...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
It's sure interesting that the narrative doesn't match at all with the written story based on statements released by the police. How do you know which one is accurate?
They are congruent. The police statements are simply a subset of the larger story. And it doesn't really matter to the police, anyway. In the U.S., a home invader may be shot dead
In the case of a home invader who's abandoned his intentions and has exited the house, I don't think it should be legal to shoot him under that circumstance because the threat has passed.
The flaw with the Canadian approach, which is that you can only use force equal to the one presented by the intruder is twofold: 1) you can't read their mind to decide if their intent might be murderous; 2) if you confront them armed with a roller pin and they produce a knife or a gun, what do you do? do you tell them, "Hold on, pardner, while I go get my own knife/gun?" Better to be armed with superior force.
What exactly happens in Canada if I confront an intruder while I'm holding a gun and he produces a very nasty knife or Taserl and proceeds to use it? Do I need to drop my gun and kick him in the nuts?
You sound like a theist trying to resolve Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. I noticed that the extra 'details' added in the story were in voice over by the reporter, not even spoken during the interview.
Anyway, in Canada we just don't have your problems. Our murder rate is about 2/3rds less per capita and when home invasions happen to 'regular people' they just take your stuff, perhaps drain your bank account, and go. Insurance covers the losses, and police arrest the criminals later - so we just don't need to murder them in our homes in front of our children because we just don't live in your sort of 'culture'.
@ Blaine L. - Just call me Forrest. :)
I learned long ago to keep my eyes open and move away from trouble, I credit that policy with saving my bacon on more then one occasion.
Let me leave I'll leave, back me into a corner different story.
former NRA member who left the organization due to it's total intransigence to any kind of gun control; military vet; former prison corrections officer trained w/ multi round clip .223 (used in towers); active hunter.
As a citizen of this country I am comfortable permitting the restriction of certain classifications of military style weaponry. In particular the banning of semi-automatic assault style firearms. These currently account for approximately 1.7% of total US gun sales. That still leaves over 98% of all current firearms available for continued purchase. The previous ban on these weapons did not result in a further erosion of my constitutional rights to keep and operate a plethora of firearms.
If the 'no restrictions whatsoever' gun owners still feel it is unnecessary to make these specific weapons unavailable then I believe they should be willing to compromise in another area. The production or importation of any ammunition used in these weapons should be halted and a hefty fine imposed if you're caught in the possession of said ammo.
I would be willing to grant access to these style weapons in the context of an indoor gun range where the weaponry is maintained under lock and key and strict supervision is observed during use.
Restrictions on specific weapons availability is not a cure all. But in combination with other measures it is a start to trying to reduce these instances of mass slaughter. It is selfish to consider the importance of having legal access to a weapon designed for the military/swat environment more valid than the need to concretely address our country's ongoing problem of mass shootings.
I am a staunch defender of my right to possess and use firearms as a citizen. I also recognize that in a sane society we understand that certain restrictions are necessary to attempt to minimize the number of senseless deaths we endure each year.
while i respect your position and could probably agree with far too many caveats to list....questions
1) would the banning of handguns be a far more effective option to stopping senseless deaths according to your position? looking at the FBI crime data, i ask. this would of course effect concealed carry, and the ability to "defend" yourself outside of your owned private property. still an effective option, possibly.
2) Since neither of us are very young men, and served...the ar 15 has been available to U.S. civilians for nearly 50 years, with no major changes to its design or operation....have we "evolved" past the trusted ownership of them as civilians?
I dont believe 0 gun control is the answer, but i take exception to the insane majority of views on it...they are flawed before they take flight. i do agree it is a far more complex problem then guns..
And now a word from Sam Harris:
"The fantasies of many martial artists aside, to go unarmed against a person with a knife is to put oneself in very real peril, regardless of one’s training."
This statement only proves that Sam Harris knows inferior martial artists.
That is one of the best videos for getting the point (please excuse the pun) across about the limitations of firearms in a hand to hand combat situation. I run into too many people who think a handgun solves all problems under all circumstances, it doesn't.
I met a Special Forces veteran once and we got to talking about weapons. One thing he said stuck with me. "If I'm in nose-to-nose combat, I'll take a knife over a gun any day of the week."
A big 10-4, a guy who knows how to handle a knife scares the crap outa me.
I agree. But a guy who doesn't know how to handle a gun scares me just as much.