RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] I think N.O. is headed for martial law...

["Brent Deterding" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMAIL:PROTECTED 
> [mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Miller
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 4:28 PM
> To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion
> Subject: RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] I think N.O. is headed for 
> martial law...
> 
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Brent Deterding wrote:
> 
> > If you're shooting at a rescue boat/helicopter/person then I've no 
> > problem stopping you from doing so by shooting you. If I could 
> > realistically stop you in some other fashion I certainly would.
> 
> So you'd see someone shoot at a helicopter, then you'd shoot 
> that person. 
> Then one of his stunned family would do everything he could 
> to kill you, 
> then your friends would try to kill him, and so on.  That 
> would be great. 
> Or maybe you think it would be like on TV where you would be 
> the hero and 
> when you shot the bad guy that would be the end of the movie.
> 

Not at all - I don't want to ever aim a gun at anyone and pull the trigger. But
in the case of martial law (whether official or not that seems to be the
situation) firing at wounded people being evacuated and rescue personnel needs
to be stopped - even to the point of killing that person. If I were the
implementation of that then I would do so. In that situation order and the
ability of help to help must be preserved. 

I have to think that had that been the case from the get-go (looters and those
firing on rescuers are shot on sight) that we would still be evacuating people
and fewer would die. Don't you think?

> 
> > There is no doubt that frightened idiots are a very bad 
> thing, and that 
> > those frightened idiots with guns is an ever worse thing. It's the 
> > people I have the problem with, not the guns.
> 
> So you believe in selling guns only to people who can prove 
> that they are 
> fearless geniuses?  What kind of test of fearlessness do you propose?
> 

I'm not promoting any type of restriction regarding fearlessness or idiocy or
anything else. I don't feel the need to take cars away from everyone because
some drive drunk, nor the need to take guns away because some use them stupidly
to fire at rescue helicopters. I'm simply saying that the idiot behind the
trigger or the wheel is the problem - not the presence of guns. The idiot with
the gun certainly poses more of a threat than without, just as a drunk with a
car poses much more danger than a drunk without. I'd personally be scared
shitless in the same scenario - but I feel confident that I would not go sniping
at evacuees and rescue personnel. I wouldn't risk shooting the people trying to
save my ass.

> 
> > I also am scared of drunk idiots in cars, or medicated idiots using 
> > heavy machinery, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> And we have laws against drunk driving and probably against using 
> medication when operating machinery, but I don't think we have a law 
> against selling a gun to a "frightened idiot."

Mike - use the same logic here - I said nothing of restricting gun ownership. We
have plenty of laws against frightened idiots shooting at Police helicopters.
Just as we have laws against drunk driving and medicated machinery operators.

> 
> 
> > Actually - I have a distinct problem with stupidity in general. I'm 
> > ignorant of a great many things; but I like to think I'm not stupid.
> >
> > I suppose there are enough angles I'm ignorant of to state 
> that anyone 
> > still there is stupid; but it certainly seems that way from 
> my chair.
> 
> Some of them are sick, old 400 lb ladies.  Some others had no 
> good way to 
> get out of town.  That doesn't mean they aren't stupid, but 
> many of them 
> have reasons for being there.
> 
> Mike
> 

I don't think either of us can say how many actually could have gotten out
safely a long time ago. It is my opinion that number is very very very small. In
those cases those watching out for them are absolute idiots to shoot at the
rescue personnel trying to help them. So perhaps we have a situation of 99%
stupidity and 1% sick, elderly, immobile, or ignored. Truly, if some elderly,
sick, or immobile person was pleading for evacuation help for days and they
received no help then we (being all people) let that person down. I certainly
feel horrible about that possibility - but believe the best efforts to rescue
anyone who needed rescued was turned away by damn idiots. In this case I believe
the solution of people shooting at rescuers is to stop those people from doing
so - and if that means they die then I'm OK with that. At that point they are
really more enemy combatants than victims. 

-- Brent




_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion