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."
... 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.