They get an abbreviated version which barely glosses over the very laws they are sworn to uphold. Go ahead and pop-quiz the average Canadian cop on the Firearms Act sometime, then do the same to a Canadian gun owner. The results will surprise you, especially if you're under the assumption that cops have "superior" training and education on the matter.
Why do you lock your door at home? Are you paranoid?The chances of anything happening to you is very slim.
Thanks for your thinking, and the definite 'maybe'. You have convinced me, more than ever that the notion that equipping ordinary people with guns so they'll have to decide who to shoot is utterly idiotic. It's as far from making anyone safe as we can get, never mind making us all safer.
So your telling me in broad daylight, a shooter can't be indentified and taken out by someone else with a gun? such as the case of Pittsburgh and South Carolina, maybe if someone had one not so many would have died
No. You are making that up. In fact the news item which is the topic makes it abundantly clear that is no easy thing even for the professionals we hire and task with putting themselves in harm's way to do it.
Unless you are blind it's pretty easy to see a guy walk into a place of worship with a rifle, he would stick out like a sore thumb, not so difficult to identify. The professionals you are talking about don't know who entered these venues, they were not present when the perp got there, the people already inside can easily determine who was there and who just entered with a rifle.
Actually my door is unlocked as often as it is locked.
The results would not surprise me. But I still find having a gun safety course requirement better than not.
And if the guy with the rifle wore a day-glo vest lettered Shooter, they'd be even easier to spot. Go for it.
Not silly at all, in most mass shootings assault rifles are used to kill as many as possible in a short period of time, handguns aren't as efficient, I don't know if you read the article but the pistol-carrying legal folks didn't kill this man, they actually didn't shoot at anybody. He was killed by the well trained police as you would call them.
Or, as I did call them, 'pistol-carrying legal folks', who know a single pistol bullet can be as deadly as one from an assault rifle. And that Shooters don't respect your rule that they wave only rifles around.
I did make the point that if their were armed citizens in the synagogue shooting and the South Carolina church shooting, the body count might not have been so high, you dismissed like you know it as fact. how you can make that determination i don't know. I get it you are against people having guns i'm not, if you can give me an example where an innocent citizen was killed at a mass shooting by someone either than the shooter or the police. i'd love to hear it.
I see. The gun-death of the innocent but armed citizen-vigilante this thread is about is of no concern. Now you'd like me to argue a different, and even less relevant point than the one you first stated, but which you haven't yet bothered to support.
The lack of evidence does not mean your theory is sound. It's a fact that regular police even in the US get minimal gun training and barely adequate practice. It's a matter of time, and money. In fact most of their gun training and practice is in static ranges. There is a reason that a normal cop will call in special units to deal with these situations. They are not trained and they know it. The average recreational gun owner gets even less training and practice - especially in a city where there are fewer areas for a casual gun owner to shoot. So to expect normal citizens to act with a good result is folly. The only thing normal citizens with guns provide is a possible deterrent because of the largely false perception that they can adequately defend themselves.
Which would have been less likely if guns weren't so easy to get.
Well in the case I gave you, the shooter got away but a guy defending himself with a gun got killed by the police.
So well trained they killed the wrong guy. If the guys allegedly trained to deal with gunmen can't get it right, what makes you think average people could?
Or it might have been higher as people misidentified other law abiding gun owners as assailants like the cops did in the OP case.
