From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  7 Apr 92 03:22:15 GMT

cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter) writes:


>In article <susan.702533007@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>>	Really?  Gee, then Australia must be really unique then?   
>>In Australia, our two largest natural disasters (Cyclone Tracy in 1974, 
>>where the entire city of Darwin was destroyed and the earthquake in 
>>Newcastle which destroyed the centre of the city in 1989) there was not 
>>one reported case of looting.  The troops were not called out to protect 
>>life or property, they were not needed.  Perhaps I do live in utopia after 
>>all?
>>
>If the entire city of Darwin was destroyed by this cyclone, there would
>hardly have been much to loot, would there? 

	Well, then why do they loot after a storm in America then?

>						Besides, I seem to recall
>reading something about the city being _evacuated_ pre-storm, in which case
>there also would have been no one around to do any looting. Of course, I
>could be wrong (after all, I was merely four years old in 1974, so this
>really isn't first-hand knowledge. You have my curiosity piqued, though, so
>I plan to go to the library and search for contemporary accounts.).

	I'd be surprised if your media carried very much like that at the
time.  After all, Australia is such a small place when compared to the
trials and tribulations of some where like Washington/New York/Los Angeles/
Detroit/Chicago?

>As for the earthquake in Newcastle, again I don't see where there would
>have been much opportunity for looting. Santa Cruz was also badly hit by an
>earthquake in 1989, and there was no looting reported. The local National
>Guard _was_ called out, but only to assist in cleanup and rescue efforts.

	Yet in every other major natural disaster, the government brings
out the troops because the police just can't handle the situation, now
don't they?

	BTW, I'd expect somewhere like Santa Cruz, on the San Andreous
fault to be designed to withstand earthquakes.  Newcastle was not.

>>>How do YOU tell a "petty criminal" from a "professional" - no, wait - let me
>>>guess - the professional is the one who stabs or shoots you when you try
>>>to reason with him, right?
>>
>>	No, the professional is the one who doesn't care about the 
>>consequences of their actions, whilst the petty criminals are not yet so
>>hardened by the society around them that they place so little value on
>>human life as they appear to so much in America.

>What an interesting definition. The prevailing definition of "professional"
>criminals in the USA seems to be those that go for crime on a grand scale,
>such as extortion, skimming of union pension funds, smuggling drugs by the
>ton, etc. "Petty" criminals, on the other hand, are your average garden-
>variety mugger, robber, rapist etc. Therefore, "petty" criminals are the
>ones you're most likely to meet up with in everyday life, which is why you
>should be able to have at least one gun handy to defend yourself.

	How likely are you to encounter such a "petty" criminal in the
US?  Whats the chance you will be robbed, raped, assaulted, murdered?




--
|   *      | But I think Australians have a sort of independence, and I       | 
| *--\----*| think that, rightly or wrongly, they tend to make their own      |
|      \ ' | decisions as to how a thing has gone.  Pioneers are apt to be    |
|__________| like that. I think thats not a bad idea. - Dame Joan Sutherland__|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns