• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

food riots in atlanta?

Forums New posts
The article source is a website that follows Tweeters...

Atlanta store shelves emptied in preparation for Snowpocalypse II [pics] | Twitchy

I would not call that a "food riot". Shoppers always clear the shelves of bread and water during events like storm Sandy or 9/11.

Social Darwinism is unfortunately a real-world phenomena. People so stupid as to have no guns, or food cushion are the first to expire during societal bumps in the road. This shelf-clearing behavior is their knee-jerk response when reality intrudes upon their fantasy world.
 
I live just north of Atlanta and I can promise you there weren't food riots. After what happened a couple of weeks ago, everyone prepared to be stuck for a few days (which is turning out true) so they overbought at the stores. I personally was at the grocery store Tuesday as the snow was coming down and it was crowded but civil. The unfortunate thing about the traffic jam from a couple of weeks ago is that instead of showing how poor our highway infrastructure is, everyone used it as a way to make fun of us rednecks trying to drive on ice. I have lived around Atlanta my whole life and the traffic get progressively worse each year.
 
Just wait until the Braves (our baseball team) moves up the road. That area was already one of the most congested places and the geniuses decided to stick a baseball stadium right in the middle of it.
 
Charlie Prime said:
People so stupid as to have no guns,
Click to expand...

Does this apply to me? because I could give you a list as long as my arm of reasons that I am stupid, but not owning a gun has never even occurred to me as being one!
I am guessing (or rather hoping) you are talking about places where owning a gun is legal because where I live even owning a "replica" could result in death (if you carried it in the street or threatened somebody with it) I am not exaggerating when I say that even carrying something that looks like a gun, has resulted in people being shot by the police.
Frankly I live in a very violent country, and we have enough issues with knives etc adding guns to the mix would be a recipe for disaster. We do have some "gun crime" but it is minimal in comparison to other "violent" crimes.

I am not being unkind I genuinely feel sorry that it seems in America gun ownership is a "must" to protect your self and your family, where as here the opposite is true, in that owning a gun would potentially put you and your family in mortal danger, because the police are not renowned for taking "chances".
 
Han said:
Does this apply to me?
Click to expand...

I was referring to the people in Atlanta, but my remark does not apply to you if you meet these criteria:

* No violent criminals exist where you live.

* Police are able to arrive at your house within 30 seconds.

* Self-preservation is not important to you.

Guns are like seat belts or fire extinguishers. 1. It's better to have them and never need them, than need them and not have them. 2. They are expensive and bloody dangerous if used improperly.
 
Humorous Anecdote:

Last week I walked into grocery store in Phoenix, Arizona.

At the Bank of America branch in that grocery store standing in the bank teller line I saw a tubby Mexican fellow wearing shorts and sandals (with socks) and a huge Glock pistol strapped to his belt. A uniformed cop was in line behind him.

I did a shocked double take! Texas where I live does not have such liberal gun laws. It took me a moment to remember that Arizona is an "open carry" state. :)
 
Oh boy, I am not being sarcastic here: Violent criminals in England are two a penny (there are lots)
The police call out times are slower than ideal.
Self preservation is obviously paramount to me but given that the only firearm available to me would be an illegal one, the chances of it "malfunctioning" or having been used in a previous murder or similar crime outweigh any potential "protection" it would provide by a long stretch.

I have to admit that if the average person where I lived (if I moved to the US for example) owned a gun, I would probably reluctantly purchase one, but saying that although there are violent criminals armed with knives etc here I do not routinely carry a Knife, in fact even carrying a Knife without "good reason" can result in a prison sentence.

Trying to be as fair as possible, even though I do not like the idea, I can understand owning a gun to protect your self or loved ones from armed criminals, but the idea of owning them to "resist" or rebel against the "government" seems a very bad idea, given that when and if the "government" did come and try to take your gun, not only would you be outnumbered and outgunned, you would also instantly become an "enemy of the state".


I apologise for going off topic, the reason that I was interested in this thread is because it reminded me of an incident in London where a person was stabbed in a dispute over queuing for entry into a newly opening shop!*

*Stabbing in Ikea chaos - News - London Evening Standard

A man was stabbed and hundreds of people were crushed as the opening of the biggest Ikea store in England descended into chaos.
 
The decision as to whether to arm oneself is a serious, and complicated cost:benefit ratio analysis.

Situation A: Last week I was forced to sleep in a truck on the side of the road a few miles from the part of the Texas/Mexico border controlled by the Los Zetas drug cartel, with no cell phone signal, 20 minutes from the nearest cop. C/B ratio: easy. I was armed.

Situation B: Suppose I live in a fashionable, high-security, high-rise building inside the financial district City of London with a guard at every entrance and and cameras on every hallway. C/B ratio: easy. The danger of a gun is not even worth the low risk of attack.

Thing is, that cost:benefit calculation is wildly variable for everyone. No law can cover it adequately. It's a decision best left for each human to make himself. Central Planners do not like to give up control, but they are not the ones who die from their ill decisions. We are.
 
Han said:
...the idea of owning them to "resist" or rebel against the "government" seems a very bad idea, given that when and if the "government" did come and try to take your gun, not only would you be outnumbered and outgunned, you would also instantly become an "enemy of the state".
Click to expand...

Not where I live. Armed rebellion is a complicated topic, but a few things to remember are:

1. In the United States gun owners outnumber armed government agents (soldiers/cops/etc.) by probably 10,000 to 1.

2. Most military strategists agree that 5 soldiers for every 1,000 person are needed to even contain an insurgency.

3. The U.S. military and police forces are composed mostly of guys who come of Irish/Scottish/Black Slave cultural backgrounds who distrust centralized authority and would mostly refuse to kill their Uncle Fred if ordered to do so.

The USA is not Weimar Germany, Tsarist Russia, or 19th century Virginia. The next civil war would probably go down more like the English Peasant's Revolt of 1381 with seizure of local offices, purging of Federal high officials from the localities, then a return to normal with MUCH reduced central government control.
 
what a world you lot live in, we have the odd violent swan have ago at a dog walker, but thats about it, i dont have a front door key, i just dont know what happened to it, and the only time i take the keys out of the ignition of the car, is when i lock it on/in trips to england, otherwise they are left in it 24/7, never lost them ever, i always know where they are, whose going to knick it, the islands 33 miles long and 11 miles wide, and it always in my driveway, where are they going to go in it..
 
Charlie Prime said:
Not where I live. Armed rebellion is a complicated topic, but a few things to remember are:

1. In the United States gun owners outnumber armed government agents (soldiers/cops/etc.) by probably 10,000 to 1.

2. Most military strategists agree that 5 soldiers for every 1,000 person are needed to even contain an insurgency.

3. The U.S. military and police forces are composed mostly of guys who come of Irish/Scottish/Black Slave cultural backgrounds who distrust centralized authority and would mostly refuse to kill their Uncle Fred if ordered to do so.

The USA is not Weimar Germany, Tsarist Russia, or 19th century Virginia. The next civil war would probably go down more like the English Peasant's Revolt of 1381 with seizure of local offices, purging of Federal high officials from the localities, then a return to normal with MUCH reduced central government control.
Click to expand...


they didnt hesitate at shooting their own when it all kicked off with the unarmed students demonstrating on campus, how many did they kill there.
 
sure i am

my memory is a bit sketchy, but im pretty sure all those kids are still dead.

that was your army shooting american kids on american soil wasnt it.
 
manxman said:
sure i am

my memory is a bit sketchy, but im pretty sure all those kids are still dead.

that was your army shooting american kids on american soil wasnt it.
Click to expand...

You're thinking of the National Guard. Ill-trained weekend solders that shouldn't have had loaded guns to begin with.
 
Charlie Prime said:
English Peasant's Revolt of 1381
Click to expand...

are you familiar with what happened to Wat Tyler and his followers?

just in case:

Tyler died the next day. Having pledged allegiance to the Crown, he and his supporters had asked to speak to the monarch - who consented, saying that they would receive compensation for their complaints if they recognised that English law be fully observed, and adding that if they went home peacefully they would be pardoned. According to a contemporary chronicler, Tyler acted contemptuously, calling for a flagon of water to rinse his mouth 'because of the great heat that he was in' and when he received the water 'he rinsed his mouth in a very rude and disgusting fashion before the King's face'. Although most accounts of what occurred on that Saturday have been depicted by outraged citizens, the best information comes from the Stowe manifesto. During heated discussions, Sir John Newton (ostensibly a servant of the King) insulted Tyler by calling him 'the greatest by man and robber in all Kent'. The recipient retaliated, to be restrained and arrested by the Mayor of London. Tyler then lashed out with his dagger. The Mayor, who happened to be wearing armour, was saved: he slashed his attacker across the neck and head with his sword. Another of the king's servants stabbed the man again, causing the fatal wound. Tyler managed to ride thirty yards on his horse yet was too weak to continue, whereupon he was dragged to the ground and publicly decapitated, his head being placed atop a pole and carried through the city to be displayed on London Bridge. [8] Richard II revoked all the promises and retributions he had promised Tyler. This effectively ended the Revolt.


Maybe not the best blueprint for a successful rebellion?

Wat Tyler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
trainedobserver said:
You're thinking of the National Guard. Ill-trained weekend solders that shouldn't have had loaded guns to begin with.
Click to expand...


well they did have loaded guns sames as the kids committing school massacres, never mind its every americans 'right' to own a gun, every kid has a right to life first and foremost.
 
what kind of thing are people scared off, to make them want to hoard ?.
what actually could happen, that would see them starve ?.

isnt it written in your constitution somewhere that the army is there to protect the american people even if its their own government they are protecting them from, or is that an urban myth.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top