ZOMG we need those anti-terror surveillance laws right now!

Forums › Off topic › ZOMG we need those anti-terror surveillance laws right now!

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 27

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1198488 16-Dec-2014 16:20

Sideface:
Fred99: Oh - and then there's Fox News:

"Speaking on Fox News after police stormed the Lindt cafe, Charles Hurt, a writer with the conservative newspaper The Washington Times and a Fox News contributor, said: "These people are hell bent to kill innocent people … In a free society there is nothing you can do about it. You can't prevent all these things from happening, which is why most Americans, when they see this stuff play out … they think about guns and it is why they think about personal gun ownership and being able to protect yourself, protect your family and protect your neighbours."
(SMH)

... so the best way to stop lunatics from kidnapping and shooting people is to give everybody "personal guns".
That works really well in the USA ...

As outsiders we tend to see the media provided anti gun spin on USA so make the simplistic view that (arming civilians = bad and arming police\government = good).

Half wits aside, is it not entirely plausible that a well trained (and permitted) civilian could defend himself or someone else just as effectively (or even more effectively than)

a) a desk cop who hasn't fired a gun in months
b) a rookie fresh out of police college
c) a trained specialist

Why do we only bestow that privilege on government employees ? what makes them more capable ? what makes them more trustworthy ?

If someone in that cafe was able to wrestle with the gunman, then surely its plausible a trained CCW holder could have got off a shot ?

Just trying to open up your minds a bit more.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1198490 16-Dec-2014 16:25

heylinb4nz:
Sideface:
Fred99: Oh - and then there's Fox News:

"Speaking on Fox News after police stormed the Lindt cafe, Charles Hurt, a writer with the conservative newspaper The Washington Times and a Fox News contributor, said: "These people are hell bent to kill innocent people … In a free society there is nothing you can do about it. You can't prevent all these things from happening, which is why most Americans, when they see this stuff play out … they think about guns and it is why they think about personal gun ownership and being able to protect yourself, protect your family and protect your neighbours."
(SMH)

... so the best way to stop lunatics from kidnapping and shooting people is to give everybody "personal guns".
That works really well in the USA ...

As outsiders we tend to see the media provided anti gun spin on USA so make the simplistic view that (arming civilians = bad and arming police\government = good).

Half wits aside, is it not entirely plausible that a well trained (and permitted) civilian could defend himself or someone else just as effectively (or even more effectively than)

a) a desk cop who hasn't fired a gun in months
b) a rookie fresh out of police college
c) a trained specialist ??
Why do we only bestow that privilege on government employees ? what makes them more capable ? what makes them more trustworthy ?

If someone in that cafe was able to wrestle with the gunman, then surely its plausible a trained CCW holder could have got off a shot ?

Just trying to open up your minds a bit more.

recipe for disaster, most "well trained civilians" will panic in a real situation as well as been unable to cope with the real life situation as a result their weapon will be useless. As for wrestling away a weapon? yeah right

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1198495 16-Dec-2014 16:37

KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
Sideface:
Fred99: Oh - and then there's Fox News:

"Speaking on Fox News after police stormed the Lindt cafe, Charles Hurt, a writer with the conservative newspaper The Washington Times and a Fox News contributor, said: "These people are hell bent to kill innocent people … In a free society there is nothing you can do about it. You can't prevent all these things from happening, which is why most Americans, when they see this stuff play out … they think about guns and it is why they think about personal gun ownership and being able to protect yourself, protect your family and protect your neighbours."
(SMH)

... so the best way to stop lunatics from kidnapping and shooting people is to give everybody "personal guns".
That works really well in the USA ...

As outsiders we tend to see the media provided anti gun spin on USA so make the simplistic view that (arming civilians = bad and arming police\government = good).

Half wits aside, is it not entirely plausible that a well trained (and permitted) civilian could defend himself or someone else just as effectively (or even more effectively than)

a) a desk cop who hasn't fired a gun in months
b) a rookie fresh out of police college
c) a trained specialist ??
Why do we only bestow that privilege on government employees ? what makes them more capable ? what makes them more trustworthy ?

If someone in that cafe was able to wrestle with the gunman, then surely its plausible a trained CCW holder could have got off a shot ?

Just trying to open up your minds a bit more.

recipe for disaster, most "well trained civilians" will panic in a real situation as well as been unable to cope with the real life situation as a result their weapon will be useless. As for wrestling away a weapon? yeah right

and how are well trained cops or soldiers any different ??.....most of them only ever fire their guns during training sessions. We are quite happy to send our young men into war zones and hand out guns like lollies to fresh beat cops, yet the though of trained armed civilians scare you ?? wow the brainwashing \ conditioning is strong in this one folks.

NOTE: I never said wrestling away a weapon from gunman, I said if someone was able to get close enough to wrestle him, then surely a CCW holder in the room could have drawn and shot him.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1198499 16-Dec-2014 16:42

heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
Sideface:
Fred99: Oh - and then there's Fox News:

"Speaking on Fox News after police stormed the Lindt cafe, Charles Hurt, a writer with the conservative newspaper The Washington Times and a Fox News contributor, said: "These people are hell bent to kill innocent people … In a free society there is nothing you can do about it. You can't prevent all these things from happening, which is why most Americans, when they see this stuff play out … they think about guns and it is why they think about personal gun ownership and being able to protect yourself, protect your family and protect your neighbours."
(SMH)

... so the best way to stop lunatics from kidnapping and shooting people is to give everybody "personal guns".
That works really well in the USA ...

As outsiders we tend to see the media provided anti gun spin on USA so make the simplistic view that (arming civilians = bad and arming police\government = good).

Half wits aside, is it not entirely plausible that a well trained (and permitted) civilian could defend himself or someone else just as effectively (or even more effectively than)

a) a desk cop who hasn't fired a gun in months
b) a rookie fresh out of police college
c) a trained specialist ??
Why do we only bestow that privilege on government employees ? what makes them more capable ? what makes them more trustworthy ?

If someone in that cafe was able to wrestle with the gunman, then surely its plausible a trained CCW holder could have got off a shot ?

Just trying to open up your minds a bit more.

recipe for disaster, most "well trained civilians" will panic in a real situation as well as been unable to cope with the real life situation as a result their weapon will be useless. As for wrestling away a weapon? yeah right

and how are well trained cops or soldiers any different ??.....most of them only ever fire their guns during training sessions. We are quite happy to send our young men into war zones and hand out guns like lollies to fresh beat cops, yet the though of trained armed civilians scare you ?? wow the brainwashing \ conditioning is strong in this one folks.

NOTE: I never said wrestling away a weapon from gunman, I said if someone was able to get close enough to wrestle him, then surely a CCW holder in the room could have drawn and shot him.

As I have said a few times in my family I have two sons that served in the NZ Army (in combat zones) 4 nephews likewise and a brother in law (senior officer) Brainwashing..... no reality yes

Edit; I forgot Sister in law and niece in Armed forces

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

ubergeeknz

3344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1041

Trusted

Vocus

#1198504 16-Dec-2014 16:46

heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
Sideface:
Fred99: Oh - and then there's Fox News:

"Speaking on Fox News after police stormed the Lindt cafe, Charles Hurt, a writer with the conservative newspaper The Washington Times and a Fox News contributor, said: "These people are hell bent to kill innocent people … In a free society there is nothing you can do about it. You can't prevent all these things from happening, which is why most Americans, when they see this stuff play out … they think about guns and it is why they think about personal gun ownership and being able to protect yourself, protect your family and protect your neighbours."
(SMH)

... so the best way to stop lunatics from kidnapping and shooting people is to give everybody "personal guns".
That works really well in the USA ...

As outsiders we tend to see the media provided anti gun spin on USA so make the simplistic view that (arming civilians = bad and arming police\government = good).

Half wits aside, is it not entirely plausible that a well trained (and permitted) civilian could defend himself or someone else just as effectively (or even more effectively than)

a) a desk cop who hasn't fired a gun in months
b) a rookie fresh out of police college
c) a trained specialist ??
Why do we only bestow that privilege on government employees ? what makes them more capable ? what makes them more trustworthy ?

If someone in that cafe was able to wrestle with the gunman, then surely its plausible a trained CCW holder could have got off a shot ?

Just trying to open up your minds a bit more.

recipe for disaster, most "well trained civilians" will panic in a real situation as well as been unable to cope with the real life situation as a result their weapon will be useless. As for wrestling away a weapon? yeah right

and how are well trained cops or soldiers any different ??.....most of them only ever fire their guns during training sessions. We are quite happy to send our young men into war zones and hand out guns like lollies to fresh beat cops, yet the though of trained armed civilians scare you ?? wow the brainwashing \ conditioning is strong in this one folks.

NOTE: I never said wrestling away a weapon from gunman, I said if someone was able to get close enough to wrestle him, then surely a CCW holder in the room could have drawn and shot him.

Meanwhile, in the USA: http://rt.com/usa/214559-five-killed-pennsylvania-shooting/

More people died from gunshot from an armed civilian in the USA than died in an actual hostage situation.

Suggest you also review this: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/sep/17/gun-crime-statistics-by-us-state

And compare with any country with sane gun laws, before trying to sell the "everyone should have guns, that will prevent shootings!" line as maintained by the NRA et al.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1198512 16-Dec-2014 16:53

KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
Sideface:
Fred99: Oh - and then there's Fox News:

"Speaking on Fox News after police stormed the Lindt cafe, Charles Hurt, a writer with the conservative newspaper The Washington Times and a Fox News contributor, said: "These people are hell bent to kill innocent people … In a free society there is nothing you can do about it. You can't prevent all these things from happening, which is why most Americans, when they see this stuff play out … they think about guns and it is why they think about personal gun ownership and being able to protect yourself, protect your family and protect your neighbours."
(SMH)

... so the best way to stop lunatics from kidnapping and shooting people is to give everybody "personal guns".
That works really well in the USA ...

As outsiders we tend to see the media provided anti gun spin on USA so make the simplistic view that (arming civilians = bad and arming police\government = good).

Half wits aside, is it not entirely plausible that a well trained (and permitted) civilian could defend himself or someone else just as effectively (or even more effectively than)

a) a desk cop who hasn't fired a gun in months
b) a rookie fresh out of police college
c) a trained specialist ??
Why do we only bestow that privilege on government employees ? what makes them more capable ? what makes them more trustworthy ?

If someone in that cafe was able to wrestle with the gunman, then surely its plausible a trained CCW holder could have got off a shot ?

Just trying to open up your minds a bit more.

recipe for disaster, most "well trained civilians" will panic in a real situation as well as been unable to cope with the real life situation as a result their weapon will be useless. As for wrestling away a weapon? yeah right

and how are well trained cops or soldiers any different ??.....most of them only ever fire their guns during training sessions. We are quite happy to send our young men into war zones and hand out guns like lollies to fresh beat cops, yet the though of trained armed civilians scare you ?? wow the brainwashing \ conditioning is strong in this one folks.

NOTE: I never said wrestling away a weapon from gunman, I said if someone was able to get close enough to wrestle him, then surely a CCW holder in the room could have drawn and shot him.

As I have said a few times in my family I have two sons that served in the NZ Army (in combat zones) 4 nephews likewise and a brother in law (senior officer) Brainwashing..... no reality yes

Edit; I forgot Sister in law and niece in Armed forces

Wow that's awesome, good on them, you realise that military tactics and training dont even apply to urban everyday situations, you arent going to engage a bad guy in a Lindt Choc cafe with a Styr Aug...more than likely you'll be drawing at 9mm or .45 from concealment at 5-8 meters.

Completely different kettle of fish and still not a sufficient example of why police are better equipped to defend than well trained civilians.

Are you saying that police are superhuman and civilians are numpties ??

