun and spotlight in case the crazed masses who are on the rampage from the bird flu come a 'rampagin'?:rolleyes:

You are too ignorant to continue to respond to. You don't even watch the news.
LOLOL! I watch the news and I can say with all certainty that your Government is functioning and there are not people rampaging in the streets. Anarchy is not reigning supreme.

That's the end of my post, you are too stupid to make sense or to even read what I said. Also you arent American so you really don't care about our safety, or about the country.
Oh I read what you said and I have to admit, it was quite entertaining. But you have reinforced my position as to why people such as yourself should not be allowed to own a gun.

Okay, I'm going to give you one more chance Bell.

If the avian flu hit, and everyone is dying of it, and all the police got sick and died, what are you going to do? No one's going to follow laws once they have been infected, so you'll have people running around doing whatever the hell they want, if they know they only have 24 hours to live. So tell me, what would you do in a lawless environment?

For once tell us what your plans are. Don't tell me something stupid like call the police.
If the bird flu hit and "everyone" is dying, then I'd imagine I'd be in a hospital bed also dying of it. If "everyone" is dying from the bird flu, I don't imagine the masses rampaging through the streets do you? Oh wait, who am I asking. You are preparing for when civilisation comes to an end..:rolleyes:
 
My point is that if taken by surprise and you are armed, your weapon could most probably be used against you or against another innocent individual.

No, it wouldn't. Only if a person was an idiot and tried to draw their gun as they were attacked by surprise would that happen because otherwise the assaulter wouldn't even know the person is armed. Concealed weapons are holstered securely on one's ankle, secured inside special pockets made for guns, and also the most common area where they're kept is a fanny-type pack. If attacked by surprise, it's going to be a normal physical fight, the bad guy isn't going to frisk you up and down during it to first see if you're packing or not.

But again, that's not to say incidents don't happen where a gun is used against them as everything is possible. There's been incidents where a victim has taken the weapon of a bad guy that attacked em, but that's pretty darn rare in both accounts.

Frankly I just cannot understand why people feel the intense need to carry a gun for self protection, when in most instances, they'd not even get a chance to take it out to defend themselves.

Yeah, that's why theres over 1.5 million incidents each year where a gun has been used by a civilian to stop a crime, eh?

The scary thing is that most people probably do only the bare minimum. Do you know why? Because people are lazy. They want a gun for protection and they will do just what they need to do to get it and that's it. A few responsible people will go the whole hog and get the proper training they should all be required to get to use said weapon, but not all do.

I will agree with that for regular gun owners who have a shotgun in their own home for protection, but NOT for concealed carry users. A lot of people have a weapon in their home and let it sit there in an emergency where lots of training doesn't even need to be required. Even a blind person can easily shoot a robber with a spread shotgun in a narrow hallway of their home, heh. For concealed carry people though, those people are into firearms. They also have to get more than just the basic handgun training permit. And also people who legally have a concealed carry permit isn't as common as someone who just owns a gun. There are, however, people who illegally carry a handgun on their person without a permit, and those people don't apply as they're breaking the law.

The test takes a couple of hours to get a driving licence but you need to take lessons for at least a couple of weeks, don't you?

No, only if you're a kid. If you're 18, you just take a written exam and a quick driving test with an instructor if it's your first time ever doing it.

But many also only take the very bare minimum and do nothing else. Comforting isn't it?

For the people you're worried about -- concealed carriers -- I'd have to say very little take the bare minimum. The average person who owns a weapon for home defense though, I'd say quite a few.

What you fail to understand is that many would just panic and draw their gun out first thing. Hell I remember a story of an woman grabbing her shot gun and just shooting at her sliding door at night when she thought someone was breaking into her house. I think she ended up shooting her son or something. The point that so many gun advocates fail to realise is that some people will actually shoot first because that initial moment of panic can over ride all forms of common sense.

I thought we're talking about concealed carry people? A woman defending her home with a shotgun is a whole separate issue and has nothing to do with being attacked by surprise on the street with a CCW victim. In most states, there are no laws required to take any extra courses to own a shotgun because it's very simple to use and is one of the most common weapons there are due to it's high-range of use, so yes, I wouldn't doubt there being some home-defending n00bs out there, but for concealed carrying people, you're dead wrong. I've no problem with course being required for shotguns and rifles as they are for handguns.

There was one case in the late 90's where a father shot his 6 year old daughter when he tried to shoot intruders into his home.

Same response as above. I'd also like more info on that case to see if he wound up directly shooting her or if he was a moron and used too powerful ammunition which went right through your wall. You're supposed to have soft ammo when defending your home because if you have some good stuff, you may wind up shooting into your neighbors home, just as he could have shot through a wall and into his daughter's bedroom. Hollowpoints are required for handguns because they break up upon impact and birdshot or a grade higher for shotguns. Rifles are a bit trickier but also make for the least effective home defense weapon due to it's size which is worse than a shotgun and doesn't have the ease of hitting due to a shotgun's spread.

Find me a person with a concealed carry permit who has only had 1 days worth of training. Also find me a person who would be as stupid enough to point their gun at you, even when helping you. One of the basic laws is to not draw upon anything you're not willing to destroy. Not only that, but not even have your finger on the trigger, even when yes, pointing the gun at a criminal with nobody else around. Not even "professional" police officers draw with their finger on their trigger as any gun owner knows how easily it is to accidentally fire off a round otherwise. - me

Oh my God Neildo. Some people are that stupid and some people would point the damn gun. Dont be naive and think that all gun owners are responsible and take extra training. Instinct and self preservation would have many with their fingers on the trigger. Hell even cops have accidently shot people during an arrest. One of the NRA sites I linked before actually have a video of a cop accidently shooting a person she was pointing her gun at while her partner handcuffed the guy. Honestly. You think people who advocate gun control lack in understanding, but gun advocates are just as bad. Hell even the NRA have links and articles on their sites about how easily accidents happen and how easily people panic and just shoot first. You assume that everyone is responsible when many are not. - bells

I never denied those incidents happening, but I'm arguing against is your attempt to try and paint those as every day and common occurances. Those types of accidents are rare.

As for your videos, I know the one you're talking about. I have a better one though where a DEA agent shoots himself in the foot during a class presentation at an elementary school and the moment he shoots himself is complete irony. "Kids, I'm the only one qualified to use this gu....." *POP!* right in the foot as he racks back not seeing the shell in chamber even though he took out his magazine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU

Since you seem to agree that brains can't protect you from everything

If you agree that brains cannot protect you from everything, then - me

Again moron. Either:
A: Please cite where I EVER said that the brain CANNOT protect you from everything.
B: Stop presuming crap that was never said and get lost for being a total gun loving moron that doesn't know how to read. - lix

Then quit spouting some pretty redundant comments that have nothing to do with anything. Brains are the best weapon and can't protect you from everything, so that means we shouldn't have guns. Yeah, and spaghetti tastes good and can't protect you from everything either so we shouldn't have guns is pretty much the same type of comment. It's stupid because your brains or even spaghetti has nothing to do with times you may need a gun so why even say that other than to hear yourself talk? Obviously yea, people are gonna use their brains or eat spagetthi at times when they don't need to use a gun. The whole point of owning a gun is to use it when it's required, not relying on something else that won't save you in those moments.

I just don't see the need to arm the public. Call me strange, ignorant, etc. I honestly do not see why someone needs to arm themselves with a firearm, especially an uzi. I mean honestly Neildo, you'd feel comfortable if your neighbour had an uzi in his house for 'self protection'? Not just a handgun (that wasn't an automatic) but an uzi? What in the hell could a person honestly need an uzi for self protection for? Protection from what exactly?

I assume that you're referring to a fully-automatic uzi, yes? Because people CAN own uzi's, AKs, and all sorts of other rifles. The big catch? For the past, oh, I dunno, 20-30 years, fully-automatic weapons have been banned to the public except in rare account where someone who actually needs one is able to get a permit for one, such as a firearms dealer who needs that kind of protection when shipping a truckfull of weapons.

An uzi, AK, AR-15, or any other rifle that ignorant people think is only fully automatic are SEMI-AUTOMATIC in the hands of the public which means one shot per trigger pull, not hold down and spray and pray, which is no different than or any more dangerous than a regular rifle. Actually, most non-gun owners think semi-automatic means fully-automatic too. The uzi is usually banned anyways due to it's smaller size though, but it's actually less effective than a regular handgun or rifle because it's less accurate and has crappy ammo compared toa regular rifle so there's no point in owning one if it's just semi-automatic other than just to say you own an uzi and how it looks. All you wind up with is a big version of a pistol that is a lot less accurate.

Yes I do. I mean look at TT. He thinks we should arm ourselves because of the terrorist attacks that have occured in the past and the threat of terrorism... You'd feel comfortable if he was walking around with an uzi? I know I sure as hell wouldn't be.

So, what's wrong with his beliefs? As long as he's a responsible gun owner, I couldn't care less what his reasons are for owning one. I'd feel more safe with him owning a gun to protect himself from terrorists than a bible-thumper owning a gun to ward off "negroes", "coloured folk", or "homosexual fairies" waiting for the Second-coming of Christ and the End Times to come. And the sad thing is that there's probably more gun-owners that belief in that crap than there are that own a gun strictly to defend themselves from terrorists.

And so often Neildo, it is the law abiding citizen who does go nuts and start killing people.

Um, there is no such thing as a law-abiding citizen who starts killing people. That's an oxymoron.. a contradiction. A law-abiding criminal? Heh.

They owned it for fun of shooting on ranges and had the licences and permits to only shoot them on shooting and firing ranges

Lots of people own a rifle strictly for shooting it at ranges because it's fun as well. If something is fun, people will wanna do it. I know mechanics who work on cars because they think it's fun but don't care much about driving it or racing it. I know people who like to race cars but hate working on it, etc.

They had this guy from, you guessed it, Texas, who owned a tank... And you know what he said? He didn't own any fire arms for 'self protection'.

Heh, with a tank, I don't think I'd own a firearm for protection either, lol.

Hate to rain on your parade then because private security forces NOT in war zones are allowed to have some pretty high-tech weaponry. You do realize there are very high-valued targets other than in warzones, yes? Take for example a public medical center that has potent biological germs and whatnot? I'd crap my pants if someone raided some of the research centers in Atlanta as that's basically the capital of that kind of stuff. Surely you wouldn't want just regular ol' security forces that sleep on the job and only have a little pistol or shotgun as defense, no? That's a higher value target than a nuclear facility as it's much more damaging than one nuke.

*Sigh*

Yes I'm well aware of that but thank you for pointing out the obvious.

Then the comment I responded to with that was something you shouldn't have said then if it's obvious for you. Kind of like the comment I responded to by Lix which he's getting his panties in a bunch over.

