That if 1,2,3… a dozen looters had been shot the first day New Orleans would be a better place today? (And again, I’m talking about the actual thieves not the people trying to survive). One thing that confuses the objections to the “shoot on sight” policy is that it sounds like looters will be getting shot day after day after day.

You don’t have to shoot on sight very long before would-be looters realize “hey, I might get shot on sight.” We’ve now heard of multiple outrages as a result of people being stranded in places — particularly Charity Hospital — simply because rescue workers couldn’t risk getting killed.

Rudy Giuliani’s New York proved that James Q. Wilson’s and George L. Kellings’ “broken windows” theory was correct. People take cues from small instances of disorder and chaos and commit even worse acts of disorder and chaos. Clearly it works when the initial lawlessness isn’t small. When criminals see that looting is permitted, they — rationally — conclude that everything is permitted. There have been rapes and beatings in the Superdome because that interpretation has become widespread.

How many people died because of the lawlessness that was allowed to fester while the Governor talked about “bad apples” and her grave disappointment? How many resources might have been spared if a firm rule had been set at once? How many more cops and guardsmen are necessary to maintain order than would have been necessary if a zero-tolerance policy had been taken from the outset?

When I hear that that Rhodes woman from Air America is encouraging looting, all I can think is that she’s letting some radical chic nonsense take precedence over the need to save peoples’ lives.