After riots swept parts of the United Kingdom last year, I wrote about the moral argument for gun ownership. Simply stated, it is wrong to disarm law-abiding people, particularly when there is a risk of societal breakdown.
The same argument is equally applicable in the areas ravaged by the recent storm to hit the northeastern United States. As you can see from this report in the New York Post, the government is failing in its responsibility to provide law and order.
Hardened New Yorkers are ready to battle lowlife criminals to protect their homes and stores in storm-ravaged areas plagued by looting and break-ins. In Coney Island, several residents were loading up their guns, sharpening their machetes and brandishing other deadly weapons. Jacinto Gonzalez, 42, picked up a baseball bat and stood guard outside his two-story rowhouse on West 27th Street near Neptune Avenue with his family. Another Coney Island resident, Roberto Aviles, brandishing a rusty 3-foot machete and warning he has a gun, who has lived in Coney Island since 1995 with his wife, says he’s ready to take on phony burglars posing as Con Ed workers. “I’m prepared inside here,” the 76-year-old Aviles said, showing off his rusted, three-foot machete and warning he had a gun. Chris Lane, a 50-year-old resident of the Coney Island Houses, put together a small arsenal with his double pump action gun.
And here’s some coverage from the United Kingdom
…residents of the Rockaways in Queens continued to struggle without power, heat or food for a sixth day as their neighborhood slowly descended into chaos. ‘It’s chaos; it’s pandemonium out here,’ said Chris Damon, who had been waiting for 3.5 hours at the site and had circled the block five times. “It seems like nobody has any answers.” Added Damon: ‘I feel like a victim of Hurricane Katrina. I never thought it could happen here in New York, but it’s happened. ‘With little police presence on the storm-ravaged streets, many residents of the peninsula have been forced to take their protection into their own hands, arming themselves with guns, baseball bats and even bows and arrows to ward off thugs seeking to loot their homes. …’We booby-trapped our door and keep a baseball bat beside our bed,’ Danielle Harris, 34, told the New York Daily News. The woman added that she has been hearing gunshots likely fired in the nearby housing project for three nights in a row. Meanwhile, local surfer Keone Singlehurst said that he stockpiled knives, a machete and a bow and arrow.
Last but not least, here’s a picture that was widely circulated last decade, presumably after a storm like Katrina. It’s amusing, but it also makes me very proud of the American spirit.
These guys were having fun, but they also made an important statement. Ask yourself another question: If you were a low-life thug, would you try to rob that neighborhood?
P.S. You can see some amusing pro-Second Amendment posters here, here, here, here, and here. And some amusing images of t-shirts and bumper stickers on gun control here, here, and here.
[…] I’ll also recycle this image that I shared when writing about the looting that occurred after Hurricane […]
[…] More power to these people, who are the Orthodox Jewish versions of these good ol’ boys from Texas. […]
[…] one instance, a neighborhood banded together, with their guns, and warned would-be thieves: “if you loot, we shoot.” If the thieves are a mob, then practically nothing but a privately owned AR-15 would answer […]
[…] imagine that guy would get along very well with the folks in the image at the bottom of this […]
[…] After all, terrorists wouldn’t get the chance to do much damage if they tried to shoot up this neighborhood. […]
[…] The image at the bottom of this post makes me proud to be […]
[…] lots of gun control humor, such as this IQ test that I posted for liberals and criminals, this very effective neighborhood watch group, and several amusing videos linked at the end of this post. I’ve also shared clever pro-Second […]
Being armed doesn’t equate to a right to shoot anybody merely suspected of representing a threat. I some guy pulls a knife on me and I pull my gun on him, I can’t reasonably shoot him if he tries to run. Obviously, if he continues to threaten me or makes an aggressive move, he’s legitimately immediate toast. Of course….on the other hand, if I let him go he may rob or kill someone else, making me, in a sense, complicit in the crime. Ah, screw it. BLAM!
[…] Sort of the same message I had in my IQ test for criminals and liberals. In simpler terms, would you go looting in the neighborhood pictured at the end of this post? […]
[…] If its that bad there wont be anyone to take them. Whoever hasnt left there post to worry about there own family will be put to protect the presodent military bases and important political figures. Even in katrina they asked if you had guns caise they didnt have the time or man power to look. Hell they didnt even get to most neighbourhoods, as you see pictures of 20 or so armed neighbours thats formed a neighbourhood watch and placed signs at rhe end of the streets. The u loot we shoot was katrina Just in Case You Need another Argument against Gun Control, Contemplate the Social Chaos and Governm… […]
[…] the value of private gun ownership when government fails to maintain public order, as occurred after Hurricane Sandy and during last year’s British […]
[…] lots of gun control humor, such as this IQ test that I posted for liberals and criminals, this very effective neighborhood watch group, and several amusing videos linked at the end of this post. I’ve also shared clever pro-Second […]
[…] lots of gun control humor, such as this IQ test that I posted for liberals and criminals, this very effective neighborhood watch group, and several amusing videos linked at the end of this post. I’ve also shared clever […]
“Drunks with guns” were from Nashville, TN. Some locals stayed behind after the Cumberland River flooded in 2010. Funny thing, not one rifle, “assault” or otherwise, in that picture.