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1198515 16-Dec-2014 16:58

ubergeeknz:
heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
Sideface:
Fred99: Oh - and then there's Fox News:

"Speaking on Fox News after police stormed the Lindt cafe, Charles Hurt, a writer with the conservative newspaper The Washington Times and a Fox News contributor, said: "These people are hell bent to kill innocent people … In a free society there is nothing you can do about it. You can't prevent all these things from happening, which is why most Americans, when they see this stuff play out … they think about guns and it is why they think about personal gun ownership and being able to protect yourself, protect your family and protect your neighbours."
(SMH)

... so the best way to stop lunatics from kidnapping and shooting people is to give everybody "personal guns".
That works really well in the USA ...

As outsiders we tend to see the media provided anti gun spin on USA so make the simplistic view that (arming civilians = bad and arming police\government = good).

Half wits aside, is it not entirely plausible that a well trained (and permitted) civilian could defend himself or someone else just as effectively (or even more effectively than)

a) a desk cop who hasn't fired a gun in months
b) a rookie fresh out of police college
c) a trained specialist ??
Why do we only bestow that privilege on government employees ? what makes them more capable ? what makes them more trustworthy ?

If someone in that cafe was able to wrestle with the gunman, then surely its plausible a trained CCW holder could have got off a shot ?

Just trying to open up your minds a bit more.

recipe for disaster, most "well trained civilians" will panic in a real situation as well as been unable to cope with the real life situation as a result their weapon will be useless. As for wrestling away a weapon? yeah right

and how are well trained cops or soldiers any different ??.....most of them only ever fire their guns during training sessions. We are quite happy to send our young men into war zones and hand out guns like lollies to fresh beat cops, yet the though of trained armed civilians scare you ?? wow the brainwashing \ conditioning is strong in this one folks.

NOTE: I never said wrestling away a weapon from gunman, I said if someone was able to get close enough to wrestle him, then surely a CCW holder in the room could have drawn and shot him.

Meanwhile, in the USA: http://rt.com/usa/214559-five-killed-pennsylvania-shooting/

More people died from gunshot from an armed civilian in the USA than died in an actual hostage situation.

Suggest you also review this: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/sep/17/gun-crime-statistics-by-us-state

And compare with any country with sane gun laws, before trying to sell the "everyone should have guns, that will prevent shootings!" line as maintained by the NRA et al.

Oh god here we go, the anti gun \ pro gun debate.

I'm not saying dish them out 2nd amendment style to all and sundry.

I'm saying is it not plausible that a TRAINED civilian who is approved, vetted, blah blah blah etc etc can defend oneself or others as effectively as the same person who just happens to wear a uniform and carry a badge ??

Why dont people get this ??? police, military, aos, sis...they are just fricken people like you and me with appropriate training..nothing more.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1198517 16-Dec-2014 17:03

I will however entertain for our viewers

- Meanwhile, in the USA: http://rt.com/usa/214559-five-killed-pennsylvania-shooting/
- Suggest you also review this: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/sep/17/gun-crime-statistics-by-us-state
- More people died from gunshot from an armed civilian in the USA than died in an actual hostage situation.

How many assualts, murders, rapes were prevented by lawful defenders...oh wait they don't report on that.
How many of those were gang vs gang, how many suicide, how many justified homicides
How many possible deaths caused by lack of access to effective self defence weapons in draconian states like California and Washington

I love the anti-gun stance of meaningless manipulated numbers vs asking deeper questions and analyzing the situation beyond the argument of "guns are bad"

Beccara

1473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 517

ID Verified

#1198519 16-Dec-2014 17:03

heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
Sideface:
Fred99: Oh - and then there's Fox News:

"Speaking on Fox News after police stormed the Lindt cafe, Charles Hurt, a writer with the conservative newspaper The Washington Times and a Fox News contributor, said: "These people are hell bent to kill innocent people … In a free society there is nothing you can do about it. You can't prevent all these things from happening, which is why most Americans, when they see this stuff play out … they think about guns and it is why they think about personal gun ownership and being able to protect yourself, protect your family and protect your neighbours."
(SMH)

... so the best way to stop lunatics from kidnapping and shooting people is to give everybody "personal guns".
That works really well in the USA ...

