New gun control push because of Tucson shooting

[Andara Bledin]

I've seen the sort of ape men that are most fervant about gun rights and I would not trust them with a god damn butter knife. Sure they're not the norm, but it doesn't matter, because they're out there WITH the norm. And probably more heavily armed.

You've seen the fringe element that the news loves because they're freaks. Most of us fly completely under the radar because we don't make for high ratings.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

You've seen the fringe element that the news loves because they're freaks. Most of us fly completely under the radar because we don't make for high ratings.

^-.-^

I know, as I said though, they're out there *with* you and probably carrying more ammo. >.>

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The Arizona shooter only had a 9mm. It still went clean through Gifford's, and in fact over penetration is what ironically saved her life. Had the round dumped more of its energy passing through her brain, she would be dead. And thats through the skull, which takes quite a bit of force to penetrate.

Even just the standard 9mm round has an average penetration of 13-14 inchs into soft tissues. Thats enough to go through me quite soundly. Unless your plan is to dive behind someone portly whenever you hear gun fire.

All of this is when using ball-type ammunition, the wrong tool for the job when it comes to self-defense. Even if you are using Ball type ammunition, while it may perforate your target, by then it's lost a substantial amount of it's energy because pistol rounds don't have a lot of energy to to start with and it's most likely deformed and definitely not traveling properly. Over-penetrating pistol caliber rounds only travel a short distance before falling off trajectory and impact far from optimally, in short, a hell of a lot less of a threat than you might think.

-are totally irrelevant unless they are being legally mandated. Which they are not. Arizona does not even require a training course unless you want a conceal carry permit.

Many jurisdictions do require courses, and on top of that, many if not most of those who choose to carry avail themselves of some basic training requirements or not. Dismissing something as irrelevant because it's not applied in every case is remarkably fallacious. Especially since it often is applied in every case within certain jurisdictions.

Both of which are more lethal as well and would have killed Gifford outright. You're basically trading 10 victims hit by direct and indirect fire with a chance of survival, for 5 victims being killed with no chance of survival. Or worse case scenario, the shooter aware of his ammunition type and measures his shots accordingly, racking up an even higher count.

Try and concentrate here buddy, we're talking about the rounds used against the shooter, not by the shooter. In which case the added lethality that comes with reduced penetration is a good thing. We're fortunate in that the shooter was thickheaded enough not to select better ammunition, but even if it were illegal for concealed carry users, if he wanted it, he could've gotten it without all that much hassle and from there there's nothing stopping him from loading them in contravention of said law.

Both ammunition types make a mess internally.

Precisely where we want the mess to be, given the circumstances.

US police sound woefully undertrained if this is the case. >.>

Very few police in the world are trained to deal with active shooter scenarios. They represent a minuscule part of everyday threat to society and as such fall under the preview of specialized response teams and to an extent, patrol officers at most. Altogether a small portion of any areas total LE force.

No, I don't believe it. I work in customer service. I don't trust the average person to open a bag of chips. I've seen the sort of ape men that are most fervant about gun rights and I would not trust them with a god damn butter knife. Sure they're not the norm, but it doesn't matter, because they're out there WITH the norm. And probably more heavily armed.

Because you're routine encounters with people who are, by definition, less than the sharpest tools in the drawer accurately represents the population as a whole
If you don't trust the general populace with weapons than you should also not trust most members of any countries military, police force, etc. The fact of the matter is that for the most part armed conflict is very much a 'by the seat of your pants' affair. If you're willing to throw out an entire group of potential protectors because not all of them are going to be elite tactical gurus I'd suggest you find yourself a third world nation where anarchy rules the day and the standing army is one guy chilling on some street corner. After all, what could be worse than having less-than-absolutely-ideal people working to protect you?

Ugh, not this argument again. You're not special because you can carry a gun under your jacket rather than outside of it. Nor does you carrying a gun under your jacket negate the guy just walking around with one for the fuck of it because thats perfectly legal too.

Open carriers are few and far between, and most of them have concealed carry permits and just occasionally choose not to make use of them. Fact of the matter is that most people who consider concealed carry an option are also recreational shooters and as such, log a healthy amount of range time. Which is more than you can say for rent-a-cop Steve in more cases than would be ideal.