I'd be just as concerned about facing a criminal as a guy who felt that the only way he could feel truly safe was to carry a loaded gun.

Yeah, because there's no such thing as a guy who has to work in a bad part of night late at night. Yeah, there's no such thing as guys who aren't martial arts experts who are 6'2, 250 pounds or any other numerous examples I can cite just off the top of my head. :rolleyes:

And you call me paranoid? You are actually that worried about the criminals all around you?

Uh, what kind of statement is that? LoL! You're worried about law-abiding citizens that have guns yet you call me paranoid for worrying about CRIMINALS? Uh, hello, law-abiding citizens aren't the ones doing the crimes, babe, it's the criminals. Nice to see you're pointing all the fingers at the wrong side as most liberals do who try and make criminals out to be victims and regular citizens as the bad guys.

As for my worrying about criminals around me, I've already given examples of what I HAVE gone through, HAVE warded off, and HAVE protected others from. I'm not the one living in lala land or some gated townhome with security guards, but rather reality where the majority of people live and where the majority of crimes take place. Go ahead and call other gun-owners who have never had a criminal encounter paranoid, but to say that shit to me is pretty damned stupid.

As for your freedoms, I dont think the forefathers had people carrying an automatic weapon on their person for self defence in mind. But hey, if you only feel comfortable with a loaded weapon by your side, then knock yourself out. Takes all kinds I suppose.

Okay, THAT RIGHT THERE says it all about you and you're just another ill-informed anti-gun nut brainwashed by the Brady Society. No wonder you hate guns so much and are afraid of people that have them. WTF, automatic weapons? Citizens aren't allowed automatic weapons, only the military and police! SEMI-AUTOMATIC means ONE SHOT. There's a reason why SEMI is there! Oh my friggin' god. Hopefully with me telling you that, you'll at least be SOMEWHAT less worried about citizens with guns, even if you may still not like em.

But seriously, read what TT is saying. He's talking about a non functioning Government and being able to defend yourself when such a thing occurs. Now tell me straight... I know Bush is not really all there, but surely the US has not degenerated to such an extent that the government is no longer functioning and the police force is no longer able to be funded.. etc.. is there constant looting in the streets where you live? Are people rampaging in the streets? Do you have the need to defend yourself against such a thing in your neighbourhood at the present time? My guess at the moment would be a big no?

Um, being prepared for those situations isn't about having it happen on a daily basis, it's about the time it WILL happen, and believe me, it WILL happen. Shit, we've had numerous violent riots in L.A. so there you go right there. Police are also a joke where they arrive many minutes AFTER a crime has been commited so they're as good as gone in my eyes for protection. And yes, governments have been reduced to the ineffectiveness of being collapsed -- look at New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina and see how they were absolutely powerless and the people had to fend for themselves.

When the big one hits, or not the big one and just a farily-sized earthquake hits California AGAIN, which WILL happen, it'll be pretty much the same thing. Every single emergency program have said they won't be able to help you for a good number of days. Even Bush himself gives messages all the time on the radio reminding us to always be prepared for an event and how they can't help us.

Anyways, about California.. there are only two highways that lead up and down Northern and Southern California. The coast and behind the mountains. When those are gone, there will be no way to get help or receive goods other than by helicopter, which good luck as you'll need our whole army flying 24/7 just to reach that many people. Those being shutdown have happened times before during non-crisises. Hell, during rainstorms, the PCH has NUMEROUS mudslides, and it practically shuts it down so that means on the other side of the mountains is the only way to travel.

When La Conchita had another big mudslide last year, it shutdown the freeway as usual. I live in Ventura Country and work in Santa Barbara and they're only 35 minutes away from each other with La Conchita between it right on the coast highway. Guess how long it took me to get from SB to VC which is only a 35 minute drive thanks to the freeway being closed? NINE FREAKIN HOURS! I had to reroute all the way around some mountains, through the desert, back around to the mountains, down towards L.A., over the mountains, and swing back around. That was all from a very small and simple mudslide. Imagine both highways closed. And yes, it DOES happen every now and then where both are shutdown.

So am I gonna rely on the government to protect me? Hell no. Heck, even now in regular life they're pretty much non-existant and don't have much effect on my daily life, let alone the times I'd actually need em.

For the average person though, yes, we live in a society where the police doesn't function well. When the average police officer doesn't arrive until AFTER a crime has been committed, they may as well not even bother to show up as they're too late.I swear to god that nobody ever tries to break into your home while you and your children are there because no joke, you are shit out of luck! Most of my friends are cops and I'm just telling it how it is. They won't arrive until it's too late and if you talk to "unofficially", they'll say always protect yourself and that they can't always be there to protect you. The only times you hear them not to take the law into your own hands and let the police do it is when they have to talk officially as they're forced to, not because that's what they actually believe. - me

I see. So you think that people should arm themselves and take the law into their own hands? Ermm ok.. That's just made me an even bigger anti gun promoter.. lol..I see. So you think that people should arm themselves and take the law into their own hands? Ermm ok.. That's just made me an even bigger anti gun promoter.. lol..

Uh, a person defending their home isn't taking the law into their own hands. It's perfectly legal to shoot someone breaking into your house. The police only say to not take the law into your own hands like that because of the REQUIRED safety crap they have to spout on T.V. for public image. If you talked to that comissioner or most cops in person, they would tell you to always be prepared because they won't be there to help you until after the crime has been committed. And again, the cops on T.V. are talking about their ass because defending yourself in your own home ISN'T taking the law into your own hands. It's perfectly legal so your argument is null and void.

Because I dont live in fear that people are out to get me so therefore I must carry a loaded gun, I am mentally unstable?

Mentally unstable? No. Foolish? Hell yes. You're only lucky, that's what you are. You're also lucky because citizens WITH guns are protecting you without your knowing it. Again, I hope to god nobody ever breaks into your home when you're alone with your baby and I can guarantee you'll do a complete 180 in regards to your stance on gun-ownership if something happens like that now that you've joined the hard-life reality of the rest of the 20+ million victims of crime each year. But as usual, it'd be too late because a gun after the fact won't do you any good.

And an uzi? A weapon that can probably kill over a dozen people in a couple of seconds? LOL!

Wrong. Only a military-grade uzi can. Again, citizens are restricted to SEMI-automatic weapons. Our rifles are basically giant pistols in that we only get one-shot out of them per pull of the trigger.

Here I have to agree with Neildo.

Woohoo, a slight gain! :p

Ah yes.. so have the other people shooting the people who are committing the shootings every night in the cities. Have the general public be the police force. Hell the way you're going, why would there be a need for a police force at all?

Actually there IS no need for the police in regards to our public safety in regards to self-defense. The police only exist to enforce laws, NOT protect us. They are the regulators of society, nothing more. The only reason why the police come when you call 9/11 isn't to protect you but rather enforce the law and capture the guy for breaking it. Did you know that the police are NOT required to protect citizens? The same way Fox News isn't required to tell the truth and are able to alter things? Yes, Fox News sued to be able to do so. So in regards to protecting ourselves, yes, we're on our own and the police are practically non-existant.

Yes. I'd want to protect my child by having loaded guns kept around the house for protection. Hmmm yes that sounds sane.

What's wrong with keeping them in a safe where your child cannot access them? Safes or a combination of trigger locks (so it can't shoot) AND cable locks (so it can't be taken from the spot) are required in the state of California in homes where underage people live. If you live alone or with an adult, you can go ahead and keep it lying around which is pretty stupid though. The reason why you hear of certain mass-murder killings by kids is because those states are some assbackwards laws where you can keep a rifle in a stupid glass cabinet. Yeah, real protection there. I have no problem with parents of those murderers being sued till they're broke as a joke and then beaten by the families of the victims for their stupidity and lack of safety. Hell, and then go ahead and lock the parents up too!

I protect myself and my family by installing an alarm and locking the god damn doors.. Like most normal people who don't sit there dreaming of what you seem to spend a lot of time thinking about.

You do realize that home assaults happen in only a couple minutes? They're in and out like that. An alarm isn't going to save you. A door isn't going to save you. You know what the purpose of an alarm is, I hope? It's not to protect you but act as an early warning system. An early warning system does no good if you have no means to protect yourself otherwise you're just left with a loud-ass alarm making your ears bleed as the burglar robs you blind or god-forbid, rapes you. You're only lucky in that you've yet to be burglarized. Your alarm hasn't done jack squat to save you. That's a false belief like saying because no more 9/11's have happened to us, it's because Bush has done such a great job at protecting us. Uh, no, another 9/11 didn't happen just like there wasn't another follow-up to the first attempt of the WTC bombing until 8 years later. Or like saying no more Pearl Harbors didn't happen until 60 years later on 9/11.

Oh my God!! LOL!! TT! You're planning for when there's no functioning Government? LOL! Are you actually serious? And you accuse me of being brain dead?

Not braindead, but pretty foolish. And highly ignorant and arrogant to say he's stupid for having those reasons when it's a fact those events have happened which means they're bound to happen again. Now perhaps if those events never happened and no criminals existed, you'd be right in calling him paranoid and all that, but reality is against your belief.

Some quotes from your links:

- "I guess he was waiting for me to beg for my life or something. I told him to insert his gun into a very private orifice of his body and walked away. Lucky he didn't shoot me in the back."

- "Kept the 12 gauge handy, but never needed it."

- "During the big power outage last summer, I was glad I was able to carry concealed, but never came even remotely close to needing a firearm."

- "I didn't have a gun on me and I'm glad I didn't. We were better off not engaging these people and I seriously doubt we could have gotten out if I did pull a firearm

- "My future solution to that one incident was to try and never put myself in a position where pulling my gun was the only option. That has continued to work to this day (so far at least)."

- "I fortunately have NEVER had to pull my weapon while carrying ...."

- "The only time I pulled was shortly after I bought my first carry piece . . . . having to pull was because I walked stupidly into the situation easily avoided; I've noticed that it's usually only when you're a moron that you get into trouble."

Thank you, Neildo, for helping add some clarity to the issue. You are disgusted, it seems, at the presumption that "we all supposedly seem to love to draw instantly and kill bad guys at every opportunity." This presumption comes from the rhetoric of the debate; look, for instance, at TimeTraveler's paranoid vision of the world.

You're welcome. And thanks for at least reading those links instead of ignoring it thinking you'd know what it's all about.

Furthermore, your own weak sense of context, focus on exaggerations, and general determination to tilt windmills doesn't do much good for your credibility. Such as this tantrum:


Ah, yes, another liberal using a whacky, extreme, theorhetical example thinking that's how gun-owners are. OMG, some lady said a comment so it means I have the authority to shoot her! That's along the same ridiculous lines of "If I had a gun, I'd use it during road rage" that some of you have spouted!

