Suspect Dead, 10 Hurt in Attack at B.C. Office

[Hugor Hill]

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.

You are making the assumption that the person with the firearm is trained technically, physically and mentally.

[Bocivus]

You are making the assumption that the person with the firearm is trained technically, physically and mentally.

Again, that goes back to PERSONAL responsibility, something that seems foreign to some in here.

If you're going to carry, be prepared. Period.

[inane]

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.

This kind of thinking is common but seriously screwed up. In theory, it sounds great. But in reality, the realty in which we live in, it just doesn't work that way. I get you are a believer of Carson who said a body full of bullet holes isn't as scary as taking away gun rights. I get the theory behind that. But I frankly don't trust people enough. For every good guy with a gun that's trained and uses their training to defend when needed in an appropriate manner there are thousands of deaths, as noted everywhere all the time and poignantly in that thread about children killing children. I just don't think it's worth it.

[Hugor Hill]

Again, that goes back to PERSONAL responsibility, something that seems foreign to some in here.

If you're going to carry, be prepared. Period.

Again, you are assuming that every firearm owner is 'responsible' and 'prepared', which clearly is not the case.

[Baer.]

Canada Office Attacks: suspect dead, 10 injured, 2 critically, no victims have died yet.

American School Attacks:

Suspect armed with guns, ammo and armor, 10-15 dead, many more injured

If this isn't a sign to all you pro-gun people, I don't know what is.

[Bocivus]

This kind of thinking is common but seriously screwed up. In theory, it sounds great. But in reality, the realty in which we live in, it just doesn't work that way. I get you are a believer of Carson who said a body full of bullet holes isn't as scary as taking away gun rights. I get the theory behind that. But I frankly don't trust people enough. For every good guy with a gun that's trained and uses their training to defend when needed in an appropriate manner there are thousands of deaths, as noted everywhere all the time and poignantly in that thread about children killing children. I just don't think it's worth it.

And if a lot more people realized that they and they only are responsible for their own (self) defense instead of relying on the police don't you think this would drastically change? No one is responsible for your own protection. That would require people acknowledging personal responsibility (there's that phrase again) and a realization that there are bad people out there that are going to do bad things. If you don't trust other people that much, then maybe it's time to assume that role yourself.

[Bocivus]

Canada Office Attacks: suspect dead, 10 injured, 2 critically, no victims have died yet.

American School Attacks:

Suspect armed with guns, ammo and armor, 10-15 dead, many more injured

If this isn't a sign to all you pro-gun people, I don't know what is.

If this isn't a sign of a brainwashed individual that believes everything they see in the media, I don't know what is.

[Hugor Hill]

If this isn't a sign of a brainwashed individual that believes everything they see in the media, I don't know what is.

If this isn't a sign of Alex Jones level conspiracy theory nuthead, I don't know what is.

[etsen3]

Again, you are assuming that every firearm owner is 'responsible' and 'prepared', which clearly is not the case.

Actually the whole point of gun control is to ensure that every firearm owner is in fact responsible and prepared. Anti-gun control people always talk about how the good guys should have guns, but aren't even in favour of common sense laws that increase the ratio of good guys with guns to bad guys with guns.

I don't wanna live in a vigilante society where people are regularly getting into shootouts. Sounds good in theory, however it relies on a perfect scenario every time where:

a) someone notices the bad guy with a gun as soon as he pulls it out

that person is well trained in combat and is a perfect shot

c) the person pulling out the gun actually has murderous intentions and isn't just admiring it

In reality, even if a hero did manage to neutralize the gunman, it would be messy and innocent blood would likely be shed in the process.

In civilized countries, people should be able to go about their day peacefully without these things happening in the first place.

[inane]

And if a lot more people realized that they and they only are responsible for their own (self) defense instead of relying on the police don't you think this would drastically change? No one is responsible for your own protection. That would require people acknowledging personal responsibility (there's that phrase again) and a realization that there are bad people out there that are going to do bad things. If you don't trust other people that much, then maybe it's time to assume that role yourself.

Again, sounds great in theory. But we live in a society and having everyone go around 'defending' themselves from threats perceived or real would lead to vigilante style law and order. Look at places where there is no real police, how are those places working out?

