It’s sadly predictable, but reports of post-Sandy looting have begun to flow in with some technically savvy criminals using social media like Twitter apparently to plan their looting sprees. Isn’t it ironic that two of the hardest hit areas in the country are also two places with some of the strongest anti-personal firearms ownership laws in the U.S.? . . .

While I have some sympathy for the folks who now have this additional misery heaped onto their already painful experience, one can’t help but point out how this makes an excellent counter-argument for those who feel that the law can protect everyone all the time.  The very fact that looting occurs at all exposes the lie of this belief and I suspect that even with National Guard and local police action, there will be quite a bit of looting done before this whole thing is over.

For those residents of NY and NJ who persevered despite the local politics of gun hate and currently have a means for defense in their possession, congratulations. And please do all of us 2A supporters one favor – protect you and yours. But if you see someone looting a neighbor known to be anti-2A, do what they would do: sit tight and wait for the cops to show up (or not). Maybe everyone can learn a lesson here.

60 Responses to How’s That Disarmed Populace Thing Workin’ Out For Ya?

  1. “Could it be oincidence that two of the hardest hit areas in the country are also two places with some of the strongest anti-personal firearms ownership laws in the U.S.?,,,”

    1) You have nationwide stats on looting post-Sandy, Then please do share.
    2) You are suggesting that sandy picked gun-free zone for destruction. Then please stop now.

    Which one is it?

      • I just read and re-read the post – what you’re saying isn’t at all clear. In fact, my initial reading lead me to believe the author is talking about the areas hardest hit by the storm, particularly because while there’s no real hard data on looting yet, New York and New Jersey were both the hardest hit areas in the US by the storm.

        With that in mind, I sort of agree with Seb. I’d also point out that early reports of looting seem to indicate it’s happening where people were evacuated, making the gun thing moot since no one would have been there to defend the stores looted.

        • Yes, it is clear.

          The subject of the first sentence is looting. As in “reports of post-Sandy looting.” The second sentence clearly follows from the first: hardest hit by what? Looting.

          End of argument.

        • Ing, it also says “Post-Sandy” in that exact same sentence. Way to selectively interpret information, then stamp your feet, take the ball and go home.

          And again, the whole point is moot; the places that were looted were deserted – there was no one there to use guns to defend the property. I’m all for armed response, and you can bet I had arms at the ready during 2 days of no power here in NH, but this just strikes me as self defense masturbation, and nothing more.

        • And again, my point exactly. “Post-Sandy looting” explicitly means looting that happens *after* the storm is gone. And of course he’s talking about areas hardest-hit by the storm, because they’re the ones being looted. There’s just no way to argue that the text isn’t clear.

          You’re right about the catch-22 of people who’ve been evacuated not being there to defend anything — I wasn’t hacking on that. But in the linked article, it says there are people posing as utility workers and holding up people in their neighborhoods. That’s something being armed could definitely prevent.

      • Don’t feed the trolls. They’re trying to argue about something that was not even said in the article. Granted, the choice of wording in the article makes for a somewhat strange commentary on coincidences, but the actual meaning is still pretty clear.

        My paraphrase: “Two of the states hardest hit by Sandy are also two of the states with the most repressive anti-2A laws. It is an unfortunate coincidence, because these people now need to defend their homes and property against criminals, or face losing what little property they have left.”

        • What a childish thing to say. I’m a troll because I apparently disagree with you on the interpretation of a clumsily written paragraph? Way to troll dude.

    • Actually, I meant to say, “Isn’t it Ironic” Not sure where my head was at when I wrote this. Things like looting get me mad enough to see red. I could maybe understand someone looting a food establishment because they or their family was starving, but there is no reason to be looting an Ann Taylor or something like that. People who do that sort of thing simply need to be shot. Plain and simple. They don’t deserve to live on this planet with the rest of us. Change made in the original post

    • Make note of the FAKE NEWS agencies that ignore the looting in Florida because the looters are all black.1. Call the fake news agencies out on it. 2. Contact their advertisers and tell them that you will never buy their products because they support fake news. 3. Spread the word. NEVER forget this act. The FAKE NEWS agencies are the downfall of America. We will never support BLM (Black Looters Matter).