Heh, well that's one of the reasons why I posted those links you read because those people state things more eloquently and with a more level-head than myself. Frankly it gets tiring having to be one of the few people here to defend our right to bear arms on these boards having to repeat myself so often in an endless circle that it's bound to get nasty with little jabs here and there. Although that's my primary style of posting though as it adds a bit of spice to the debate, heh heh.

However, what I said wasn't an exaggeration. Look at the first page or two of this thread and you will see anti-gun people say they wouldn't want a gun because they'd misuse it during an act of roadrage or something. How is their insecurity my fault? Because they're whacky in the head doesn't mean I am. Don't base my responsibility off their admitted irresponsibility. And the example I'm referring to isn't the only one as a few people have said similar things multiple times like that showing how bad in the head they are. The article I posted a few posts ago responds directly to those types of people and their mentality.

Anyways, thanks again for reading those links to get a better insight on regular gun-owners. Even if your stance doesn't change, you at least made an attempt to hear the other side of the story rather than debate for the sake of argument. Now if only I could get Bells to read those real-life encounters.. although hey, I'm already satisfied with her agreeing with me on one thing I said, as minor as it may be. ;)

- N
 
But it IS your fault that you cross posted, oh ye who wastes oxygen. That event is fairly current, and you seem oblivious to it. Weird. I would never have expect it. :rolleyes:
Who cares?
Either way, no threat. No point in running around with oozies.
 
Death is Certain, Life is Not

TimeTraveler said:

Why will none of you who hate guns and self defense answer the question on how people are going to defend themselves?

Part of the problem, once again, is your own perception. Vigilance, avoidance, and careful consideration produce better results than obsession and brute force. In other words, you've been answered; that you don't like the answers won't change that fact. Thus, to spell it out as simply as possible, there are two points that answer the question of how to defend oneself:

(1) Through vigilance and awareness, and ...
(2) ... as any given situation demands.​

I don't understand how people can not care if they die tomorrow, and not care how they die, or anything, I mean what exactly do you go to work for? Whats your outlook? Are you some sorta existentialist who embraces death? Are you already dead? What is your outlook? Instead of saying my outlook is extreme, whats yours?

As it's your own projection of others you're having trouble with, I suggest you look inward. Existentialism is not entirely removed from my outlook, though. It's not that we're already dead, but rather a very simple, two-word outlook: Life is. Three words? Life simply is. There is also the knowledge that, once I'm dead, the fact of my death won't mean anything; this applies to any outlook, whether redemptionist or atheistic. Whatever waits beyond the veil will become the situation.

As to caring about living and dying before the fact of death? If I have time to worry about it while staring death in the face, vigilance and careful consideration will do me better than brute force. If someone really wants to get me, though, I may well not have time to think about it, in which case fear of death matters none.

I may not, by some standards, have much of a life anyway, but I'm certainly not going to waste it being afraid.
 
Vigilance, avoidance, and careful consideration produce better results than obsession and brute force.

Yes, and those are the obvious first-choice actions. However, what do you do when those precautions fail? Just say "oh well" and become victimized and perhaps raped or killed? Sorry, but I'm not a cat and don't have nine lives so I'm not willing to take that risk, especially living in an area that isn't as nice as some of you anti-gun people seem to reside in.

As it's your own projection of others you're having trouble with, I suggest you look inward. Existentialism is not entirely removed from my outlook, though. It's not that we're already dead, but rather a very simple, two-word outlook: Life is. Three words? Life simply is. There is also the knowledge that, once I'm dead, the fact of my death won't mean anything; this applies to any outlook, whether redemptionist or atheistic. Whatever waits beyond the veil will become the situation.

That's your own personal spiritual belief and should have no impact on others. I'm sorry if most gun-owners value their lives and the safety of their family more than you may.

To most other's, they don't see death as being so simple. Myself, I don't fear death, but that doesn't mean I want to carelessly try and end my life. When I die, I die, but I'd rather stick around for as long as possible.

- N
 
I don't see why not to the first question (they've survived every attack they've faced in the past after all) and yes to the second.

What a lazy answer. Yeah America survived other kinds of war, but we have never had this sorta war in our existance, this is a war that appears to have no timetable. How exactly do we win it? You don't even know. The point is, America would not survive another terrorist attack. What do you think would happen if America were attacked again? Do you pay any attention to polls? Do you actually know anything about the American psyche?

I think you'd find that in Katrina, the majority of the people did act peacefully. While there was a disastrous response to Katrina and some horror stories, there were also some inspirational stories that emerged from the disaster. Yes a few acted like asshats, but the general majority did not.

That's because they thought there was a chance they could live. When they went into the superdomes they did not know the leves would collapse on them and flood them out. There were likely horrors beyond calculation, and this happened in America, so really theres no way for you to make hurricane Katrina optimistic, it's impossible, if you can make hurricane Katrina optimistic you can make any natural disaster no matter how many people die optimistic.

Now lets just look at one of the shelters for example where thousands ran for shelter and where the cameras always panned to show the human tragedy that was the hurricane. Think how much worse it would have been if everyone had been armed.

Some people were armed. What happened was, people who had businesses hired private security forces to protect their property from looters, then you had criminals who had guns sniping people on the rooftops, then later on you had the national guard patrolling the city with guns. No one armed? come again?

They were all stressed to an extreme. They were all facing a disaster that had destroyed their very lives. Yes. I guess they are the ones I'd want to see with guns because then everything would be soooo much better..:rolleyes:

You still arent explaining what you'd do.

Did I say that? I said that some firms and establishments need to have a private security force because of the nature of their business. I did not say that everyone should be their own private policeman, nor did I say we all need a private police force.

It's too late, once you allow some, you allow all, there are no laws ot prevent any sorta business from hiring private security, and there can't be a law like this, and even if there were, how exactly would you enforce it? with the police?

*Sigh* you're insane.

Another insult.

So what exactly do you think I should do TT? Sit out on my front porch with a loaded shot gun and spotlight in case the crazed masses who are on the rampage from the bird flu come a 'rampagin'?:rolleyes:

Whats your idea? What should you do? You are supposed to be telling me.

LOLOL! I watch the news and I can say with all certainty that your Government is functioning and there are not people rampaging in the streets. Anarchy is not reigning supreme.

Thats because we have not been attacked by terrorists, and we have not faced avian flu. You seem to think America is even more invincible than Americans think it is, and you are from Europe?

Oh I read what you said and I have to admit, it was quite entertaining. But you have reinforced my position as to why people such as yourself should not be allowed to own a gun.

So we should pay people to own guns for us? How efficient is that?

If the bird flu hit and "everyone" is dying, then I'd imagine I'd be in a hospital bed also dying of it. If "everyone" is dying from the bird flu, I don't imagine the masses rampaging through the streets do you? Oh wait, who am I asking. You are preparing for when civilisation comes to an end..:rolleyes:

Hospitals won't be functioning. You think the government, or the mayor, or anyone will be going to work when the damn avian flu hits? Yes I think everyone with a brain knows civilization is not sustainable, it can't last forever, you know it, I know it, and so you have to be prepared for any situation, you even have to be prepared for the time when it comes to an end, because there is nothing to guarentee that it won't end.

I bet someone like you wouldnt care if it ended tomorrow, but you don't seem to understand that everything is fragile. You can never assume that just because things are okay at this moment, that something can't or won't happen. You should NEVER plan to die of the avian flu, what kinda stupid plan is that? If you want to die, why wait?

If you don't want to die, then figure out how to live, or at least don't be like "well I plan to die in the hospital like the rest of them", wtf? Can you see how people who are rational at least slightly, would be absolutely confused by that response?
 
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:


Katrina is a defining moment for America. It has exposed its fault lines
Mike, USA
Katrina is a defining moment for America. It has exposed its fault lines. There is no national health care; there is no real housing policy. There is no safety net for those who have lost their jobs and homes. Putting pink wrist bands on victims looks like a way to ID people but it also treats them like a cost factor. I hope America is not repeating the history of Rome.
Mike, USA

Student evacuees from colleges affected by hurricane Katrina will be staying at the gym at my university, which can hold up to 575 people temporarily. The South-eastern conference schools are reaching out to students affected by the devastation Katrina left in Louisiana and Mississippi. It seems surreal, worse than 11 September because of the slow federal response to rush to the aid of the victims.
Sharon Roy, Watkinsville, Ga, US

As I read many of the comments made by UK and American contributors, I am shocked by how few understand how our nation and its governments are related. If one were to follow this carefully it would be evident that everything that could be done was and is being done.
Frank Eugene Suter, South Beach, Fl, USA

It was the responsibility of the mayor of New Orleans to use public transportation, buses and cars to evacuate the people, and those buses are sitting under water right now. If he did his job, those people would have gotten out of there five days ago.
Vera, Melrose Park, Illinois, USA

There is always more that could be done. The failure by local New Orleans leaders to employ resources such as school buses to evacuate people without transportation has made this 1000 times worse.
Tyrone Mack, New Orleans, USA

The mayor and governor dropped the ball. If not for President Bush, there would not have been an evacuation order. The city police literally abandoned their posts. The Federal government has done all it can do; it was the state and local government that should have taken the lead, just as NYC mayor Guliani did on 11 September.
Brian Hair, Illinois, USA

President Bush has done more than enough. He has toured the devastated areas personally, and is doing all in his power to aid. I think the question you should pose is, are other countries doing enough to help us in our time of need? I am a proud citizen of the USA, and for many decades we have been the first to aid other countries in times of crisis. Let's see if we get the same support that we have given time after time to those in need.
Lisa Strausbaugh, Chillicothe, Ohio USA


Too often we just want to leave it all to the Federal Government to clean up
Elizabeth Watkins, Yakima, Washington
I agree that it is a mess, and I really feel sorry for all those people. They are in a terrible fix right now, but I think that there should have been a little more preparation on the local level years ago. In our state we have been being encouraged to have 72 hour kits to help out in time of a disaster of any kind. They say they are very important because it usually takes at least that long for any kind of relief to show up. It seems to me that a city almost entirely ringed with water and below sea level should have had some kind of plan for just this type of thing happening!!! Too often we just want to leave it all to the Federal Government to clean up afterwards.
Elizabeth Watkins, Yakima, Washington

I just spent the day working with evacuees who were flown into our city and given residence in our Convention Center. I have noticed so much criticism on this forum about our national government not doing enough. I can speak from experience that at least our local governments are stepping up and helping to alleviate the misery bestowed on the hurricane victims. The outpouring of goods, money, and volunteers in the city of Austin was overwhelming.
Jenna, Austin, Texas, USA

This is the 21st century! Why are people being left without any basic help in a society which we say is the best in the world? It is appalling that a country as large as ours with the largest percentage of wealth distribution in the world could treat its own citizens and visitors in this way.
Chaz, living in London (from NYC, USA)