[…] Sort of like whether you would go looting in the neighborhood pictured at the end of this post. […]
[…] the value of private gun ownership when government fails to maintain public order, as occurred after Hurricane Sandy and during last year’s British […]
[…] the value of private gun ownership when government fails to maintain public order, as occurred after Hurricane Sandy and during last year’s British […]
[…] the value of private gun ownership when government fails to maintain public order, as occurred after Hurricane Sandy and during last year’s British […]
[…] Just in Case You Need another Argument against Gun Control, Contemplate the Social Chaos and Governm…. […]
[…] H/t: Dan Mitchell. […]
Blah blah blah. 2 things.
1. Let them take care of themselves. Good luck in thwarting the organized looting from the gov, but at least they can protect themselves from random looting. Its their God given right to protect their lives and property. Instead of looters looting, why not ASK for some help rather than just helping themselves. I bet if you were fleeing the chaos and politely asked for help, you’d get it. Or would you rather have it “pre-stolen” from these guys for your future benefit?
Also, its not just stuff. If food is in short supply and you are stealing my food, you ARE endangering my life. Hence the consequences. You ask, I’ll help you…
2. The James Holmes comment is silly. No entiity, God or gov can protect you from being harmed by others. That is your job. You will be sorely disappointed if you expect ANYONE else to do this. Why not take some personal responsibility for you and your poor family and protect yourselves. Its a jungle out there. You gonna be a whining victim or a hero?
Second amendment is one thing. Shooting a thief rummaging through rubble is another. How much of a threat a thief poses could be debated. But if threat is non existent or low (I understand the difficulty of quantifying) then shooting a looter is tantamount to administering the death penalty for theft, without trial.
Even when it comes to police, I don’t make heroes out of trigger happy officers who view the lives of not so serious criminals with disdain.
[…] https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/just-in-case-you-need-another-argument-against-gun-c… […]
Makes you wonder where and if they’ve ever how learned to think,
crisbd
You raise a good point. We (humans) stopped thinking a long time ago. We accept “conventional wisdom’ without even a thought as to whether the wisdom holds good today, .
Worse still, we accept what we read and hear…..as long as it is comfortable to our ears. If it is – we do not challenge it..It is acceptable.
“Well, imagine that scenario, Mike, where James Holmes is the only one with a gun. In a room full of unarmed people. Yeah. Now imagine that everyone in the movie theater also had a gun… James doesn’t get very far in an armed society”.
ladyjade3
So….is the answer ALL should have guns?
Switzerland is a very law-abiding as well as prosperous society. Yet the whole citizenship is armed, each house in Switzerland has a semi-automatic hanging over the fire-place.
But the anti-gun lobby ignore such compelling evidence and argue for disarming the average citizen, which would leave only the criminals and the government with guns! Makes you wonder where and if they’ve ever how learned to think, see:
http://www.lifestrategies.net/secret-of-success/approach-to-life/how-do-you-decide/#new-way-to-think
Dan, you asked an interesting question. “If you were a low-life thug, would you try to rob that neighborhood?”
Well, as a matter of fact, some low-life thugs would rob that neighborhood, and those low-life thugs have been doing so for years under the color of law. Yet the “DRUNKS With GUNS” were not motivated to deter the looting with a churlish sign. Why do you think that is?
The answer is not flattering, although it is ironic. The “DRUNKS With GUNS” submitted to the looting because they have seen it as a way to get more of what they want but with others bearing a disproportionate amount of the costs. The “DRUNKS” want roads and an aggressive military, to give two examples, but they want very little to be presented with the bill for their fair share. They want even less to risk not getting what they want, so no one should be surprised to learn that those “DRUNKS” have been, and remain, eager for tax dodgers (other than theirselves) to be hauled off to court and to jail for the galling crime of opposing looting carried out by government.
So how should we explain the fact that they pay any taxes at all? For them, to pay tax is to pay the ante of a game that they are happy to play. As long as they believe they’ll get more through the government’s looting than such looting will cost them, they will continue to pay the ante. Random looting, however, does not carry with it the same promise of living at others’ expense as does looting carried out by the government, so they are [ahem] reluctant to tolerate random looting. Indeed “These guys were having fun, but they also made an important statement.”
The “important statement”: Each of the “DRUNKS With GUNS” is a BS artist and a “low life thug”.
Compare gun ownership here to gun crimes. It’s less than significant.
Then look through history at the many instances of genocide and take notice how many of the populations wiped out by genocide did not have the means to protect themselves the way we do here.
Well, imagine that scenario, Mike, where James Holmes is the only one with a gun. In a room full of unarmed people. Yeah. Now imagine that everyone in the movie theater also had a gun… James doesn’t get very far in an armed society.
Gun ownership is probably one aspect of American life that many none Americans do not understand.
It’s tempting, of course, to see the above picture as ok, but what if there is another James Holmes (of Colorado fame) standing in that group?
Presumably, at the point of purchasing a gun (as is your right under the Constitution), the above group are law abiding citizens as was James Holmes.
What if one of the above group turned killer (as did James Holmes) which then leads to the rest of you going out and buying a gun in order to protect themselves from what was a law abiding citizen – now killer?
Seems a viscious circle to me, and one with few answers that are workable.