Nobody was listening.

[FDR]

And you're insinuation was that a lock is a lock. I would hope/think that a pistol shop has better ways to lock up pistols, much better ways, than a WalMart locks it's tvs.

[FDR]

But you'd be justified in shooting him because he just looked suspicious. Talk about anarchy. Looting is wrong, so vigilantes will restore order by acting nutty and shooting everything suspicious looking. Oh yeah, that makes everything so much better and safer. Two wrongs make a right? How stupid.

[Duane Bozarth]

Yup, and, I once met the Marshall at Dodge City Days (where they're having the 50th Gunsmoke Reunion real soon now...) :)

[FDR]

I couldn't agree more. Shooting at the rescue unit was sickening to hear, and I jsut don't get it. So I would have no problem with the thug shooters being killed..

[FDR]

Wll then I stand corrected if it's that easy.

[Dave Hinz]

What part of "as much time as you want and no concerns about making noise" aren't you understanding? Hell, given all the time you want and the knowledge that nobody cared about noise, you could even get into _my_ gun storage vault. It'd take you a while and make a hella noise, but the fact that you can get in, eventually, doesn't mean I "don't care all that much about (my) stuff getting robbed".

[Dave Hinz]

My, but you're a tiresome fellow to deal with. A criminal who is causing civil disorder _during_ a natural disaster adds to the problems. Killing said criminal, _improves_ the situation. Yes, the flood is bad. A flood with anarchy is worse. This isn't really a complicated concept.

[Larry Caldwell]

You can't really be that stupid.

So then, where is the nearest bakery? Why do you feel that someone looking for a drink of water is a looter? You are some kind of nut case.

[Dave Hinz]

Excellent. Progress. So. If the "thug shooter" threatening the survivors by making the situation worse should have been shot, how then do you justify in your mind that the looter, threatening what little order remains, is any different? It's a criminal act which is endangering the honest people who are victims.

[Duane Bozarth]

....

....

And yet you don't see connection between letting hooligans run free and the ensuing other violence and acts of criminal intent?

[FDR]

I've been told that looters are taking money from shopowners. So those looking for food are just as guilty as stealing money when they steal food. If you are going to use that argument, then you'd better do a better job making it stick.

[FDR]

Someone that thinks they can take the law into their own hands won't just stop at shooting the WalMart looters, he'll also go shoot anyone else that's suspicious. And I bet the suspicious ones are going to all be black.

[FDR]

Hey, why don't you kill them all?

[Dave Hinz]

You can't see the ethical difference between stealing food and water to keep yourself alive, vs. stealing consumer goods with no survival value, during a life threatening emergency situation?

Really? You _REALLY_ don't see the difference? Direct question; please provide a direct question if you are capable of it.

[HeatMan]

Wow! There are some knowledgeable people here. You actually know how to spell 'martial' correctly.

[FDR]

If I saw you shooting at people in NO, I'd be more scared of you than the looter. I don't know what your motive is, or even if you are a good shot and wouldn't get some innocent bystander shot like myself. I know a looter's intention is to get stuff. Your's is to kill. You are more of a threat.

[Dave Hinz]

If they're making the situation worse, I'm for that. The guy who shot at the rescue helecopters? I hope to hell that the people he caused not to be rescued killed him. He delayed rescue and relief operations by more than a day by his actions; caused untold deaths and human suffering, because he thought he should shoot at a rescue helecopter.

Specific question time again: In the example of the person who shot at the rescue helecopter, do you support that person being killed for that action? If not, please justify how this human life is worth more than the human lives that his actions directly ended. Show your work.

[Dave Hinz]

Your choice.

Let's see - a sign saying "You loot, I shoot". A dead looter lying on the ground. Yeah, the motivation is really freaking tough to figure out there, isn't it.

To a looter, yes, I'm more of a threat than I am to you, who presumably would not be a looter. Isn't that the point?

If someone is willing to steal during an emergency, they do it knowing people may shoot at them. They _CHOOSE_ to risk their life for stuff. Further, if they're going to take that risk, chances are really, really good that they are _also_ armed.

Maybe you choose to give looters who are probably armed a group-hug or something, but I do not share your trust in criminals.

[FDR]

Because a looter, if unarmed, is not a danger like a thug with a gun. We don't kill robbers, so why is it suddenly ok to do so in that situation?

[FDR]

If it's violent behavior against people, then it must be stopped. Plain looting is not necessarily violenece against other people. Robbing a Walmart of a tv makes it pretty hard to attack somoene if you are trying to carry loot.