nucklehead Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/suspect-dead-10-hurt-in-attack-at-bc-office/ar-AAfsufy?ocid=spartanntp RCMP said they were called just before 8:30 a.m. Wednesday to a report of a man with a weapon at the Bridge River Band Office near Lillooet. When police arrived they found the suspect already restrained. "RCMP members arrested the male but were unable to transport him as he became unconscious and unresponsive," police said in a news release. The officers started CPR, but resuscitation efforts were unsuccessful and the man was pronounced dead at the scene, police said. The injured people have been taken to hospitals around the region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianLoonie Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Government needs to ban hammers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/suspect-dead-10-hurt-in-attack-at-bc-office/ar-AAfsufy?ocid=spartanntpzombies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapefruits Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Tighter restrictions on owning firearms would have prevented this. Oh, wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 'Murica..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsedin33 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Good thing he didn't have easy access to a firearm, otherwise he could have easily killed them all. No victims died thankfully. I'm guessing he had a knife, something that was much easier to fight against than a gun. Good on the bystanders to subdue him. This is the difference between having no gun laws vs. having stricter gun laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefcakeBo Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Good thing he didn't have easy access to a firearm, otherwise he could have easily killed them all. No victims died thankfully. I'm guessing he had a knife, something that was much easier to fight against than a gun. Good on the bystanders to subdue him. This is the difference between having no gun laws vs. having stricter gun laws. Good thing you just jump to some wild anti gun conclusion without any facts. How do you know he didn't have access to a firearm? Also if his intention was to cause as many casualties as possible then he wouldn't have taken a firearm anyways. Explosives are much more deadly in a crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Good thing he didn't have easy access to a firearm, otherwise he could have easily killed them all. No victims died thankfully. I'm guessing he had a knife, something that was much easier to fight against than a gun. Good on the bystanders to subdue him. This is the difference between having no gun laws vs. having stricter gun laws. Oh, look. A sanctimonious diatribe on guns when the poster didn't even bother to read the article. And like the above poster stated, how do you know he didn't have "easy access" to a gun? More collective blame from the "gunz r bad" crowd. Maybe a permit should be required before having easy access to a hammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S.Strowbridge Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Good thing you just jump to some wild anti gun conclusion without any facts. How do you know he didn't have access to a firearm? Also if his intention was to cause as many casualties as possible then he wouldn't have taken a firearm anyways. Explosives are much more deadly in a crowd. And explosives are strictly regulated, so how does this help your argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S.Strowbridge Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Tighter restrictions on owning firearms would have prevented this. Oh, wait... None of the victims died, so this actually boosts the argument for firearm restrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S.Strowbridge Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Oh, look. A sanctimonious diatribe on guns when the poster didn't even bother to read the article. And like the above poster stated, how do you know he didn't have "easy access" to a gun? More collective blame from the "gunz r bad" crowd. Maybe a permit should be required before having easy access to a hammer. None of the victims died, so this clearly doesn't help your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 And explosives are strictly regulated, so how does this help your argument? You must be naïve when it comes to explosives as it's not difficult to make an explosive device from ingredients that are commonly stored under the sink if one knows where to look for that information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 And explosives are strictly regulated, so how does this help your argument? Further to that, hsedin is correct. If the weapon is a gun instead of a hammer, there are more fatalities. No amount of proselytizing from the pro-gun lobby changes this fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 None of the victims died, so this clearly doesn't help your argument. Not yet. The article states that there are serious injuries that are being closely monitored. Defense against sever bodily harm unequivocally justifies deadly force. Especially since killing someone with a hammer could be easily done. So, dare I say it, the serious injuries could have been more minimal or even possibly prevented had someone been "prepared" do defend themselves on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 You must be naïve when it comes to explosives as it's not difficult to make an explosive device from ingredients that are commonly stored under the sink if one knows where to look for that information. You must be naive if you thinks it's as easy to whip up an IED as it is to go into your workshop and grab a hammer. BTW: Shouldn't you be telling everyone that this incident was faked by the government in an attempt to ban hand tools? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 You must be naive if you thinks it's as easy to whip up an IED as it is to go into your workshop and grab a hammer. BTW: Shouldn't you be telling everyone that this incident was faked by the government in an attempt to ban hand tools? Just as easy as it would have been to draw from a concealment holster and neutralize the threat but apparently it's more popular to be trained to be a good little victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Another pissed off BC tradesman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Government needs to ban hammers... Tighter restrictions on owning firearms would have prevented this. Oh, wait... 'Murica..... You're all joking, but imagine if he'd come in with an assault rifle from his local Walmart (thankfully they don't sell them anymore) instead of a hammer. Just as easy as it would have been to draw from a concealment holster and neutralize the threat but apparently it's more popular to be trained to be a good little victim. I shouldn't bother replying to you, but just as easy as it would be for the person trying to defend themselves to accidentally shoot themselves or others, or for the person with the hammer to overpower them and get the gun to use instead of the hammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I shouldn't bother replying to you, but just as easy as it would be for the person trying to defend themselves to accidentally shoot themselves or others, or for the person with the hammer to overpower them and get the gun to use instead of the hammer. You're making assumptions that the person with the firearm doesn't do any kind of training in preparation for a deadly encounter. It's probably projection on your part as you probably don't train for that type of situation so if you were to have a firearm and try to neutralize the threat, you probably would shoot an innocent or be disarmed by someone with a hammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bocivus Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 You're all joking, but imagine if he'd come in with an assault rifle from his local Walmart (thankfully they don't sell them anymore) instead of a hammer. Walmart has never sold assault rifles. You obviously don't even know what features are required to classify it as such. You're parroting words you hear in the media or other brainwashed people. Yet, here you are preaching about it anyway. I have an AR-15 ( Oh muh gawd) and my rifle has never assaulted anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.