As a former FEMA temporary disaster employee, I am ashamed of my governments - local, state, and federal. The region had ample warning of the hurricane. Additionally, all government parties involved - local, state, and federal - were aware that New Orleans was a sitting duck.
Todd S., Berkeley, CA

The criticism of the delays in getting aid to New Orleans is understandable but unjustified. This is a disaster that affected an area the size of the UK, it is simply not possible to get the logistics together in much less than 4 or 5 days. From what I am seeing now, the emergency effort is getting well underway and I am sure we will see what can happen when a strong nation pulls together. God bless all those affected by this tragedy.
Chris, Brazil

The federal government's response is a national disgrace. FEMA should have sent buses to evacuate those too poor to get out or had truckloads of food, water and medical supplies there before the hurricane. There was no planning or coordination among the authorities. I am ashamed of my government and horrified by the suffering endured by the stranded residents of New Orleans.
Susan Helf, Seattle, WA USA


The current crisis in the US should create a moment of pause in all societies
Kristen Canady, Pennsylvania, US
The current crisis in the US should create a moment of pause in all societies. The fragility of our system of government has been tragically played out after this natural phenomenon. One victim encapsulated our feelings with his comment that the natural disaster lead to a human disaster. I would caution that this kind of break down of government can occur any where and at anytime. It would be more advantageous for everyone in the world to look at this situation and think about their level of preparedness.
Kristen Canady, Pennsylvania, US

Those of us who looked in disgust at the images of brutality and chaos in Somalia, Haiti, and Iraq need to eat a big piece of humble pie; it doesn't matter where you are born, in the face of disorder, everyone is capable of the disgusting acts we have read about.
Aaron Leong, California USA

Let's hope that this time around Americans do not fail to continue to question their national leadership about the needless deaths brought about not by Hurricane Katrina and the failed relief effort following that terrible storm. Our national leaders are brilliant at creating "spin" and managing public relations with statements like "let's not cast blame" or "complain" or "let us move forward." But in the name of the God our President so readily calls upon, we must honour the memories of those who have perished by asking: why did this happen? The answer, I think, could lead us to great and meaningful change.
R. Dixon Crouch, San Jose, California, USA

Now is not the time to volley cheap political shots. There are people who need your help - come down to the eye-to-eye human level and help in any way you can. Put your money where your mouth is. Donate now to the American Red Cross.
Marlene Friis, Brooklyn

As a Houston resident, I have to tell you that Houstonians are doing a huge job in doing our best in creating a safe, comfortable environment for our Louisiana neighbours. Despite having our city grow by the thousands virtually overnight, our doctors, nurses, and countless citizens have volunteered their time and efforts around the clock for this task before us. Even Texas school districts are now prepared to have the children start school next week in trying to provide all sense of normalcy and structure to lives of children. Was this situation handled in the best way? Not really. Are we trying doing the right thing? Absolutely.
Sharon, Houston, Texas USA

Anyone who does not believe the Authorities/FEMA were fully aware of the inevitability of this disaster should read the excellent article about the destruction of New Orleans in the National Geographic magazine. The Bush administration had previously balked at the USD 14 billion price tag associated with the Louisiana Coastal Area project to help preserve the wetlands which help protect the New Orleans area from flood. Was this article just "I told you so" hindsight? No. It was published in October 2004! (page 92).
Nick P, Basildon, Essex

The nature of the comments I have seen using this horrific tragedy as fodder for political bickering disgusts me. What does being a friend and ally mean to some people? Apparently it means kicking them when they are down with gleeful abandon.
Sean, Islip, NY


The different States are pulling together
Anon, USA
I wish that some of our friends overseas could hear our local news. Our state are sending tons of bottled water, supplies and manpower. The folks here are stepping forward in a big way. Tonight New York's mayor gave two and a half million dollars to the American Red Cross. Detroit opened up all its hotels and are sending buses as well. The different States are pulling together - they do have the means to do so. Maybe that is why the President feels that we will outride this without foreign help.
Anon, USA

I feel embarrassed and disappointed as a Scot and British national that we are sitting back and doing nothing to help. Everyone including news teams are quick enough to criticize but no one except the Red Cross are coming forward to help. We are supposed to be America's closest ally, where is Blair? What is he doing? We need a fund set up and working now, I want to help and feel the news channels and reporters should be giving information on how we can all assist.
Roy Brown, Perth Scotland

A few weeks before hurricane Katrina's devastation, India's financial capital Mumbai (aka.Bombay) was drowned completely by a 48-hour downpour, the heaviest recorded in the last 30 years. The Indian electronic media showed images of people helping shopkeepers save their merchandize, it showed people throwing open their doors to strangers who couldn't reach their homes, it showed slum dwellers, who themselves had lost everything, serving hot tea to those struggling back home wading through waist-deep waters. The Mumbai floods made heroes out of ordinary people. Watching images of the New Orleans disaster, nothing could have been so much in contrast. It brought tears to my eyes to see such tragedy.
Abhijit Roy, Bangalore , India

The American Red Cross alone has collected $4,532,246.93 as of 11:26 PM EST. On top of that, secondharvest.org raised $1.5 million and so did dozens of other organizations, universities, and churches all throughout the United States. Don't be too eager to draw conclusions. Get your facts before being so pessimistic about this situation.
Mee Seong, Atlanta, GA

What the people hearing about the looting have to understand is that the American media's coverage is not going deep enough: there was a considerable drug problem in the area, and when one is unable to get their drug they are most often wiling to do anything to get it. This means looting the hospital drug supply, and become violent.
Jayne Dohler, USA

To anyone who has the arrogance to say these people could have left because they had warning I can only hope they find themselves in a nursing home the next time a hurricane hits Florida, floodwaters rising, stuck in a wheelchair, no help on the way and unable to fend for themselves. The poorest and most vulnerable population in America has just become the victims of the worst natural disaster in American history.
Jeff, Austin, USA


The focus must be on the survivors, not politics
Maureen, Boston, USA
It's natural in a situation like this to point fingers and hand out blame. I don't like this administration, but there is a time and place for everything. Right now, saving and caring for survivors should be the only priority. The focus must be on the survivors, not politics. There are elections in 2006. That is where you can show the politicians exactly how you feel about their response to Katrina by voting them out or re-electing them.
Maureen, Boston USA

I am disgusted by the lack of response by those in charge in the US. This just goes to show how little planning is put into ensuring the safety of the common citizen. This also brings up a question - when is the rising problem of environmental refugees going to be addressed seriously? How many more natural disasters must occur before they realise the threat of natural disaster due to global warming is greater than that of any terrorist attack?
Becca Dakini, Melbourne, Australia

Thank you to everyone in the world who is supporting us in our time of need. I have sat and watched the live news coverage of the relief efforts with tears in my eyes. The only feelings that overcome my grief are those of frustration and anger. The rage I feel at our government is beyond anything I can express. Not only does Bush know that he hasn't acted as swiftly or as seriously as he ought, but he has tried to draw attention to any positive advancements he has made on the war on terror to take focus off of his lack of action in the past week.
Brittany, Zanesville, OH, USA


How could the wealthiest country in the world get it so wrong?
Richard Bagot, Cumbria
The power of Katrina could not have been fully predicted but from an outsider the actions of the United States has been astonishing. How could the wealthiest country in the world get it so wrong and abandon its people?
Richard Bagot, Cumbria

Many are noting that it was the poor that were trapped in New Orleans when the hurricane hit. Why didn't local officials move them out before the hurricane hit? You can't herd 50,000 people in a restricted space and then expect someone else to feed, clothe and evacuate them overnight.
Desmond Prosper, Steinwenden, Germany

If this disaster had happened any where but America everyone would be demanding more aid from America. But now that tragedy has struck in the USA - who is rushing to its aid? Where are the charity tin shakers asking for donations for the Louisiana Hurricane disaster?
Bill, London, UK

The US administration is preoccupied with affairs of other countries more than that of its own. This is the biggest mistake needed to be corrected.
C Sachidananda Narayanan, Tirunelveli, India

I am thoroughly disgusted by the response of non-American posters on this discussion, who by and large seem almost to adopt an air of smug satisfaction and superiority that this is happening and that we have had our problems responding. Now you are spinning Katrina to be a poster child for everything from US arrogance to global warming. And this is from someone who does agree that the relief effort has been disgraceful and ill-coordinated.
Paul L, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Americans have a right to be very angry at the massive failure at nearly all levels of government to respond quickly and effectively to a natural disaster which has been predicted by many people for a long time and for which an infrastructure had presumably been put in place. There has been a needless loss of life and someone will have to answer the question why - in the political hurricane which is just beginning to gather.
Mark, USA

I think the problem lies in race politics. More than 65 per cent of the population in New Orleans is black - that is why the response was so slow. America has been through a lot worse in terms of natural disasters. When the time comes to kill and destroy, they have all the resources to transport their instruments of war and devastation throughout the world. But, when it comes to saving, we have seen a poor response.
Khurram, Pakistan


Race issues are beside the point here
R L T, VA, USA
I disagree with those that say that this disaster represents a fundamental defect with American society, or our way of life. It represents a failure of the function of our governments at the federal, state and local levels. Race issues are beside the point here. Poor people will always suffer in any country. If a disaster of this magnitude were to occur in any other Western country, you will see the same trends. In cases of disaster, consequently, the poor must rely solely on government for help. In this case, government responded inadequately for a host of reasons.
R L T, VA, USA

I'm absolutely livid about what has happened. Why is it that the most vulnerable citizens of New Orleans - the sick, the elderly and the poor - were left behind? It is unacceptable. Some in the US are excusing the government, saying they didn't have time to respond. That is nonsense. They weren't prepared for something they knew could happen. Our leadership must be held accountable.
Kip, Minnesota, USA

As a citizen of a tropical country like Bangladesh I am used to the devastation by the natural phenomena, but not the behaviour of the US citizen in such a situation. Sometimes we have periods of no electricity at all for days, and also we have Tornados much stronger than Katrina every year - but we never start looting our neighbours' properties. The reason is rude capitalism.
Nazmul Hoq Chowdhury, Dhaka, Bangladesh

I watch with horror as this tragedy unfolds on the television. This truly shows that the American dream only applies if you are white and well off.
Andrea, London UK

The global warming brigade and anti-Americans generally cannot conceal their delight at America's misfortune. What sort of people can look at the horrific pictures coming from New Orleans and respond with the smug knee jerk reaction - of: 'well it proves I am right'. Right about what? I cannot recall any of the lefties I know predicting this disaster - most of them couldn't find New Orleans on a map.
Al, London, UK


What are we to become if the world's most powerful nation cannot help their own people?
Chandra Taposeea, Mauritius
I am only 15, but I think that everyone has a right to have their say. I keep on watching the news on TV in horror and dismay, and I have experienced a few strong hurricanes here myself. But why was there suddenly such a powerful hurricane? One possible explanation is global warming. Maybe its time that America realised it's important to sign the Kyoto protocol so that the whole world can work together. What are we to become if the world's most powerful nation cannot help their own people?
Chandra Taposeea, Albion, Mauritius

I have been watching Katrina response on TV for the last few days, and I have two observations: The first question is why those affected are all from the black communit? Secondly, why is the US government sending the National Guard with the authority to shoot, rather than provide support to the victims? I believe that the US government attitude has added to the suffering of the victims
Kamel Al-Sadah, Jubail, Saudi Arabia

To those of you in Europe who have expressed words of compassion to the people of US, I thank you. As an American I am weeping for those in the south that are suffering due to poor planning and a slow response from the federal government and our inept President. However, I am angered by so many of the responses from some Europeans, particularly some from Great Britain. Just realize that while you are enjoying a sense of moral superiority over the Americans, thousands are dying in the streets of New Orleans.
Caroline, USA

There are a few scars in history where political policies are laid so bare for all to see. I am struck whilst watching the apocalyptic images that this is such an occasion. Yes, this is a natural disaster, but thing have been made worse by global warming, lack of gun control and a widening wealth gap. There is intense sadness welling up around the world when watching the decline of the USA. Will the next generation of Americans be able to overcome this social, ethical and environmental decline?
Declan, Stockholm

I've been involved in the aid business internationally for seven years. I'm stunned by the inadequacy of the Government's response - especially at the federal level. They've made unbelievable rookie mistakes. I'm really rather ashamed that this has been allowed to happen in America. This was not what I thought we were about.
BPK, New York

Mayor Nagin started to scream (literally) for help. Good for him! Someone had to. Obviously this storm was not taken seriously enough. And everyone is to blame. Federal, state and local governments. But it's not a blame game now, help is clearly needed and it looks like it's finally coming. My prayers are with everyone, victims and rescuers.
Carolyn, Rhode Island, USA


The states have banded together with phenomenal resolve that should not be forgotten
Dave Welch, NH, USA
For those of you questioning the response to the Katrina disaster, please realize the failure was on the federal level and not on the local and state levels. They have done all they can and have been flying sorties nonstop since Monday to try to get everyone out and there is a lot of praise that should be going around. The states have banded together with phenomenal resolve that should not be forgotten. The funding to repair precious storm protection such as coastal wetlands and continual upgrading of the levee system in New Orleans was stopped at the federal level.
Dave Welch, NH, USA

God help you if you live in America and are poor, black or old. That such suffering is still continuing six days later is a reflection of the priorities of the present administration in the so-called United States of America. The people who remained in New Orleans were not there through choice but because they did not have access to cars, credit cards or even, in the case of the old, family members to help them. Instead they were reliant on the emergency services to aid them. As this help did not materialise these groups were left to fend for themselves and in some cases die because of the lack of government intervention. Anger does not begin to describe how I feel. Kathleen Baker
Kathie Baker, Edinburgh, Scotland

Our President has sent 138,000+ of our best young men & women in the military and national guard halfway around the globe to an oil-rich nation to fight a war that, at best, has questionable motives. We have been repeatedly told that this action has made America safer. Meanwhile the poor souls of New Orleans are starving through a hell of spiralling chaos and violence. In the aftermath of Katrina we desperately need our national guard here. After witnessing the rampant looting and violence in the Gulf coast and the lack of a federal response, one must wonder "Is America safer, Mr President?"
DeLoach, Austin, Tx, US

At last - we are getting a 'taste' of what lies ahead for our planet. It is decidedly overpopulated, and facing global warming cataclysms like the one being witnessed. And how appropriate for the 20% of the planet that uses 80% of the natural resources to discover the consequences of their collective actions. Of course, those actually suffering are not the ones driving Hummers, or drilling for oil in third world countries. But we all suffer when our fellow humans suffer.
Anon, Arizona USA

Using this disaster to bash the US is cheap and tawdry. No country has ever handled any kind of natural disaster flawlessly. For you Americans sitting at your computer bashing right along, shut up and do something, I have.
L Ford, Las Vegas, Nevada

Perhaps I'm stupid, but how can Bush demand people give generously to aid agencies when he holds the purse strings of the richest country in the world? They found the money to go to war in Iraq and yet, he wants his own people to pay towards saving one of the best, most unique and most colourful cities in the US.
Mark, Belfast, UK

It's my understanding the city of New Orleans received federal funds over a year ago to prepare for a major evacuation such as this. It is also my understanding that they squandered it. It is not Bush's responsibility to hold the hand of New Orleans. It's the Governor and Mayor's job to do that.
Didi, USA

The response of the authorities has been dire but even more shocking is the violent, mindless reaction of New Orleans poor people. Have they no sense or decency whatsoever? Even in Third World countries, where people are far worse off, people do not respond to catastrophes in such a disgusting way.
Jamie Shepherd, UK

I can't blame Bush and his administration for the US not being able to withstand a hurricane - nature will always win in these situations and how can anyone ever be really, totally prepared? I can blame Bush and his administration for the time it's taken to get aid to his own citizens. I can blame Bush and his administration for believing that our actions have no impact on the environment. I can, certainly, blame Bush and his administration for allowing, mainly, black people to suffer. The USA needs to help its own citizens - and I mean all of them - before it ever starts proclaiming that it is a great, democratic, civilised power.
Rachel, High Wycombe

The real story this week has been that the Great Society has been shown to be a Great Lie. The US is a highly stratified society in which the poor black population of inner cities such as New Orleans are kept firmly in their place - this week literally, as well as figuratively. It's tempting to believe in the possibility of social change after these events, but it's hard not to be cynical and accept that, once the flood waters and the price of gas subside, things will return to normal.
Mick Verran, Boston, Ma, USA

What nonsense! The US army cannot go out to help its own people in distress? You need a permission from the Congress? If that be so, except for the President and the Congressmen, all the citizens in the US are surely second graded.
C. Sachidananda Narayanan, Tirunelveli, India

Well, this is one way to get our troops home from Iraq. This president has left this country so stretched that we can't even respond to an emergency that we watched approach the US for days via satellite. How could a leader consistently make so many bad decisions. His decisions would have been better had he simply flipped a coin!
Kathy Ormonde, Raleigh USA

I live in a city that year after year has been spared but we know we are playing Russian roulette with hurricanes. Yes Bush has botched things up big time and there is no excuse. On a closer level what was the head of FEMA doing? Watching it on tv? Those people should have been in nearby states ready and waiting to roll in as soon as things passed over. There should have been refugee camps set up immediately. So much could have been done.
Judy Omans, Savannah, GA USA

While most on here are bashing the United States, as they usually do, please remember that New Orleans sat well below sea level and that this disaster has been on its way for years and years. More should have been done to rescue the victims, but I have a feeling that if England or France or Germany would have been hit by this mess, it would have been the same if not worse. It is just impossible to get everything right, with a disaster this size. Thanks for showing how much you care about the people Europe, you choose to just bash the president and my country.
Shane, Chicago, Illinois USA

Once again, I see the old anti-Bush mantra is in full cry. If one wants to get political, it is worth noting that in the USA power and responsibility is devolved locally, much more so than in the UK, and that the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana are both members of the Democratic Party. Why did they not do more - they had warning of the hurricane? Bush is now putting in the resources, but to fair, he is not on the spot in the way the local authorities are.
Patrick, London, UK


It's time for them to grow up and solve the problem
Matt Escover, California, USA
Our politicians in America are already looking for ways to attack and blame each other like little children. Instead of focusing all of their efforts on saving lives, they, Republicans and Democrats, are looking for ways to avoid or place blame. It's time for them to grow up and solve the problem.
Matt Escover, California, USA

Blaming President Bush for the response to this disaster reflects a lack of awareness of the federal system in the country. The federal government cannot act unless or until state officials ask for a declaration of an affected area as a "disaster area". The president did that on Tuesday, the day after the hurricane and the day on which the levees actually were compromised and the most severe flooding began.
Benedict Miceli, Boston, MA, USA

The first thing that should have been done, prior to any food, water or medical aid being delivered should have been to place National Guard troops on alert and deployed to the region to maintain security and to assist local police officers. This is standard practice in other areas of the world where US troops are currently deployed. You send in troops to secure the region. I am no military analyst or expert and even I know that.
Curtis Johnson, Fort Worth Texas, USA


The roles seem reversed for them now
Jenn, LA
I am a deployed soldier and I would like to bring to your attention the soldiers in Iraq. There is a whole Battalion deployed in Iraq from Jackson Barracks, New Orleans. The roles seem reversed for them now. Just as parents had to watch the news to learn of their sons whereabouts, these 1-141 Field Artillery soldiers are doing the same with their families and homes. Some have spoken with family and friends, while others have not heard from anyone and do not know what or who he will be coming home to. Within days of preparing to come home, disaster hits and wipes out the single place these guys have been dreaming of returning to the past year. I am writing to ask that as chaos grows in the South, people still remember to pray for the soldiers coming home from Iraq. Some coming home to no-one and nothing. Thank you for your time. From a caring soldier who see the pain everyday in 1-141 soldiers' eyes.
Jenn, LA

I happen to know something about American disaster preparedness and emergency response. In New Orleans, the federal government has done exactly what it is supposed to do as have the other American States. This is the procedure we follow several times every year in hurricane-prone areas like Florida, earthquake prone areas like California, and tornado-prone areas across the Central Plains and South. The first responsibility for emergency response lays with the State, in this case Louisiana, and especially its political subdivision, the City of New Orleans.
Arthur, Kansas USA

The refugees have arrived here in Dallas. We went to the convention centre to help set up yesterday and will be going again today. It is simply unimaginable. People have lost everything, they are desperate, helpless and in need of medical care, clothes and blankets when they come through the door. The stories from the New Orleans convention centre and dome are inconceivable.
A. Fairhurst, Dallas, TX (orig Newcastle, UK)

This disaster in New Orleans is a result of the erosion of the infrastructure over the past few years and tax cuts for the wealthy. FEMA, the agency in charge of disaster relief used to be a federal agency but has now been privatised. Efforts to downsize government are happening at all levels. Contracting out these jobs to the private sector obviously does not work. Also, while the Governor of Louisiana and Mayor of New Orleans pleaded for help, our president went to San Diego for a political fundraiser and to play golf a day after the hurricane. His priorities are obviously misplaced.
JoAnne, Minneapolis, USA


The obvious lack of proper planning and coordination is simply unbelievable
Hermann Meysel, Vienna, Austria
None of us in Europe should point fingers at the US, because we were spared by nature from disasters of this magnitude. Nevertheless, when this is all over, Americans should seriously ask themselves how they evaluate the competence of their leaders; city, state and federal. The obvious lack of proper planning and coordination is simply unbelievable. Americans should think very hard about that when they go to the ballot box next time.
Hermann Meysel, Vienna, Austria

