Soldiers deployed in New Orleans

[Matt W]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5096924.stm

US soldiers are set to be redeployed on the streets of New Orleans to fight crime for the first time since the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
The Louisiana governor asked for the National Guard to return to New Orleans after a weekend that saw six people murdered in the city.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin had earlier called for 300 soldiers and some 60 state police to be sent to the city. Crime has risen in the city after a brief drop following Hurricane Katrina. The six deaths over the weekend raised the number of murders in New Orleans this year to 52, police said. That figure is less than half what it was a year ago - but the city's population is also only roughly half of what it was before Hurricane Katrina forced thousands from their homes last August. Police statistics show crime has risen in recent months.

Um. Can anyone say 'martial law'?? I really don't think this is a good thing.... :eek:

[Nono]

Quote by: Matt Can anyone say 'martial law'??

They abhor that expression.

I suggest that they first distribute firearms to all takers. If everybody could defend himself, there would be less crime.
Ain't that a fact?

[rmnunez]

Just a rehearsal for ambitious Bushian plans to maintain homeland security in the face of potential threats?

[PatrickHenry]

Murders in sweltering New Orleans. My, my, my. Better put soldiers on the streets. Either that or buy some air conditioners.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb98/global.html

research has shown that uncomfortably hot temperatures directly cause increases in aggressive and violent behavior, including violent crime.

[brien]

Quote by: Nono They abhor that expression. I suggest that they first distribute firearms to all takers. If everybody could defend himself, there would be less crime. Ain't that a fact?

Nono; Could it be you are confusing illegal firearms proliferation, and the lack of prosecution of firearms law(s) offenders with legally registered firearms?

One would think that since the people who run "Norlins", would have had that place in tip top shape by now. The same political party that claims to have all of the answers for crime, racial inequality, the homeless, and every other social problem under the Norlin's sun should have had all of these problems fixed by now. So what is the Mayor's problem today? Oh yeah, Katrina. What is the Governor's excuse today? Oh yeah, no money. Which way are the fingers pointing now?

I yi yi What a mess down there. :rolleyes:

The figures I saw. There were 17 homicides in the first three months of 06 and I think 39 in the last three months. Perhaps this is related to the return of the residents displaced by Katrina?

From Fox News:

New Orleans Police Superintendent Warren J. Riley said Monday he had asked in March to have troops sent in this summer, when the population is expected to jump because FEMA assistance to displaced hurricane refugees ends June 30.

Riley insisted his department is capable of controlling crime, and said the request for troops wasn't driven by the weekend crime spree.

"This is not a situation where anything is out of control," Riley said.

I say: Yeah right. :rolleyes:

[RickSp]

When things are going well, the New Orleans Police Department is a horror show - underpaid, corrupt, brutal. There was a major effort to fix things in the late 90s and early years of this century but Katrina and the events which followed seem to have undone all that was accomplished.

I am not overly surprised by Nagin's call for help and doubt there is a nefarious subtext involved.

[rmnunez]

I suggest that they first distribute firearms to all takers. If everybody could defend himself, there would be less crime. Ain't that a fact?

Not sure it is a fact, but we know those murders provoking calls for the military deployment were caused by folks adequately equipped. I suspect if they gave away lots of firearms the military wouldn't really be needed at all (except to come in and pick up the corpses after a sufficient lapse of time).

[brien]

Quote by: rmnunez Not sure it is a fact, but we know those murders provoking calls for the military deployment were caused by folks adequately equipped. I suspect if they gave away lots of firearms the military wouldn't really be needed at all (except to come in and pick up the corpses after a sufficient lapse of time).

Rmunez; Do you seriously think these hoodlums posses legal firearms? Nono's absurd statement is only exceeded by his tongue in cheek remarks.

The United States Justice Department needs to aggressively and fully prosecute any person that violates the firearms laws already on the books. Do that, and it will go a long way in curbing violent crime committed with illegal firearms.

Here is your link about illegal firearms used in gun related crimes.

http://www.rkba.org/research/bjs/guic.pdf

Here is a interview about the very topic Nono raises so sarcastically.

http://www.time.com/time/community/t...ttr070198.html

On Federalization of Gun Control

http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall02/healylevy.html

More interesting reading on Gun Control

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin047.pdf

But we don't want to hyjack this thread and we all know how each other stands on this most sensitive issue.

[rmnunez]

My plan is to take all the guns away from everyone except the police and the military, then, after a moratorium to monitor whether crimes with firearms drops, if not seen would issue the appropriate weapon to each licensee after they had been certified as trained in the use and proper precautions handling these weapons.