  2. “Drunks With Guns”

    WTF? I’m all about dealing with looters appropriately but those guys look like a bunch of idiots with that sign.

    • It may be counterproductive, but it’s not unusual. You gun-rights guys keep trying to sell us the idea that you’re all so safe and serious. You, the serious ones, are a tiny fraction, yet you love to quote the 80 million or the 100 million number as your own.

      • since we don’t have millions of people getting shot accidentally by idiots I would hazard to say the majority of those millions are safe and serious…

      • “You gun-rights guys keep trying to sell us the idea”

        Who the hell is “us”?? You are not an American living in America so STFU.

      • What do you think is more intimidating?

        “Drunks with Guns”
        “Suburban Soccer Dads with .22s”
        or “Metrosexuals with Aerosoft Rifles”

        The fact that you state how unsafe “Drunks with Guns” appears to you makes the case that that is the most psychologically impactful slogan.

        These guys are defending their homes and families. They probably would rather not have to shoot anyone, and their sign could act as a deterrent thus allowing violence to be avoided. I don’t blame them for making their message clear enough to make anyone think twice.

      • MikeB:
        I think it was just a poor attempt at humor that they really didn’t think through. I know that you’d love to put all of us behind that sign because your arguments are so thin that you’ll take anything you can get.

    • Actually that picture was a throwback to Hurricane Rita which hit Southeast Texas back in 2005 (a month or so after Katrina). I remember seeing this pic floating around at the time as looting was a real concern as Rita was approaching Houston. Given the mass disorder that had happened after Katrina, lots of people got prepared. My 76 year old father bought his first guns as that storm approached. Fortunately, the storm made landfall further north and the projected damage to Houston was averted.

      Granted, the pic does not necessarily portray armed folks in the best possible light, but it was an attempt to introduce a bit of levity. Last time I checked, snarky smart ass humor was a feature of this blog. Let’s also face it – I’m preaching to the mostly converted on this blog. Aside from folks like MikeyB who post here only to drive traffic to his own site which otherwise would get ignored, most folks who come here understand see the picture for the sophomoric humor it is.

      That said, the topic and the suffering of the folks in the mid-Atlantic region is no laughing matter and I certainly don’t mean to imply that.

      • I saw the sarcastic humor in that sign, and appreciated it for what it was. It made me chuckle, which is something needed in the face of additional pain and suffering brought on by looters post environmental tragedy.
        Thanks for including it Jim. It was easily understood, at least by me.

  3. Coincidence? Definitely not. Sandy only skirted Florida because she saw that we were armed. That’s why she decided to head north to those unarmed masses in New England.

    Personally, I trust the venerable .45 ACP when warding off hurricanes (just as JMB intended). For anything over a Cat 3, however, you need hard cast bullets. Otherwise, you just don’t get enough penetration.

    • Unarmed masses in New England? I think you’re forgetting the top half of New England. Two of the states have always been shall issue, and the other is the only state that has never required any permit to carry concealed.

  4. Although I did a facepalm when I saw the word “drunks” on the sign, I believe its done its job effectively and gotten their message across.

    If I were in their position I’d be camped out on the roof of my house with a couple of ammo cans full of loaded magazines…looters beware.

  5. Hooray, Mikey’s back!

    And maybe he’s ready to tell us why the rural Gulf Coast was essentially looter-free in the Katrina aftermath, yet parts of gun-free New Orleans, New York and New Jersey get picked clean in the aftermath of a cataclysmic storm?

    Whatever he says, it’s probably not because they all have the word ‘New’ in their names.

    • Not that I want to stand in for MikeBnumbers, but I think I have an answer, and it doesn’t have much to do with guns.

      Seems to me looting is an urban phenomenon. All these people packed together, and they only have to go a block or two to find stuff that belongs to people they don’t know (and who won’t know them) and that they can easily steal.

