Here is a reason to own a gun

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8550960.stm

Lawlessness after quake in Chile fishing village

Talcahuano residents siphon fuel from a ransacked petrol station

By Will Grant

BBC News, Talcahuano

Rene Orellana sleeps with a shotgun in his hands. "I have to," he says, motioning towards a shattered window frame covered with a tarpaulin.

"The looters have been into this room and took thousands of pesos and my wife's jewellery."

The small fishing port of Talcahuano is only a few kilometres down the coast from Chile's second biggest city, Concepcion, where the military and the police are out on the streets in their thousands.

Yet, it is a world away in terms of security.

The harbour has been decimated - first by the earthquake and then by the 15m-high (49ft) tsunami which threw boats and shipping containers out of the sea and into the port with massive force.

This was always a difficult place to live

Daniel Gonzalez

Talcahuano resident

Dozens of containers are now strewn around the harbour as though they were cardboard boxes, having crushed several people in their cars in the process.

In this scene of devastation, looters have made the most of the chaos. Many of the containers have been opened and their contents, be they bananas, nappies or computer equipment, taken by the desperate hordes.

"I've fired 500 of the 2,000 rounds of ammunition I've got," says Mr Orellana, who works for the Ministry of Public Works, showing off his gun licence.

"I fire over their heads to scare them off, and so far, it's worked."

Fending for itself

Neighbourhood vigilante groups such as the one led by Mr Orellana are cropping up across Talcahuano, as the security situation shows few signs of improving, days after the tsunami brought industry in this coastal village to a shuddering halt.

Banks are mere shells of smashed glass and metal, after the waves and then the thieves took everything inside.

Rene Orellana has fired hundreds of warning shots to ward off looters

Pharmacies and petrol stations have been ransacked too, as the few police present in the town watch on while residents siphon the remaining fuel from the tanks at the petrol pumps.

They only spring into action when tempers boil over or someone starts attacking one of the few cash machines still standing.

"This was always a difficult place to live," says one of Mr Orellana's neighbours, Daniel Gonzalez, who has lived in Talcahuano all his life.

"It is a poor neighbourhood like Boca in Buenos Aires or a favela in Brazil. A tough place, but normally with a good community spirit."

But now, he says, no-one is safe.

A question neither residents nor the authorities seem able to answer is why a village which is barely 10 minutes away from Chile's most militarized city has been left to fend for itself.

Pillaging

"We're concentrating on getting the aid and the security to other parts of the region which are in an even worse state," says one police officer on duty, Ricardo Cariaga.

Daniel Gonzalez says no-one is safe in Talcahuano these days

Faced with a near impossible task until reinforcements arrive, he says they are just trying to keep the peace and make sure there is no further violence between the looters and the property owners.

Opinions on the security situation vary. Some people in Talcahuano say the crime is simply the result of a failure on the behalf of the authorities and the growing desperation of people in need of food, water and fuel.

Others are less tolerant.

"There can be no excuse for such pillaging and theft in today's society," says Alejandro Quiroz, who works with the Port Authority in Talcahuano.

In the midst of the carnage of the harbour, he is trying to make sense of the situation for a report to his employers - the first step, he says, in trying to rebuild a decimated fishing industry.

"There were two catastrophes here. Beyond the natural damage caused by the tsunami and the earthquake, there has been so much human damage. It's totally unacceptable."

Our conversation is suddenly cut short by the sound of gunfire in the streets behind us. Mr Quiroz barely flinches. "This happens every day," he says.

"Without military authority in the village, something must be done to protect people from all of this."

Meanwhile Rene Orellana continues to survey the port from his rooftop, his weapon slung over his shoulder.

"I've personally saved dozens of people from attack in this apartment block," he says with pride.

His seaside view may have been obliterated by the stacks of empty containers pressed up against his outside wall but residents like Mr Orellana are not prepared to lose anything else to the tsunami.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

No worries. Just call 911 and wait and wait and wait.........

If you're lucky they won't make you watch while they rape your wife.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You can count on the Main Force Patrol!

[Peikko 1,575]

There are a lot of good reasons for owning a gun, but obtaining a false sense of security isn't one of them.

It is always difficult and dangerous living through disasters, natural or man made and I feel for those who have to go through it, and hope that normality is restored as quickly as possible.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And don't forget to keep one bullet back just in case you are besieged in your home by sex crazed cannibal people.

Don't let them take you alive!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Mind you, some of the gun nuts here will probably tell you to buy a gun, even if you are just in the market for a bathroom backscratcher or a decorative paperweight.

[Peikko 1,575]

Good reasons to own a gun:

Interested in:

Hunting

Target shooting

Competition shooting

Member of military

Member of security service

Member of police service

Reasons people give for owning guns that do not make much sense:

Fear of criminal attack

Fear of government oppression

Attention

Wish others to respect you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"I have a gun (read: small ####### substitute / inferiority complex) you will respect me!"

[_Simpson_ 250]

And don't forget to keep one bullet back just in case you are besieged in your home by sex crazed cannibal people.

Don't let them take you alive!

Lets put you in his situation and lets see if you dont take the gun option. Besides why are you trying to turn this into a gun nut situation, the guy is shooting over there head and using it as a effective deterrent.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Because I resent people politicising news stories to push their silly agendas.

Yeah, it makes great sense to buy a gun, just in case society collapses around you.

In other news, I am now wearing rubber boots 24/7 in case of lightning strike

[_Simpson_ 250]

Because I resent people politicising news stories to push their silly agendas.

Yeah, it makes great sense to buy a gun, just in case society collapses around you.

In other news, I am now wearing rubber boots 24/7 in case of lightning strike

Right but nothing wrong with keeping a pair in the garage for a rainy day.

[Peikko 1,575]

Lets put you in his situation and lets see if you dont take the gun option. Besides why are you trying to turn this into a gun nut situation, the guy is shooting over there head and using it as a effective deterrent.

Are we assuming that the only people who are 'safe' are people with guns who have fired warning shots? That's a huge assumption and I don't see the anyone suggesting the answer to the problem lies in providing everyone with guns for protection, but rather the question is why are the local authorities not providing the protection they need and deserve? It's not as if the country has no police or military nor is it as if these services have been devastated by the earth quake. There is certainly failure to protect going on, but the remedy is not provide everyone with weapons 'just in case'.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Rather better odds on the rain.

[Kevin and 10]

Are we assuming that the only people who are 'safe' are people with guns who have fired warning shots? That's a huge assumption and I don't see the anyone suggesting the answer to the problem lies in providing everyone with guns for protection, but rather the question is why are the local authorities not providing the protection they need and deserve? It's not as if the country has no police or military nor is it as if these services have been devastated by the earth quake. There is certainly failure to protect going on, but the remedy is not provide everyone with weapons 'just in case'.

Police have no obligation to protect an individual.

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody )

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)