...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
@Heather, please spend a few hours (or days) reading the comments on the video you posted, that way I won't feel the need to repeat them all here.
Yeah, I read through those comments and what I see are a bunch of people who feel that the experiment doesn't apply to them because they are super heroes and the kids in the experiment obviously aren't super heroes. I've met hundreds of people who believe they are superheroes but I've only known 2 who took part in ongoing, intensive training - which sort of goes back to that 'well regulated militia' concept.
You must read fast there were over 25,000 comments.
It appears you may have missed an important theme within the majority of the comments, "the test was a setup" designed to produce the desired outcome. That's how it goes when one starts with a bias and no interest in gaining knowledge. I think ABC is learning how to compete with FOX.
BTW I too know people, I know people who have saved their own lives with guns. A young man attending one of the local colleges here in town, shoot and killed an armed intruder a few months back. He didn't have any intensive training just his wits and a willingness to protect his own life.
That must have made headlines - any links?
When you take a look at the number of Americans who own guns, and then start looking at the number of active memberships in gun clubs offering tactical training, it quickly becomes apparent that few people are interested in being part of a 'well regulated militia' and a LOT of people are interested in becoming a Rambo in their own mind.
I'm not anti-gun, by any means, but I do not see guns as a solution in a culture that has the wealth to wipe-out poverty while choosing, instead, to incarcerate a greater portion of their impoverished population than all other nations combined.
When it comes to regulating firearms, I feel that intensive, ongoing training would be the best regulation, rather than prohibiting some arbitrarily defined classification of guns.
Not the same headline, but a recent one:
Interesting. Rather than calling 911 herself, she called her husband, who called 911 from another location; that doesn't seem very efficient to me. So according to the article she murdered a man who was 'rummaging through her belongings'. It doesn't even sound as though the man was armed.
It seems the law down there allows this sort of lethal force against misdemeanors so one might say he 'asked for it'.
I'm very ambivalent regarding anyone's choice to keep a firearm in their home. Given that the intruder doesn't even seem to have been armed, and she was given plenty of time to get her children out of the line of fire, and even more to mentally prepare, it seems like the optimal situation to kill an intruder, in a place where the law allows for that.
Now you gave me hell for bringing armed guards at banks into the mix - so why have you taken the liberty to move to a home invasion by an unarmed man?
He doesn't look like he needs arms...other than the two attached to his shoulders.
In the United States (don't know about you folks up North) when you break into someone's home the presumption is that you're up to no good. The occupant is under no obligation to ask "Are you armed? Do you mean us any harm?" though I guess that is the practice up Canada way. If things get dicey, you toss empty Molson bottles at them. Down here, you just don't break into someone's home and if something bad happens to you as a result, well it's on you.
He broke into the home with a crowbar and ultimately chased them into a crawl space and continued to approach them. I think it's safe to assume his intentions weren't friendly. I'd have shot him myself under those circumstances.
Up here in Canada, if you break into someone's home, it is also assumed that you are up to no good. The occupant of that home, however, is not assumed to be judge, jury, and executioner.
I'm not certain what story you were reading, but in the one I read he didn't chase anyone. He 'rummaged through' their things, ultimately opening the closet door where the wife/mother was hiding. Nice attempt to add some drama to it though.
She might have called out from the bedroom saying she had a gun and had already called the police - except she hadn't actually called the police - which poses a significant defense problem here in Canada. She might then have fired a single shot into the hall leading to the bedroom if she heard anyone approaching.
There were a lot of options there, but I can certainly understand why she would choose to hide in the closet until discovered and then, upon discovery, empty a revolver into the guy's face. I do find it odd that she never called the police, however.
This story makes it clear he was pursuing them and cornered them. Sorry, I don't feel sorry for him. He could have been minding his own business.
I'm glad that in my country if someone breaks into my home, I don't have to answer to a judge or jury. Makes life a lot less complicated.
You're the one who went off topic. I can decide how far to indulge you.
Actually that version doesn't make it clear that he was pursuing them - not the language it uses at all. Just like the other articles it says he was rummaging through their things, although in this version it has the mother in the crawl space with the kids when he encounters her.
If you can't even stick with the basic facts of the story then there is, for me, no point in continuing this discussion.
Among other reasons.
You missed the part where he followed one of the children?