Why? You really think most people walk around with a firearm? People in Texas (though they don't admit it and most around the country probably won't admit it either) are pretty much the same as other Americans.
Is all of this a wake up call for the conservative climate deniers in TX? This time, it's not just a coastal city full of black people.
Doesn't take "most" people. It only requires that more people (statistically) do it...and are willing to use it. The data I have (and it's a couple of years old) puts things in perspective: Number of people with concealed carry permits in California (yes, it is possible in some counties here): 35,000 Number of people with concealed carry permits in Texas: 708,000 Considerably more common. Texas has 2/3rds the population of California, but 20 times the number of CCWs, meaning CCW is about 30 times more common in Texas than in California. And that makes the odds the guy you're looting from is armed 30 times greater.
I don't know of any conservatives who deny hurricanes, and Houston's been flooded several times before, so this should not seem like something unprecedented. Hurricanes have hit Texas before, and they will do so again, no matter how rich you make Al Gore. And there's nothing to indicate that Hurricane Harvey was the least bit atypical because of any climate change, human-caused or otherwise.
And there are far more people like me who own guns but don't have carry permits, which raises the odds of a looter running into an armed homeowner or business owner even higher.
so....throwing out a theoretical here.....if hurricanes/flooding like Harvey could hit Philly, Los Angeles, or Chicago - would looting be likely worse or about the same?
You think just because people have a concealed carry permit that means they carry a weapon all or most of the time? That's like saying I have a marriage license so I have sex all the time. Okay, too much but not all the time.
Unless you think that all Californians with CCWs carry 100% of the time and Texans with CCWs only do so about 3.3%, it doesn't change things. Assuming people everywhere carry about the same percentage of the time, a Texan is still 30 times more likely than a Californian to be carrying. Not a good analogy.
Just a stupid question. What is keeping someone from shooting that guy? Seems like he really is not protecting a damn thing considering people looted right in front of him and he just yelled. If there was something real criminals wanted there they would shoot him and take it. He does not even see the back door where people could be carrying everything away. This is why a guy with a gun is a terrible protection system when alone, and why most gun owners do not protect themselves alone. Police and security companies use a bit more than some guy with a gun to protect things. Even with all the shootings the gun is probably not even close to the most used tool in their arsenal. Without a radio and some backup that guy is just a guy playing around. Sure it might be brave, but it is also pretty stupid and pointless.
Tererun actually has a point. People when it comes to firearms for some reason seem to vastly overrate their utility in self defense. In truth, holding your head up and looking people in the eye will keep you safe most of the time. It's like the Republican campaign manager I remember writing in an article about young violent offenders. He met a multi convicted mugger and the mugger said he simply "knew" who he was going to rob before he tried. The Republican guy asked him "would you try and rob me?" The young thug said "no way" The Republican guy asked "why not?" The young thug said "when you came in here you looked me up and down. like you were wondering if you could take me in a fight. People like that are trouble"
Yeah, well the gun is a last resort. It's for when making eye contact, looking dangerous, or running away either doesn't work or isn't an option.
What I am saying is the gun is probably not the least of greatest reason why you are not killed or plundered considering it is not even a really good defense.
Meanwhile... Looky here! http://crooksandliars.com/2017/08/trump-bilked-government-17-million-repairs
the guy did say "we need more men to protect their property" so maybe he will inspire like-minded people to team up and protect their property. He also said the police are too busy with evacuations. Thus it's a cry to get off your ass and protect your property. I would almost bet more gun owners are afraid of what happens to them (legally) if they do shoot looters so they wouldn't guard their property. I can hear the liberals already "that poor angel was shot over a gallon of milk!" Then it gets into protecting your life with deadly force versus protecting property with deadly force.
What does Philadelphia have for its citizens to loot? Cheese steaks? The locals are probably sick of them. And nobody goes there to loot, because no matter how well you do it, people will stand around and boo your performance.
Anyone remember during the 2004 campaign when John Kerry campaigned in Philadelphia and got a Cheese steak? Kind of ruined the moment when he asked if they had any Grey Poupon.
No, he asked for Swiss instead of Cheez Whiz. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090101392.html
Grey Poupon. Did he walk up to the counter with a car door and roll down the window? "Pardon me. Would you have any Grey Poupon for my sandwich?"
Cheesesteaks don't have mustard (of any kind) so in this case y'all seem more out of touch than Kerry.
They also don't come with onions and bell peppers unless you ask for them. I work with a guy who's from Philly, and it drives him nuts. "The ingredients are IN the NAME!"
No, he didn't. He asked for swiss cheese instead of cheese whiz. Btw swiss cheese is the original cheese used on a philly cheese steak but the liars over at Fox made a false propaganda campaign for their idiot viewers claiming this proved Kerry was anti-American.
Cheesesteaks are garbage. If it makes me out of touch not to eat garbage, then so be it. (Source: lived in Philly for a year)