As outsiders we tend to see the media provided anti gun spin on USA so make the simplistic view that (arming civilians = bad and arming police\government = good).

Half wits aside, is it not entirely plausible that a well trained (and permitted) civilian could defend himself or someone else just as effectively (or even more effectively than)

a) a desk cop who hasn't fired a gun in months
b) a rookie fresh out of police college
c) a trained specialist ??
Why do we only bestow that privilege on government employees ? what makes them more capable ? what makes them more trustworthy ?

If someone in that cafe was able to wrestle with the gunman, then surely its plausible a trained CCW holder could have got off a shot ?

Just trying to open up your minds a bit more.

recipe for disaster, most "well trained civilians" will panic in a real situation as well as been unable to cope with the real life situation as a result their weapon will be useless. As for wrestling away a weapon? yeah right

and how are well trained cops or soldiers any different ??.....most of them only ever fire their guns during training sessions. We are quite happy to send our young men into war zones and hand out guns like lollies to fresh beat cops, yet the though of trained armed civilians scare you ?? wow the brainwashing \ conditioning is strong in this one folks.

NOTE: I never said wrestling away a weapon from gunman, I said if someone was able to get close enough to wrestle him, then surely a CCW holder in the room could have drawn and shot him.

As I have said a few times in my family I have two sons that served in the NZ Army (in combat zones) 4 nephews likewise and a brother in law (senior officer) Brainwashing..... no reality yes

Edit; I forgot Sister in law and niece in Armed forces

Wow that's awesome, good on them, you realise that military tactics and training dont even apply to urban everyday situations, you arent going to engage a bad guy in a Lindt Choc cafe with a Styr Aug...more than likely you'll be drawing at 9mm or .45 from concealment at 5-8 meters.

Completely different kettle of fish and still not a sufficient example of why police are better equipped to defend than well trained civilians.

Are you saying that police are superhuman and civilians are numpties ??

Do civvies work in a job where everyday they are placed into unknown and potentially hostile situations? Police on a daily basis deal with fear and personal safety issues far beyond what some weekend warrior will ever see.

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1198527 16-Dec-2014 17:05

No I am saying the most civilians not be able handle it, they would empty several clips and not hit a single assailant. If the military were used in that situation they would not deploy with Steyr's. They have other kit for that task. I would put my life in professionals any day as opposed to weekend/basement warriors.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1198528 16-Dec-2014 17:07

Beccara:
heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
Sideface:
Fred99: Oh - and then there's Fox News:

"Speaking on Fox News after police stormed the Lindt cafe, Charles Hurt, a writer with the conservative newspaper The Washington Times and a Fox News contributor, said: "These people are hell bent to kill innocent people … In a free society there is nothing you can do about it. You can't prevent all these things from happening, which is why most Americans, when they see this stuff play out … they think about guns and it is why they think about personal gun ownership and being able to protect yourself, protect your family and protect your neighbours."
(SMH)

... so the best way to stop lunatics from kidnapping and shooting people is to give everybody "personal guns".
That works really well in the USA ...

As outsiders we tend to see the media provided anti gun spin on USA so make the simplistic view that (arming civilians = bad and arming police\government = good).

Half wits aside, is it not entirely plausible that a well trained (and permitted) civilian could defend himself or someone else just as effectively (or even more effectively than)

a) a desk cop who hasn't fired a gun in months
b) a rookie fresh out of police college
c) a trained specialist ??
Why do we only bestow that privilege on government employees ? what makes them more capable ? what makes them more trustworthy ?

If someone in that cafe was able to wrestle with the gunman, then surely its plausible a trained CCW holder could have got off a shot ?