[greeneyedgirl]

Why should only the police and military have guns? All they would be doing is confiscating the guns of law abiding citizens. Criminals would still obtain guns on the black market, and knowing that people have no way to defend themselves, they would prey on society even more.

[rmnunez]

What black market, police and the military would take those guns too, basically possession would be outlawed.

[greeneyedgirl]

Yeah, like they confiscate and outlaw the drugs that are illegal too....

[rmnunez]

There are a lot less drugs available with them outlawed than would be the situation if these could be licensed like guns.

[Osborn F Enready]

Nunez, hasn't history proven your point wrong again, and again, and again, and again............................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .....................................................................................


Why yes, it has....

[Osborn F Enready]

This situation in New Orleans is ridiculous.

Soldiers are not policemen..........................

[rmnunez]

Soldiers might learn some valuable policing skills which wouldn't be such a bad idea given the critical lefty expectation they apply proper procedure in erradicating the enemy.

[greeneyedgirl]

Quote by: rmnunez There are a lot less drugs available with them outlawed than would be the situation if these could be licensed like guns.

So how does that explain the proliferation of prescription drug addicts walking around. Oxycotin, morphine, etc. are controlled substances, only available through a prescription, yet there are millions of people who do not have prescriptions abusing them.

Back to guns..as long as there is a demand, there will always be a gun trade whether guns are legal or not. And for that, I am thankful for.

[rmnunez]

Admittedly, outlawing things is not 100% effective in erradicating them, often they remain available, though usually more difficult to obtain. The prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 20s is a good example of how outlawing things doesn't result in their erradication, but nobody will deny alcohol was harder to get and its use curtailed. Drugs of the sort outlawed are not those used for medical treatment rather than hallucinogens consumed voluntarily (or propelled by addicition) for pleasure. Clearly such drugs are harder to obtain as a consequence of their illicit possession and traffic. Guns would undergo the same effect, when outlawed they would be harder to obtain, though not impossible. Hence some (though fewer) criminals would still be able to get a hold of a gun. However it wouldn't reach the simplistic line that "only criminals would have guns" as fewer criminals would have them.

Scenarios of cowering law abidding citizens who've properly surrendered their outlawed firearms, facing criminals who retained their weapons distort things. Likely law abidding folks would comply more quickly than criminals and thus be more vulnerable, but with firearms outlawed, criminals would face more problems with the law for not surrendering theirs and as the law abidding citizens turned their weapons in, these would no longer be available or enter the black market. As noted the laws are already there, they just aren't enforced very well since firearms can be lawfully owned. Lawfully acquired guns are stolen and used for crimes, but if there were fewer lawfully acquired guns, fewer would be stolen and fall into criminal hands.

[Nono]

Quote by: brien Nono's absurd statement is only exceeded by his tongue in cheek remarks.

Well, better than the other way around. :)

Not that I want to encourage this thread's slide into a gun debate or anything, but I agree with rummie. The situation you have in the US today is a free-for-all, the inevitable result of a society awash in weapons. Whether properly registered or illegal, guns are so pervasive that they ceaselessly drive extreme violence.

Getting out of that mess wouldn't be a pretty process, would it? People in places like New Orleans would feel naked without their piece. (Why? Uh... to defend ourselves against all those other people armed to the teeth.) The vicious circle has to be stopped.

But it won't be, since the gun-freak lobby has politicians of all stripes (yeah, both) by the balls.

[brien]

Rmunez wrote: My plan is to take all the guns away from everyone except the police and the military, then, after a moratorium to monitor whether crimes with firearms drops, if not seen would issue the appropriate weapon to each licensee after they had been certified as trained in the use and proper precautions handling these weapons

I say:


This was tried in DC and in 2002, which by the way has the strictest gun laws in the antion, and it had the highest murders in the nation. Take away the gun from people and only the criminals and the police / military will have guns. No thanks.


See:http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html

From the above: According to the numbers, DC outranked all major cities, and is again the nation's "murder capital."

And this link shows that places where there is the most restrictive gun laws have the highest crime rates.

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm

From the text:

A review of the areas in the U.S. with the most restrictive firearm laws, including such areas as Washington, D.C., Chicago, IL, New York, NY, and the state of California, shows that these areas have some of the highest crime (especially violent) crime rates in the U.S. The crime rates in all of these areas exceeds the national average and they all have enacted in-depth restrictions on firearm ownership that includes licensing and registration schemes, various taxes, testing, and even bans on firearms. In essence, these areas have become a gun control supporters Utopia.

Conclusion: Your idea doesn't work. Sorry.