Text 12532, 159 rader
Skriven 2005-09-22 11:56:03 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 12452 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
Ärende: Cell phone cost
=======================
 MvdV>>>> Why were they shooting in the first place?

 >>> Apparently to protect their personal property from looters.

 MvdV>> They mistook people in US army iniforms for looters? Yeah right...

 > Ummm, Army, Police...yes they did. Of course, they won't be
 > making that mistake again. The Army/police shot back and we're
 > less a few criminals now.

Now you got me confused. First you say the shooters were innocent people
protecting their houses against looters. Now you say they are criminals. What
is it?

 MvdV>>>> One report I heard is that looters lifted all the handguns
 MvdV>>>> from Sears.

 >>> Not very likely.

 MvdV>> Denial isn't a river in Egypt.

 > But it's your middle name. It is very unlikely that they found
 > any firearms at Sears, period.

So here you say Sears sell no fire arms. Noted.

 MvdV>> When was the last time you were in New Orlaens?

 > I don't have to be in NO to know what Sears' policy on firearms is.

Why do they have a policy on firearms if theuy do not sell any?

 > I have a Sears store right here in my own community.

Which as you claim does not sell firearms. One can not lock up what one does
not have.

 > If they lock the firearms up here, then they lock them up in NO.

I never claimed they were not locked up. The report said they were looted. No
mention about locking oir not locking.

 >>> But, before you open your mouth with erroneous information; The
 >>> Federal gun laws in the US require each and every Federally
 >>> Licensed Gun Dealer to lock up his firearm inventory before closing.

 MvdV>> And of course the looters respected the locks and made no attempt
 MvdV>> to forcibly enter....

 > If they wern't professional burglers, they know they'd never
 > break into a safe.

Who said anything about a safe?

 >>> I would assume that happened at every gun store in NO, before
 >>> anyone evacuated.

 MvdV>> ASS u me.

 > You can make an ass of yourself, but those gun store owners
 > wouldn't have.

In the panic of evacuation? Strange things happen in a panic siutuation.

 >>> The requirements for the safes that they are to be held in are
 >>> such that no oridinary person could open them.

 MvdV>> Under normal curcimstances.

 > Under any circumstances, they'd lock them up.

I was refererring to the "no ordinairy person could open them" part.

 > Don't forget, there were 3 days from the time they were told to
 > evacuate before the hurricane made landfall.

Many ignored the evacuation order.

 > Locking them up or loading them up, they'd be
 > reasonably safe from looters.

Not if there was no law enforcement around to stop them.

 MvdV>> That doesn't hold when you can take as much time as you need and
 MvdV>> and make as much noise as you want and no guard or policeman comes
 MvdV>> to disturb you because they all have left.

 > It holds when you can take your time to load or lock them up.

No, it does not. Any lock can be broken given enough time.

 > No rush, as Katrina was 3 or more days away.

 >>> It would take a professional burgler or safe
 >>> cracker to do so.

 MvdV>> To complete it before the police arrives to stop you. No factor is
 MvdV>> there is no police any more.

 > Factor in that they would have to be a professional, one who
 > knows how to crack a safe.

All it needs is time.

 > Frankly, if I were a licensed gun dealer, I'd take my
 > inventory with me when I left.

How? In an armoured truck? Where do you get one if one can noit even get
transport to get the people out?

 MvdV>>>> An armed society is a polite society? Didn't look that way...

 >>> It's true in Texas. Very friendly people here.

 MvdV>> The people in Belgium are friendly too. And they are not armed.

 > Too bad for them.

That is not how they see it.

 >>> Of course, the 'will issue concealed carry permits' law
 >>> didn't have anything to do with that. They were friendly
 >>> before that law was passed.

 MvdV>> So no causal relationship bewteen politeness and being armed.

 > If you're allowed to carry concealed, how would you make the
 > distinction?

If carrying concelaed is allowed one knows that the other *might* carry. (and
use it)

 >>> But, you don't see many altercations on the freeways
 >>> like I've seen in California,

 MvdV>> I have never ever seen a freeway altercation in my life. Of course
 MvdV>> I never was in the USA...

 > Or a freeway.

Wrong.

 >>> What we have in NO are people who havn't seen any LEOs for
 >>> quite a few days and who knows what they were thinking when
 >>> they shot at authoritys.

 MvdV>> Whatever the reasons, those pictures do not make a good impression
 MvdV>> on the rest off the world.

 > Why should they? Lawlessness is lawlessness in every civilized
 > country in the world.

It is the implicaiton of the presence of that level of lawlessness that makes
the bad impression.

Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.nodelist.org (2:280/5555)