In times of disaster and desperation, it is the ability of those involved to pull together that defines the outcomes for the survivors. There has been a clear failure in New Orleans at all levels of American society. While those in positions of authority must be called to account for their failures over the coming days, there is also a need for America as whole to try to understand what the collective failure illustrates about the American way of life.
J. Palmer, Warminster, UK

About the only politician who I'm not ashamed of is Mayor Nagin - he's the only voice those poor stranded people have right now, and at least he's got the humanity to scream about it as loud as he can. This is all so appalling. Never mind that we knew it was coming, what we've (not) done about the aftermath astounds me.
K. Grothoff, Los Angeles, CA


I hope that America will now wake up to the fact that global warming does exist
Suzanne B, Herts, UK
I hope that America will now wake up to the fact that global warming does exist and that action needs to be taken now to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. If the world's biggest polluter had taken the issue of global warming seriously perhaps we would not be witnessing this appalling catastrophe.
Suzanne B, Herts, UK

It is for once not fair to blame Bush for this. It is the direct responsibility of the mayors and governors of the affected areas who should have ensured a proper response. They knew what was coming and didn't do their jobs properly. I have every bit of sympathy for those affected but don't go slinging accusations unfairly.
Charlie, Reading, UK

It's disgraceful; the lack of proper and prompt response New Orleans has received. All I see people standing around, with a select few actually helping out. The looters aren't helping, either, but from what I've seen it's Louisiana Governor that's to blame. She doesn't seem to really grasp what's going on, or know what to do. They need to get up, find someone who can handle this, and GET THINGS DONE. I'm appalled at this lack of response from our leadership.
Justin N., Madison, USA

Reading about the looting, raping and general anarchy I can't help but wonder how different things might have been were guns not such a staple of life in the USA.
Sam Brown, UK


We are the laughing joke of the world
Mirta Estrada, Miami USA
This is an atrocity which the people of the USA can not comprehend. This administration has done nothing except talk, talk, talk. NO ACTION. People are dropping dead. We are the laughing joke of the world. I wonder what would have been the response if the majority of the refugees were white?
Mirta Estrada, Miami USA

We would like to adopt a family and bring them to another city or state , how can we do this and what do you recommend the best way to handle this.
Shanetta Taylor, Lancaster, CA

Most of the big powers have offered help. But I don't think Bush accepted it yet. Yes the relief effort is a national disgrace!
Ursula Foster, Gretna, VA, USA

Tim, USA is about the only one saying what is reality. And, what he didn't mention was that these people were warned. Stocking up on water and food and leaving wasn't impossible. There were even buses in New Orleans before the storm for people to evacuate on. Last year, I was without power for two weeks altogether from two hurricanes. I wasn't across the street at the gas station looting it and neither were my neighbours. If this storm had come to my city, there would be nothing but a beach littered with debris, and we know it. When you live below sea level, you have to expect the worst. At least I still had a home. What about the destroyed communities other than New Orleans. You don't hear much about them.
Patty, cocoa beach, FL , US


Water should have been dropped immediately
Patricia Holt, London, England
They are the most powerful nation in the world. They had advanced warning of a possible catastrophe. Yet four days on the best Bush can say is that 'food and water are surging towards the area'. It is an absolute disgrace. Water should have been dropped immediately. If planes can be sent to Iraq, surely they could be sent a couple of States! The governing forces in America should be ashamed.
Patricia Holt, London, England

How much is enough? We are having food-collection drives in Austin today, to send supplies to the refugees in the Houston Astrodome. Our family is donating, of course, but these immediate supplies will only scratch the surface of what these people (and others to come) will need. Many of these people will not be able to return to their former homes. It is too bad that New Orleans levee improvements planned in 1998 were never implemented, and that no effective means of evacuating the most vulnerable citizens of New Orleans were established. This is a tragedy whose effects will be felt for generations. And it is not over yet. Governmental help at this point has been very inadequate.
M. Pickens, Austin Texas USA

It is odd that Taiwan had just withstood a Typhoon of comparable magnitude and a cool stoic response was projected by it's inhabitants, why can't the Americans do the same, one wonders what the US response would be if a genuine Tsunami was to hit one of it's coastal regions? Pandemonium I suspect.
Gary Chin, Essex England

Seeing the news footage and reading the reports in the press has left me astounded, firstly at the arrogance of the American government to assume the worst would never happen, an therefore not preparing for the aftermath properly or quickly enough! Secondly, I just can't believe that armed gangs are roaming the streets looting and shooting people plus the fact that in queues for food and water the sick and elderly are being bullied out of the way. I can only hope that if a similar situation occurred in this country the people and the government would act differently!
James Harvey, St. Albans


They were warned about this situation in 2001, they should have had a clear plan
Pete, Leeds, UK
It has always been known that New Orleans could be wiped off the map by a major Hurricane. The authorities saw it coming, had days to prepare. It's all very well criticising the near impossible situation now, but the Bush Administration is full of people for whom power and image are the only concern, not even their own people. They were warned about this situation in 2001, they should have had a clear plan and they didn't - what's more, their post hurricane operation has been a complete mess. They have committed a dereliction of duty by failing to plan to save lives and they should be condemned and tried as such. Unlike 9/11, this was a disaster which could have been minimised with a total evacuation, or a clear back up plan.
Pete, Leeds, UK

Of course not enough has been done. The administration doesn't even acknowledge the global warming problem, let alone set to do anything about it. So here's Nature's slap in the face. Will it be enough when this happens to every coastal city?
C, US

I would like to commend the US Coast Guard. They have been doing a good job trying to rescue as many people as they can. Of course once they do, none of the leaders involved have been doing much to help the starving and dehydrated.
Carlson, USA

I copied this from one of your reports on your website. Is this the most fatuous statement ever made?: Fema head Michael D Brown has defended the federal response, saying that his agency had prepared for the storm, but that the widespread flooding had hampered the operation.
Roger Bell, Burscough, England


I wish Washington could react promptly to save the helpless in New Orleans
Loenel Muchano, Maputo/Mozambique
Any emergency operation can never be regarded enough as long as tens of thousands of people keep on crying acrimoniously for aid. When my country (Mozambique) as hit by the overwhelming floods in the past year 2000, the response of the neighbouring countries, including the US was extremely surprising so I wish Washington could react promptly to save the helpless in New Orleans.
Loenel Muchano, Maputo/Mozambique

I find it outrageous that the Red Cross and other relief agencies are asking for donations to help with the relief. The USA is one of the richest countries in the world, who are capable of spending vast sums of money sending soldiers to invade other people's countries, but who cannot deal effectively with a disaster in their own country.
Christine Mitchell, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire

Imagine if this had happened a month before the US elections. Mr Bush will be holding water bottles, hugging babies, shaking hands with any one who is eligible to vote. Instead what has he done so far? He brings in his dad and camera click happy Bill Clinton for a damage limitation photoshoot and fund raising. It's rather strange that for most American politicians, first thing they can think of is fund raising. We have serious problems with our democratic institutions in the west. Virtues of service and sacrifice are long gone. All the right minded people in the world have to come together to better our democratic institutions. Unless that happens, unfortunately, the poor and the weak will suffer. If anyone is starting a movement, count me in.
Reddy, London


Normal everyday people need help, let's pull our fingers out
Ben, Manchester, England
Now's not the time to be pointing fingers - it doesn't matter where you're from, this is beyond political frontiers. Normal everyday people need help, let's pull our fingers out.
Ben, Manchester, England

While it is true that the response is slow, most people do nothing about it. They merely stare at the television in awe. As a resident of Houston, we have taken in a family who has lost everything. However, people must truly ask whether or not America will learn its lesson. I say we ought to look at ourselves as a nation and be ashamed for not doing more. This problem is ours first and foremost. Yet for all the power America has, it inhabitants continue to be onlookers at the tragedy at hand. There would be no homeless refugees if everyone took someone into their home.
JH, Houston, Texas, USA

This event has laid bare the sickening underbelly of our government and society. Suburban Americans watch complacently from their homes as the poor, mostly black, victims of Hurricane Katrina suffer, and the government does nothing. Forty percent of the troops in Iraq are National Guard, yet there is no one to keep the streets of New Orleans safe, and provide those in need with supplies. Our leader has forsaken his own people; we must remember this in November.
Bri Trottier, St. Augustine, FL

I'm watching the President being briefed at the hurricane site as I write. The politicians are all saying how hard they have tried. They are all in crisp shirts, no one looking dazed or unwashed or really anything but rolled-up your sleeves working. Even the President has his sleeves rolled up, with a few military. No wonder he is so angry with the response. Maybe the rest of the world will finally stop expecting so much from the US?
Rdepontb, Maryland, USA

Help! Send prayers! No words can describe this, just please, please send us prayers.
Heather McCurdy, Houston, TX

We were told the tsunami could never affect a developed western country because of the early warning systems we have in place. Where is the preparation and planning we were promised?
Andrew Brown, New York, USA


ears ago other kinds of protective buildings should have been constructed
Gary R. Cook, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
One million homeless, and the US government was not only derelict in its duty to plan & pay for preparations, they were not even prepared, by bringing train sleeper cars, ships and cargo to standby in the Gulf, or in areas unaffected by the path of the storm. Years ago other kinds of protective buildings should have been constructed, that would provide protection, not these 200 year old homes of rotting wood.
Gary R. Cook, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

Once again the press is failing to report any progress or any positive developments. Yes, there is a lot of suffering and desperation but there is also a lot of aid and comfort being delivered and more is on the way. When they start shooting at the rescuers and hospitals then things slow way down.
Todd, Virginia, USA

To the folks who are asking "where is the International Community and the UN?" - Please note: the US Government has categorically rejected offers of aid at this time so instead of blaming others who are willing, ready and able to help, perhaps you should ask your administration, Why ?
M Da Silva, Toronto, Canada

To the gentleman who thinks we Americans are getting "on with our lives" with what is going on in the southland. This is not the case. We hurt, we are giving money, time, goods, and we are volunteering to help with the rescue efforts. How dare you comment on something you seem to understand little about. Hurricanes are MASSIVE and damage large areas. It is and will be a difficult and long task But we will get it done. We have before and we will now.
Anon, Charleston, SC

Am I missing something here, I thought the USA was one of the richest countries in the world? What an earth is going on and why hasn't more been done? SHAME on you Mr Bush.
Jane,


The situation cries out for leadership
John Muller, DuPage County, Illinois, USA
The situation cries out for leadership at the federal, state, county and municipal levels that is swift, decisive, inspirational, fully engaged, sustained, highly visible, and, above all, highly effective? Willing and capable of mobilizing the vast resources of the nation and bringing them to bear on the affected areas swiftly. There is little evidence of that, so far.
John Muller, DuPage County, Illinois, USA

Someone asked 'where is the UN?, where are the other countries with help?'. Well, the answer is that George Bush has declared 'we don't need any help', this is just a set-back'. He obviously has no clue, or maybe just indifference, to the pain and suffering going on in New Orleans. It has taken him five days before he decided to visit the area. The troops are late getting to the area. Absolutely disgraceful! Excuses can be made, but the facts speak for themselves. Say what you like about Clinton, but he would have reacted promptly, and had the appropriate responses. I guess when you elect an incompetent, you get what you deserve!
Mel, Raleigh, NC

The events unfolding in New Orleans are tragic. I hope everyone here in Britain reading this will think about giving some money to help out the US Red Cross as the people affected are some of the poorest in the US. I know I will be giving some tonight.
AD, England

I noticed on a news article that some Asian-Pacific nations are sending aid. I just wanted to say "Thank You".
Joe, USA

I'm sorry, but the authorities of New Orleans and Louisiana should have had a worst-case situation like this well rehearsed. Hurricanes happen in that region every year. It was only a matter of time before a category 5/4 hurricane made a direct hit on New Orleans. Sure, always hope for the best - but prepare for the worst!
M Parker, London, UK

The response to this disaster has been so inept, it would shame a Third World banana republic. It is indeed a national disgrace and it proves conclusively, if proof were needed, that George W. Bush is not up to the job of leading what is the greatest nation on Earth.
Roy, London, UK

An article in a Canadian newspaper today says Prime Minister Paul Martin offered George Bush any help they required, for as long as they required. George told him they didn't need Canada's help right now. Wake up George! You're not helping your people. Let someone else help that wants to do so. You should have been preparing for this tragedy last weekend when you knew a category 4 or 5 hurricane was headed for New Orleans, instead of two or three days after the fact. You criticise other countries for treating their people better than you are currently treating your own.
Karen Elms, Toronto, Canada


It is total disaster and helplessness!
Hussein Kasim, Minneapolis, USA
What is happening in the gulf coast of the wealthiest nation on the earth cannot be comprehended by watching TV or listening to radio reports. It is total disaster and helplessness!
Hussein Kasim, Minneapolis, USA

This will do more damage to America's reputation than the Iraq debacle. If they can't rescue their own people in their own country why should the rest of the world believe they can be relied on to do anything?
David, Worthing UK

Prayers and assistance are needed, please.
Don Munro, NY, USA

I can only say that I feel for these people. FEMA rounds them up into football stadiums and refuses to let them go. Old women starving and dehydrating every minute they stay. Yet the more important thing is whether some thugs are stealing some televisions at a Wal-Mart. It is very clear that more could be done and yet they don't. Is there motivation behind this lack of effort on our government? I ask all of you to decide
Jon, Belleville, Illinois, U.S.A

No country will ever be prepared for a disaster of this magnitude. Not even a super power-rich nation like the U.S. (as we have witnessed it). A wise leader would ask for other country's help, just like leaders in the tsunami affected area did. The American people, as poor as they are, are not used to live without electricity, drinking water like the displaced people in the tsunami affected area. I can't imagine what they've gone through.
Sita Supomo, Nottingham, UK

Shame on the Bush administration for putting pride above the lives of Americans. Paul Martin has offered the help of the Canadian army yet Bush has not responded. Would it hurt his ego to accept help from an army that is available because it did not join his little war in the Middle East? Or is it because the majority of the victims there are poor and black? What is he waiting for?
Kelly, Victoria, Canada


Where are the food and water supplies?
P Malyon, Essex Great Britain
I can't believe what I'm seeing what a mess. Why can't they give people water even if they have to drop it from the sky. They know there are hundreds of people at the dome, where they were told they would be safe. Where are the food and water supplies? I felt sick when Bush gave a news conference talking about gas when so many people are starving.
P Malyon, Essex Great Britain

It's very easy to say in hindsight the "more" should have been done - just as with the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps we should ask those critics if they evidence the same level of preparedness and foresight in their own lives that they are demanding of others. Many of the loudest critics refused to comply with the evacuation warnings, yet they demand that others be prepared to instantly take care of them. Having said that, people in Oklahoma are responding in such a large manner that more goods are being donated than can possibly be delivered. Ordinary people are opening homes and pocketbooks to sacrificially help those in need. Unfortunately the TV news shows those crying for "more" instead of those crying tears of thanks. There are actually more of the latter than the former.
David Smith, Oklahoma City, USA

Yes, the area affected is a huge. However, there are things that could have been done immediately after the storm. Why were leaflets not dropped giving info, blimps flying over cities giving info, or, for that matter, buses available BEFORE the storm? The emergency response has been disgraceful.
Carrie, Houston, Texas

I find it a little odd that refugees are being driven out by bus, and that it takes two-and-a-half days to get 30,000 bottles of water to New Orleans. What happened to the airports and military airfields? I doubt they are all out of commission. If the military planes are tied up, I'm sure the government has contingencies to commandeer commercial aircraft. In all I believe the reaction could have being faster on all counts but only if adequate preparations were made earlier which they were not.
Tayo Ajayi, Los Angeles, CA


Shortly after the hurricane moved away on August 30, some residents of New Orleans who remained in the city began looting stores, as did some Mississippi residents in their local stores and casinos. Many looters were in search of food and water that were not available to them through any other means.[59]

Reports of carjacking, murders, thefts, and rapes in New Orleans flooded the news. Several news media later determined that most reports were based on rumors.[60] Thousands of National Guard and federal troops were mobilized and sent to Louisiana along with numbers of local law enforcement agents from across the country who were temporarily deputized by the state. "They have M16s and are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will," Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco said. Congressman Bill Jefferson (D-LA) told ABC News: "There was shooting going on. There was sniping going on. Over the first week of September, law and order was gradually restored to the city."[61] Several shootings were between police and New Orleans residents, including the fatal incident at Danziger Bridge.[62]


Within the United States and as delineated in the National Response Plan, disaster response and planning is first and foremost a local government responsibility. When local government exhausts its resources, it then requests specific additional resources from the county level. The request process proceeds similarly from the county to the state to the federal government as additional resource needs are identified. Many of the problems that arose developed from inadequate planning and back-up communications systems at various levels.

Some disaster recovery response to Katrina began before the storm, with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) preparations that ranged from logistical supply deployments to a mortuary team with refrigerated trucks. A network of volunteers began rendering assistance to local residents and residents emerging from New Orleans and surrounding Parishes as soon as the storm made landfall, and has continued for more than six months after the storm.

Of the 60,000 people stranded in New Orleans, the Coast Guard rescued over 33,500.[66] Congress recognized the Coast Guard's response with an official entry in the Congressional Record,[67] and the Armed Service was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation.[68]

The United States Northern Command established Joint Task Force (JTF) Katrina based out of Camp Shelby, Mississippi, to act as the military's on-scene command on Sunday, August 28.[69] Approximately 58,000 National Guard personnel were activated to deal with the storm's aftermath, with troops coming from all 50 states.[70] The Department of Defense also activated volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol.

Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, decided to take over the federal, state, and local operations officially on August 30, 2005, citing the National Response Plan.[71] Early in September, Congress authorized a total of $62.3 billion in aid for victims.[72] Additionally, President Bush enlisted the help of former presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush to raise additional voluntary contributions, much as they did after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami.[73]

FEMA provided housing assistance (rental assistance, trailers, etc.) to over 700,000 applicants - families and individuals. However, only one-fifth of the trailers requested in Orleans Parish have been supplied resulting in an enormous housing shortage in the city of New Orleans.[74] To provide for additional housing, FEMA has also paid for the hotel costs of 12,000 individuals and families displaced by Katrina through February 7, 2006, when a final deadline was set for the end of hotel cost coverage. After this deadline, evacuees were still eligible to receive federal assistance, which could be used towards either apartment rent, additional hotel stays, or fixing their ruined homes, although FEMA no longer paid for hotels directly.[75] As of early July 2006, there are still about 100,000 people living in 37,745 FEMA-provided trailers.[76]

Law enforcement and public safety agencies, from across the United States, provided a "mutual aid" response to Louisiana and New Orleans in the weeks following the disaster. Many agencies responded with manpower and equipment from as far away as California, Michigan, Nevada, New York, and Texas. This response was welcomed by local Louisiana authorities as their staff were either becoming fatigued, stretched too thin, or even quitting from the job.[77]
USNS Comfort takes on supplies at Mayport, Florida en route to the Gulf Coast.
Enlarge
USNS Comfort takes on supplies at Mayport, Florida en route to the Gulf Coast.

Two weeks after the storm, over half of the states were involved in providing shelter for evacuees. By four weeks after the storm, evacuees had been registered in all 50 states and in 18,700 zip codes - half of the nation's residential postal zones. Most evacuees had stayed within 250 miles (400 km), but 240,000 households went to Houston and other cities over 250 miles away and another 60,000 households went over 750 miles (1,200 km) away.[78]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4207856.stm

The government has already collapsed. There's your proof, it happened, read the quotes, read the responses from Americans, and call them paranoid if you want to, but this really happened.
 
wow...that huge block of text was like dynamite in the face.
segal-vs-sealssmaller.gif
 
Last edited:
Finland and guns: A relevant case.

wikipedia said:
Although Fins have third most firearms in the world per capita (right after United States and Yemen), totalling over 2 million registered privately owned firearms.

There are only 5.2 million Fins. So 2 million firearms is quite a lot.


wikipedia said:
Guns and other weapons are tightly regulated. One must separately apply for a gun license, which cannot be given for "security reasons". Membership of a shooting or hunting club, or owning hunting lands is required. Even other weapons, such as pepper sprays, are regulated. Carrying weapons, including guns and knives, in public is not allowed.

wikipedia said:
gun related homicides are rare consisting only 14 percent of the total number of homicides.

wikipedia said:
Most victims and offenders are aged 40-49. A bit over quarter of victims and one out of ten offenders are women. In almost all cases where woman is the offender the victim is husband or other family member. In male offender cases 23 percent of the victims were strangers. Less than 20 percent of the crimes are made outdoors. Half of the crimes involves men of marginalized group (unemployed, under educated, drug and alcohol problems) in heavy drinking situations where they end up in quarrel and stab or club each other to death.

This is so typical finnish. Alcohol abuse is the king here.


wikipedia said:
One third of the homicides happens between family members, and then again lenghtened alcohol problems and low social status are a major catalyst in these situations. 60 percent of the male and 30 percent of the female homicide offenders have been arrested for drunken driving at least once.

Firearms are used in 14% of the cases. Street shootings and gang violence are mostly unknown. A few cases involving motorcycle gangs have occurred in recent years; they make national news.