      In rural anywhere, looters don’t have crowds to hide in. The enabling factor is the semi-anonymity of urban areas — the same thing that turns ordinary people into pseudonymous internet douchebags (myself included, on this very page). It’s a lot easier to steal from the faceless anonymous masses than it is from somebody who knows you. In fact, looters generally don’t even think of it as stealing (at least not while they’re actually doing it).

      Residents generally being armed might be a quelling factor, but how much is anybody’s guess because the areas most vulnerable to riots and looting are usually also disarmed (which came first, the chicken or the egg?).

  6. Hey Mikey with numbers, regarding that “…in that ironical smart-ass way they have around here.” comment you made: OUCH! That hurts coming from you.

  7. But if you see someone looting a neighbor known to be anti-2A, do what they would do: sit tight and wait for the cops to show up (or not). Maybe everyone can learn a lesson here.

    If it were me, just to make a point I’d go up afterwards and say “I saw you were being looted, but I know how much you hate guns, so I didn’t use my evil guns to run off the looters. Aren’t you glad I respected your anti-gun views?”

    • Perhaps a better point could be made by going to him prior to the looting and offering him a crash course in gun safety/handling and allowing him to borrow a Glock or SKS or something of that sort.

      • Yea, I doubt that. First off, he’ll probably rant about how guns are evil and he doesn’t need to resort to violence, he’ll just call the police. Secondly, people need to re-learn that actions have consequences – they won’t change their anti-gun stance without seeing some negative consequences for being anti-gun.

        • Not only that, but why should you take on any risks for someone else’s property, risks they’re not willing to assume themselves?

      • Bearing in mind of course that these same states aggressively prosecute any gun use whatsoever by a non LEO. I’d avoid using a gun for any reason other than to protect the lives of me and mine if I lived in NY or NJ

      • Giving an untrained noob a gun during a shtf situation. No way that can come back to bite you in the ass.

        I would only give a gun to a trusted friend or family member in those circumstances. Along with the safety and handling lesson and a stern lecture on why they don’t have their own gun.

        • Yep. Negligence lawsuit against guy who supplied newbie neighbor with gun would be filed, oh, about 5 seconds after the lawyer took the case.

  8. Drunks with guns aren’t intimidating…they are inebriated and therefore have poor aim and control, making it easier to shoot them or wrangle the gun from their hands.

    Seriously, these goofy looking douchebags just make the public relations case for gun rights more difficult, and as a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, this pisses me off.

    These a-holes don’t deserve gun rights, and I stand by this,

      • Well that’s the thing average people like me ARE in charge when they vote, and if they see douchebags like this promote drinking and shooting, they are likely to vote for people who will take gun rights away from all of us. Something which I don’t want. So I have no respect for these useless a-holes who want to put OUR civil rights in jeopardy. Drinking and shooting is at lest as, if not more unsafe than drinking and driving. If you think there is nothing wrong with this picture, then you are part of the problem. Period, case closed, end of discussion.

    • I looked at the photo for at least 5 minutes, and could not tell if any of the folks were really drunk, or if they were, to what %. I’m pretty sure it was meant to just be a humorous posing by some law-abiding townspeople, who also would like to make a point. Obviously, following a storm, they shouldn’t be expected to be wearing suits and ties. I’m sorry, but after surviving four of the five hurricanes that hit Florida in 2004, I still find this photo humorous while making a statement (that looting shouldn’t be tolerated).

      • I agree that they were probably just trying to be funny. The fact is, however, if we want to continue to turn things our way with regards to 2A, people really need to think things through. The sign would have been just as humorous and effective without the words “Drunks” on it.

        • Exactly the point. The sign is a frat joke, but it just damages our image as actual normal responsible people and not reckless white-trash.

  9. Love the picture!
    Yeah ok alcohol and guns don’t mix, I get it, but heck if half your town just got wiped off the map I don’t think I would blame them really.

  10. That photo strikes me as more of a mob looking for someones day to ruin more so than a group of men exercising their right to protect their homes and families, but hey what do I know.

  11. And we wonder why the “average American” is not on our side…

    Even other morons don’t like morons. Beyond that, telling the world that you are not legally able to handle a firearm in any jurisdiction I’m aware of by virtue of the fact that you are admittedly drunk, is beyond downs.

    Wanna know who we legal gunners need to pursue? It is these ‘tards….

    • It’s sad that you buy into the lie that drunk means unable to control your actions. Anyone who’s responsible and has been drunk knows that they’re perfectly capable of controlling themselves while drunk.

      • Come on that sounds like something an alcoholic might say 🙁 drunk by definition means loss of control.

        drunk [ drungk ]
        intoxicated with alcohol: having drunk too much alcohol and lost control over behavior, movement, and speech
        emotionally intoxicated: overwhelmed with and judgmentally impaired by an intense emotion

        • No, it sounds like something a person who’s responsible for their actions and is honest about the effects of alcohol.

          Don’t believe me? I’ll be more than happy to meet up with you, do shots, and then prove you wrong about your delusions that alcohol is a magical device that removes all choice.

        • No, we’re not allowed to drive while drunk because A) some people use it as an excuse to be irresponsible and B) nanny state supporters don’t want to punish those who cause harm (those who actually crash their car while driving drunk) and want to punish anyone who drinks – just like the gun-grabber logic of punishing all gun owners instead of the minority that commit crimes.

      • One may be perfectly able to make a cogent “shoot/no shoot” decision, and may also be able to hit their intended target. Even at .030 (which is three times what used to be a DWI).

        Just like driving or all sorts of stuff, you may be able to perform brain surgery tanked (and god knows there’s plenty of drunk surgeons) but it ain’t a good idea. Even less a a good idea to advertise basically that you’re wasted and looking for a fight.

        Most jurisdictions look very badly on the booze/guns combo platter, do you really want to be in court explaining that your sign was just a “joke” and that you weren’t ‘looking to kill someone’? Because that’s what the attorney for the dead guy and the press will be selling.

        I’m 100% behind using whatever means necessary to defend life, and sorta property – (somebody steals your hose are you really gonna shoot ’em?)

        And while white-trash antics like this are just peachy on Dr. Phil/Springer or Honey boo-boo, it is not furthering the image that most gun owners are responsible and civilized normal folks.

  12. Picture Caption: The real members of the local Homeowners Association.
    Ready, Willing, Able, Armed and At Your Service.
    Sub-captioned: Men who know where their towel’s at.

    And what do we have depicted here…exactly?
    A group picture of a few Morally-conscious, Rights-respecting, Peaceable, Law-abiding American Citizens having independently organized themselves for the purposes of socializing and defense;
    posing around a quickly-made sign reflecting their amiable natures and a brief, friendly warning statement of their intended response to nefarious persons who might otherwise be inclined toward attempting to perpetrate crimes in their area?
    Or…
    A snapshot of just a few among the many who comprise the masses of unwashed, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who represent the real enemy to all ‘progressives‘, socialists, statists and petty tyrannists?
    White men obviously in violation of written laws against brandishing FIREARMS whom;
    most certainly should immediately be disarmed, arrested, their property confiscated and the lot of them kept incarcerated while Federal laws are written to close every legal loophole which still allows any of them to legally own GUNS.
    ( this, in addition to paying penalties for violations of local signage ordinances and failure to uphold regional dress-code standards. )

    “Physics, Philosophy, Position and Perspective my friends, that’s what it’s all about.”
    Gw

    • These are the pathetic amateur guys who are way too excited at the strip club. This picture (and the fact that they posed for a picture and someone took it) speaks volumes about how absolutely 5th grade this whole lot is.

      These nobs aren’t doing any-effen-thing that actually matters to their security. Got a perimeter? Sentries? Observation? Command and control?

      Nope. Uhh, we got a sign that says we’z bad ass drunks with guns. Pass me another Bud Light. FREEBIRD!

  13. It’s a funny picture. I like it.

    Come to north central Kansas during hunting season and check out the convenience and liquor stores with banners proclaiming

    “BUDWEISER WELCOMES HUNTERS”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *