(no subject)

Several times over the past day or two I've seen the opinion put forth that looters in New Orleans are justified in taking food, water, and essential toiletries, but not in taking jewellery or electronics.

Why? As bradhicks pointed out, non-essential items like jewellery may be useful in barter later on. These people have lost everything, and no shop is going to go back and start looking for televisions or diamond rings, it'll all be written off as an insurance loss. It isn't hurting anyone to break into a shop that might have clean drinking water. It isn't hurting anyone to steal a diamond necklace that the store wasn't going to be able to recover anyway. It is probably stupid to carry a television that won't work when one could be carrying food instead, but it isn't hurting anyone except the carrier.

Now, guns... well. When you get lots of desperate people in a desperate and unfamiliar situation and there are very limited resources, people are going to get violent. Some of them will get violent because they panic and don't know what else to do, and some of them are going to get violent because they (rightly or wrongly) assess the situation as one where they must harm or be harmed. If weapons are readily available, they'll be used during a crisis by whomever has access and perceived need. It's ugly, it's violent, it's unfair, but the people who survive and pass their genes on have not traditionally been the ones to say, "Well, why don't we just share it?" when there is enough bread to keep one person alive for a day and four people want it. Most of us would like to think we wouldn't resort to violence, but how many of us have ever been in a position where the options are (really or perceived) fight or starve?

Let's just say I'm glad that I live in a country where guns aren't quite so easy to get hold of.