Is there a large police force to keep all those gun owners in check?

wikipedia said:
Finland has only 147 police officers per 100,000 people. The United States has 243 per 100,000 and Germany has 290. In 2004, police officers accounted for 7718 of the total police personnel.

No.

Regulation:
wikipedia said:
Firearms can only be obtained with an aquisition license, which can be applied for at the local police for €32. A separate license is required for each individual firearm and family members can have parallel licenses to use the same firearm. According to law, the firearms must be stored in a locked space or otherwise locked, or with vital parts removed and separated. Even then the weapon or any of its separated parts must not be easily stolen. If an especially dangerous firearm or more than 5 pistols, revolvers or self-loading rifles or other-type firearms are being stored, they must be stored in a certified gun safe or in a secure space inspected and approved by the local police authority.

How can you get a licence?
To obtain a firearms license, an individual must declare a valid reason to own a gun. Acceptable reasons include: hunting, sports or hobby, profession related, show or promotion or exhibition, collection or museum, souvenir, and signalling. Collectors can have licenses for firearms not permitted to be owned by non-collectors (e.g. pocket guns or select fire weapons). This is usually shown by a collectors long history of gun ownership, but ultimately the issuing of licenses is at the local police's discretion. Conversely, a license for a pistol or a rifle is relatively easy to obtain, requiring only an (often nominal) membership to a marksmanship association, although the police usually require that the first gun is suitable for a beginner.

Note that self-defense is not valid reason to obtain a firearms licence.

How to get rid of unlicenced guns?
The total number of illegal firearms is impossible to know, according to some estimates, there may be as few as 50 000 or as many as 500 000.

Thanks to changes to the legislation, illegal firearms may now be handed over to the police without punishment for illegal possession of a firearm, provided that the owner of the firearm does it of his own initiative. The firearm is then stored while the owner applies for a permit. If he chooses not to, it will be auctioned, or destroyed if it is deemed dangerous to use due to its condition. Historically valuable weapons are sometimes handed over to museums. This practice is called "mercy year", as it originally started as a one-year experiment, which was very successful. Thousands of illegal firearms and several tons of explosives and ammunition are collected each year. Many, if not most of these items are old "souvenirs" dating back to World War II or even Finnish Civil War.

Security against tyranny and invasion arguments
Finland:
Many active military reservists personally possess pistols, target rifles, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles for practice shooting. This has been passively supported by the government, as it gives the reservists the possibility of practice shooting without the requirement of government spending.

Their actual service weapons are stored by the Finnish Defence Forces, and are only given to them in reservist re-training exercises or during mobilization. At present, a strong political consensus exists that military weapons must not be stored by individuals, even if they are reservists in first-line, quick response units.
Finland is one of the few nations in the world who had to fight for their independence against superpowers, notably the Soviet Union. One would think that a country who has been under the threat of Sweden (for americans: Sweden used to be a superpower) and Russia throughout its history you would think they actually would be paranoid about being invaded. Especially since it has happened so many times in the past.

However, no, they are not. Weapons are not allowed for defense purposes. The proper weapons of the army are stored by the army. There is merely a stimulus to train for the reservists.
The general public is certainly not allowed guns for defense purposes.

There is a lesson to be learned here, and much unwillingness of gun-owning americans to do so.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to make another point.

Guns are not owned to protect against invasion, or for any political purpose, as anyone with a brain knows that people with guns in 2006, will not be invaded with guns. It's not how it works.

If you are going to be invaded, it won't be with anything you can defend against with mere guns. Guns are what people use or used to balanced the criminals out, thats all. The police have guns, but no one expects the police to defend against an invasion, so it's really simple, theres nothing a citizen can do about invasions or tyranny in 2006, as these thnigs don't happen with guns anymore so guns would not really be any defense for invasions, war, or tyranny.

Guns are a defense against crime, and against robbery, thats it. If tanks are rolling down the street, you can just give it up, anything you own is now owned by whoever is riding in the tank. Technology is so high at this point that no gun owner owns a gun for anything more than self defense, or hunting, as these are the only two reasons to own a gun. A gun is personal security, thats all, and it's cheaper to own a gun than to hire a body guard. Either way, someone has to own a gun, so either people will pay others off to own their guns, or they will own them, but someone will always have guns, it's impossible to have a gun free world. Also, there is no evidence that a gun free world would be better.

Native Americans had no guns. Africans had no guns, It seems every society that had no guns, has been dominated out of existance. America had guns and basically took over the planet, so maybe thats why Americans are now obsessed with guns.

I think a lot of people just fear guns. I understand why people can fear guns, but chances are, if you are going to die, it's not going to be by a gun, and there are a lot of ways to die that are worse than dying by a gun anyway. So I don't see why people worry more about guns than any of the other more painful, slow ways of dying. So yeah, guns are dangerous, but people are more dangerous than guns, and if you want to fear anything, never fear the weapon, always fear the person wielding it. If you want to fear paranoid people thats fine, they fear you even more than you fear them.
 
Gun control in Finland only works for the same reason why socialism does: it's a small country. And those two things go hand-in-hand with another as well as to keeping your crime rates low due to less poverty. Poverty-stricken areas are where the majority of crimes happen in the first place.

With a small country, you can control the entire mentality of the country quite easily. We have cities which have a higher population than your whole country. And guess what? Most of those cities have a TOTAL gun ban! You can't get any more strict with gun control than a total ban, yet violent crimes happen there at an alarming rate and gun crimes still remain even though guns are completely banned. Please explain that one to me.

Laws are just that; laws. Laws don't stop people from committing an illegal act but rather only means they'll get punished afterwards if caught. A gun ban does no good if criminals choose not to follow it and that's why they're called criminals in the first place.

As I mentioned, there are cities with a higher population than your whole country where guns are banned yet those crimes still exist. There are also cities with almost as high populations that have less gun crimes even though guns are legal. It's the mentality of the people that is the problem, not the tool such as guns and getting rid of guns doesn't do anything to address that problem of the mentality of the general people in those cities.

So it works in your country and it also works in some of our cities, but most large cities don't despite having a total gun ban. And guess what? Most likely in the cities where there are less crimes yet guns are legal, they probably have a higher income and quality of life which would be similar to your socialism in that poverty is less frequent. That's what gets rid of crime. I wonder how New York would be if it all of a sudden became a socialist state because even though guns are banned there, that sure as heck isn't stopping em.

The biggest problem with how you all perceive Americans and gun-owners in general is that the statistics are flawed. You do realize that most of the crime in our country occurs in the same few areas? New York itself accounts for 25% of the crime in the U.S. New Jesery which is right next door is another horrible place with a high amount of crime. Imagine taking those two areas out of U.S. statistics and our "carelessness" and "violent nature" won't seem so bad. And let's not forget, those places have guns banned yet crime is ungodly and also gun crimes still happen -- an important fact you all still continue to ignore. Those hellholes do not represent the United States as a whole and only serve to paint us in a bad light.

- N
 
I heard the size excuse for every imaginable thing that is wrong with the USA and franky I am fed up with it.

Split up your country if size prevents you from building a humane society. See if it makes any difference. It will not.
 
According to law, the firearms must be stored in a locked space or otherwise locked, or with vital parts removed and separated. Even then the weapon or any of its separated parts must not be easily stolen. If an especially dangerous firearm or more than 5 pistols, revolvers or self-loading rifles or other-type firearms are being stored, they must be stored in a certified gun safe or in a secure space inspected and approved by the local police authority.

That law means nothing if it is not enforced. Do the police go door-to-door to check up on people to make sure their firearms are stored that way? If not, it means nothing. We already have laws like that where in numerous states, it has to be stored in a safe, ammo stored separately, and also have a trigger lock. However, as I said, that means nothing if people aren't there to check and make sure people do that. That's the major reason for accidental firearm deaths where a kid is involved or a kid shoots people at school and whatnot.

To obtain a firearms license, an individual must declare a valid reason to own a gun. Acceptable reasons include: hunting, sports or hobby, profession related, show or promotion or exhibition, collection or museum, souvenir, and signalling.

Note that self-defense is not valid reason to obtain a firearms licence.

Again, that means nothing either. All you have to say is that you want to own a firearm to have as a souvenir or hobby. It means nothing if it's not enforced. Do the police regulary check to see if you have a hunting license or attend hobby shooting competitions? If not then it's just like most laws; meaningless if not enforced and thoroughly checked up upon.

How to get rid of unlicenced guns?

Thanks to changes to the legislation, illegal firearms may now be handed over to the police without punishment for illegal possession of a firearm, provided that the owner of the firearm does it of his own initiative.

Thousands of illegal firearms and several tons of explosives and ammunition are collected each year.

Again, people aren't forced to have to get rid of their unlicensed guns. It's not enforced and people only do it on their own free will. We already have a system like that in the U.S. Heck, we even pay $100 per gun that is given to us to be destroyed. Most people, including your Fins, would value their gun more than $100 or in your case, giving it up for free. Only fools would give up something like that or if they somehow felt they were about to be caught with their unlicensed gun.

Weapons are not allowed for defense purposes.

No they're not. All you have to do is just not say you want to own your gun for defensive purposes and you can still own one for defensive purposes. Are you really that naive? There's a reason why you still have 14% of your homicides resulting in the use of a firearm. And even though you cannot own a firearm for defensive purposes, I'm sure that means they'll get thrown in jail when they do defend themself in that situation. What sort of prison time would that person serve for doing so? Whatever it is, I'm sure it's well-worth it for being able to remain alive and later released. That's the reason why many people illegally carry a firearm without a CCW permit here because being caught in the act of defending yourself with an illegal firearm is worth the risk.

- N
 
I heard the size excuse for every imaginable thing that is wrong with the USA and franky I am fed up with it.

Why? It's the truth.

If California were able to break off from the United States, we'd all be living like kings with our economy ranking 10th in the entire world and I highly doubt there'd be much crime since everyone would be rich. Crime happens where poverty is.

However, thanks to the U.S. being so large, we have to give our hard-earned state wealth to other poorer states which lowers our quality of life which in turn increases our poverty which means more crime. Socialism works in smaller countries because you're able to more easily maintain and share that wealth which is why you have less crime and your citizens have a better mindset from that.

- N
 
Yeah, I guess that's why every economist agrees with what I say. It doesn't work for large societies. And since large societies aren't socialists, it means they have more poor people. Everyone except for you agree that poverty is the main cause of crime.

Again, please explain to me how a place that has guns completely banned has such a high crime rate and also a high amount of gun crimes when they're banned? Your strict Finnish gun control laws do not compare when they're COMPLETELY BANNED.

- N
 
Yeah, I guess that's why every economist agrees with what I say. It doesn't work for large societies. And since large societies aren't socialists, it means they have more poor people. Everyone except for you agree that poverty is the main cause of crime.

Source?
 
Back
Top