Just trying to open up your minds a bit more.

recipe for disaster, most "well trained civilians" will panic in a real situation as well as been unable to cope with the real life situation as a result their weapon will be useless. As for wrestling away a weapon? yeah right

and how are well trained cops or soldiers any different ??.....most of them only ever fire their guns during training sessions. We are quite happy to send our young men into war zones and hand out guns like lollies to fresh beat cops, yet the though of trained armed civilians scare you ?? wow the brainwashing \ conditioning is strong in this one folks.

NOTE: I never said wrestling away a weapon from gunman, I said if someone was able to get close enough to wrestle him, then surely a CCW holder in the room could have drawn and shot him.

As I have said a few times in my family I have two sons that served in the NZ Army (in combat zones) 4 nephews likewise and a brother in law (senior officer) Brainwashing..... no reality yes

Edit; I forgot Sister in law and niece in Armed forces

Wow that's awesome, good on them, you realise that military tactics and training dont even apply to urban everyday situations, you arent going to engage a bad guy in a Lindt Choc cafe with a Styr Aug...more than likely you'll be drawing at 9mm or .45 from concealment at 5-8 meters.

Completely different kettle of fish and still not a sufficient example of why police are better equipped to defend than well trained civilians.

Are you saying that police are superhuman and civilians are numpties ??

Do civvies work in a job where everyday they are placed into unknown and potentially hostile situations? Police on a daily basis deal with fear and personal safety issues far beyond what some weekend warrior will ever see.

Obviously yes !!!....its called everyday life..

- getting raped by the lake
- getting assaulted in town
- getting bashed in your home
- having to walk home at night in bad neighborhood because you cant afford to live somewhere safer
- minding your business in a chocolate cafe
- going to Port Arthur to do some sight seeing
- sitting in front of Telly at your pad in Aramoana
- driving to work on Auckland motorway

fear is fear no matter what uniform you wear, same as training.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1198529 16-Dec-2014 17:11

I showed this thread to my son, he is still laughing. I wont repeat what he said. He nailed it in a few words.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1198540 16-Dec-2014 17:28

heylinb4nz: fear is fear no matter what uniform you wear, same as training.

That sounds like America, all right. Lots of fearful men with guns.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1198549 16-Dec-2014 17:59

heylinb4nz:
Beccara:
heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
Sideface:
Fred99: Oh - and then there's Fox News:

"Speaking on Fox News after police stormed the Lindt cafe, Charles Hurt, a writer with the conservative newspaper The Washington Times and a Fox News contributor, said: "These people are hell bent to kill innocent people … In a free society there is nothing you can do about it. You can't prevent all these things from happening, which is why most Americans, when they see this stuff play out … they think about guns and it is why they think about personal gun ownership and being able to protect yourself, protect your family and protect your neighbours."
(SMH)

... so the best way to stop lunatics from kidnapping and shooting people is to give everybody "personal guns".
That works really well in the USA ...

As outsiders we tend to see the media provided anti gun spin on USA so make the simplistic view that (arming civilians = bad and arming police\government = good).

Half wits aside, is it not entirely plausible that a well trained (and permitted) civilian could defend himself or someone else just as effectively (or even more effectively than)

a) a desk cop who hasn't fired a gun in months
b) a rookie fresh out of police college
c) a trained specialist ??
Why do we only bestow that privilege on government employees ? what makes them more capable ? what makes them more trustworthy ?

If someone in that cafe was able to wrestle with the gunman, then surely its plausible a trained CCW holder could have got off a shot ?

Just trying to open up your minds a bit more.

recipe for disaster, most "well trained civilians" will panic in a real situation as well as been unable to cope with the real life situation as a result their weapon will be useless. As for wrestling away a weapon? yeah right

and how are well trained cops or soldiers any different ??.....most of them only ever fire their guns during training sessions. We are quite happy to send our young men into war zones and hand out guns like lollies to fresh beat cops, yet the though of trained armed civilians scare you ?? wow the brainwashing \ conditioning is strong in this one folks.