The problem with your theory is it doesn't work in the real world. It assumes everyone does have personal responsibility which they don't and often can't for whatever reason. It assumes people are trained in whatever weapon they have, are mentally stable and able to exercise judgement.

Do I wish a lived in a world where we didn't need cops either because crime didn't exist or everyone could defend themselves with no repercussions for others? Sure sign me up.

[Bocivus]

If this isn't a sign of Alex Jones level conspiracy theory nuthead, I don't know what is.

If this isn't another poor attempt in using words as "conspiracy theory" and "Alex Jones" at an attempt to discredit someone because said poster lacks the ability to critically think, I don't know what is.

[Hugor Hill]

If this isn't another poor attempt in using words as "conspiracy theory" and "Alex Jones" at an attempt to discredit someone because said poster lacks the ability to critically think, I don't know what is.

If you are not in denial, then I don't know what constitutes being in denial.

[Bocivus]

Again, sounds great in theory. But we live in a society and having everyone go around 'defending' themselves from threats perceived or real would lead to vigilante style law and order. Look at places where there is no real police, how are those places working out?

The problem with your theory is it doesn't work in the real world. It assumes everyone does have personal responsibility which they don't and often can't for whatever reason. It assumes people are trained in whatever weapon they have, are mentally stable and able to exercise judgement.

Do I wish a lived in a world where we didn't need cops either because crime didn't exist or everyone could defend themselves with no repercussions for others? Sure sign me up.

So you don't trust citizens to be prepared if need be, but you trust the police? Why do the police automatically get placed on a pedestal when there are so many cases of them not being held accountable for their actions to the same extent as others after they are negligent? How many threads are there in here about police brutality, unjustified police shootings etc? So if someone wears a badge and a uniform, they automatically get the trust from you to carry a firearm and potentially use it when needed? I don't get it.

I've been through a few police screenings, and while extensive, they are not very effective in selecting the right candidates for the job. In fact, I've heard it successfully argued that the job in and of itself attracts the very people that shouldn't be hired in the first place, but that's another story. I was a cop in the military and trust me when I say, there are a lot of people that have no business being police.

[Baer.]

If this isn't a sign of a brainwashed individual that believes everything they see in the media, I don't know what is.

>doesn't share same views

>"you're brainwashed by the media!"

[Bocivus]

>doesn't share same views

>"you're brainwashed by the media!"

Using a fictitious story as evidence to prove a point has nothing to do with not sharing the same views.

[Baer.]

Using a fictitious story as evidence to prove a point has nothing to do with not sharing the same views.

It's not fictitious, did you not hear about what happened in Portland? Or Aurora? Or Virginia Tech?

[Hugor Hill]

Using a fictitious story as evidence to prove a point has nothing to do with not sharing the same views.

Only it wasn't fictitious.

[Baer.]

It's like he plugs his ears with bullets.

[Bocivus]

It's like he plugs his ears with bullets.

No, I actually like my Howard Leight Electronic Impact Sport earmuffs.

[inane]

So you don't trust citizens to be prepared if need be, but you trust the police? Why do the police automatically get placed on a pedestal when there are so many cases of them not being held accountable for their actions to the same extent as others after they are negligent? How many threads are there in here about police brutality, unjustified police shootings etc? So if someone wears a badge and a uniform, they automatically get the trust from you to carry a firearm and potentially use it when needed? I don't get it.

I've been through a few police screenings, and while extensive, they are not very effective in selecting the right candidates for the job. In fact, I've heard it successfully argued that the job in and of itself attracts the very people that shouldn't be hired in the first place, but that's another story. I was a cop in the military and trust me when I say, there are a lot of people that have no business being police.

I don't trust either but at least with the police I'm assured they've been properly trained. Are there bad cops? Will mistakes happen? Of course, but not at the rate at which mistakes happen with regular joes. And of course there's limitations on their powers and that is a serious issue.

You seem to have a hang up on the cops rather than discussing the issue of personal responsibility and this fantasy land you seem to think we would live in if everyone would just take responsibility for themselves.