NOTE: I never said wrestling away a weapon from gunman, I said if someone was able to get close enough to wrestle him, then surely a CCW holder in the room could have drawn and shot him.

As I have said a few times in my family I have two sons that served in the NZ Army (in combat zones) 4 nephews likewise and a brother in law (senior officer) Brainwashing..... no reality yes

Edit; I forgot Sister in law and niece in Armed forces

Wow that's awesome, good on them, you realise that military tactics and training dont even apply to urban everyday situations, you arent going to engage a bad guy in a Lindt Choc cafe with a Styr Aug...more than likely you'll be drawing at 9mm or .45 from concealment at 5-8 meters.

Completely different kettle of fish and still not a sufficient example of why police are better equipped to defend than well trained civilians.

Are you saying that police are superhuman and civilians are numpties ??

Do civvies work in a job where everyday they are placed into unknown and potentially hostile situations? Police on a daily basis deal with fear and personal safety issues far beyond what some weekend warrior will ever see.

Obviously yes !!!....its called everyday life..

- getting raped by the lake
- getting assaulted in town
- getting bashed in your home
- having to walk home at night in bad neighborhood because you cant afford to live somewhere safer
- minding your business in a chocolate cafe
- going to Port Arthur to do some sight seeing
- sitting in front of Telly at your pad in Aramoana
- driving to work on Auckland motorway

fear is fear no matter what uniform you wear, same as training.

Obviously NO, what you are describing is paranoia.

ANYONE who wants a gun for "self defence" should never be allowed one. They have shown the are frightened, and frightened people do stupid things, they have also shown a willingness to kill another person.

I wonder how many acts of "self defence" are by people deliberately putting themselves into situations where they can 'legally' kill someone.

2012 NZ had a murder rate of 0.9 per 100,000 people, the USA is 4.7 per 100,000 , i.e. over 5 times higher

or how about the rates for violent crime, rape, Aggravated assault in the year 2000 USA vs NZ
http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/2002/international-comparisons-of-recorded-violent-crime-rates-for-2000/new-zealand-compared-to-usa-violent-crime

Guns have NOT solved any problems in the USA, it just creates MORE dead Americans

How about this one too
Since the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 94 school shootings in America — an average of nearly one a week
http://everytown.org/article/schoolshootings/

You would also think that with the significantly more punitive "justice" system in the USA that if that actually worked, crime would be lower than NZ.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1198579 16-Dec-2014 18:39

sir1963:

Obviously NO, what you are describing is paranoia.

ANYONE who wants a gun for "self defence" should never be allowed one. They have shown the are frightened, and frightened people do stupid things, they have also shown a willingness to kill another person.

I wonder how many acts of "self defence" are by people deliberately putting themselves into situations where they can 'legally' kill someone.

2012 NZ had a murder rate of 0.9 per 100,000 people, the USA is 4.7 per 100,000 , i.e. over 5 times higher

or how about the rates for violent crime, rape, Aggravated assault in the year 2000 USA vs NZ
http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/2002/international-comparisons-of-recorded-violent-crime-rates-for-2000/new-zealand-compared-to-usa-violent-crime

Guns have NOT solved any problems in the USA, it just creates MORE dead Americans

How about this one too
Since the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 94 school shootings in America — an average of nearly one a week
http://everytown.org/article/schoolshootings/

You would also think that with the significantly more punitive "justice" system in the USA that if that actually worked, crime would be lower than NZ.

OMG!!! the old get gun turn into a cold blooded killer argument.....seriously you come to the argument with baseless left wing liberal anti gun rubbish like that ?

QUOTE "ANYONE who wants a gun for "self defence" should never be allowed one"

What do the police use them for then ? why are their needs to effective self defence any less than anyone else ?

Again im not arguing that USA doesnt have a gun problem, im simply saying that a select few people willing to do proper training and vetting should be allowed to CCW and that would not create the issue you speak of in a free for all 2nd amendment model.

Again for the record, im not saying guns only, im saying training and making sure the right people have them as well. (not necessarily just police).

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 27