Here in real people land I don't have to worry about being shot in the street because every random asshole can buy a gun at Walmart with little more than a 3 day grace period. Here in real people land I can rest assured that if some guy is wandering around with a gun he's going to end up dealing with the cops regardless of what he's doing with said gun. Here in real people land I can rest assured no one's bringing an assault rifle to a political rally just to prove a point.

I don't think you're living in real people land so much as the land of sitting ducks. It's been shown pretty damn conclusively that the amount of violence is linked directly to factors like poverty, gang activity and illegal drug trafficking. But feel free to buy into the group think that is the casual dismissal of a FBI background check, the assumption that inanimate objects are somehow evil, and that a point proven by someone harming no-one is also evil just because it's associated with that same inanimate object.

Here in real people land I feel safe. Because we don't all fucking have guns. >.>

Is it more important to feel safe? or to be safe?

If you are fortunate enough to live in an area with very little violent crime, good for you. However, you have no right to restrict the rights of people in more dangerous situations. They know their situation better than you, so it's best if you mind your own damn business. You don't want a gun? don't buy one, don't want to be around people who have guns? avoid them. May not always be possible, but you're just going to have to deal.

[Boozy]

Is it more important to feel safe? or to be safe?

Feeling safe leads to being safe.

When the entire population is walking around in fear, hugging their concealed weapons to their chests because by-god-the-king-of-england-could-kill-them-any-second, all it takes is a car backfiring before the whole powder keg explodes.

[Gravekeeper]

Many jurisdictions do require courses-

Just because some do, doesn't negate those that don't and frankly I fail to believe your standard gun safety course includes a "How to engage in a firefight" section.

Dismissing something as irrelevant because it's not applied in every case is remarkably fallacious.

Yet declaring it fine because its applied in some cases is alright?

Try and concentrate here buddy, we're talking about the rounds used against the shooter, not by the shooter.

If you put them into play by making them legal, that means they get them too. Unless they're going to come labeled "Do not sell to bad guys" for the clerk? So yes, you have to entertain the possibility of by the shooter as well.

if he wanted it, he could've gotten it without all that much hassle and from there there's nothing stopping him from loading them in contravention of said law.

Wait, how does that point *help* your argument?

Very few police in the world are trained to deal with active shooter scenarios.

Any Canadian police officer thats a supervisor or patrol sgt or higher for example. Or any RCMP cadet, they have basic training for it. Still, as you helpfully suggested, you're going to call a specialized response team anyhow.

Because you're routine encounters with people who are, by definition, less than the sharpest tools in the drawer accurately represents the population as a whole.

No offence, but don't near half of Americans reject evolution, and a fifth of Americans think the sun revolves around the Earth? So yes, I don't much trust the general public. >.>

If you don't trust the general populace with weapons than you should also not trust most members of any countries military, police force, etc.

Why, exactly? A soldier or officer is going to have training and likely experience on top of that. Does a gun from Walmart come with 6 months of training?

If you're willing to throw out an entire group of potential protectors because not all of them are going to be elite tactical gurus

But the same mechanisms that enable you to think of yourself as a "protector" also enable that which you are trying to protect against.

I'd suggest you find yourself a third world nation where anarchy rules the day and the standing army is one guy chilling on some street corner.

What, like Canada? I'm not even sure what you're talking about now. >.>

After all, what could be worse than having less-than-absolutely-ideal people working to protect you?

Working to protect me? What are you even talking about? Protecting me isn't your job just because you own a gun.

Which is more than you can say for rent-a-cop Steve in more cases than would be ideal.

Why does poor Steve even factor into this? Does every business in the US have security guards with orders to engage any potential gunman and lay down their lives for the sake of their just above minimum wage? Are you really calling Steve when this happens? Man, sucks to be Steve. Up here he would have just had to throw kids out of the mall and patrol construction sites.

I don't think you're living in real people land so much as the land of sitting ducks.

Sitting ducks from who? From what? Who is supposedly coming to get me?

It's been shown pretty damn conclusively that the amount of violence is linked directly to factors like poverty, gang activity and illegal drug trafficking.

So its not the guns, its the fact you live in third world anarchy? ;p

But feel free to buy into the group think that is the casual dismissal of a FBI background check, the assumption that inanimate objects are somehow evil, and that a point proven by someone harming no-one is also evil just because it's associated with that same inanimate object.

Who are you talking too? Seeing as I said nothing of that nature.

Is it more important to feel safe? or to be safe?

But I *am* safe, and I don't need to carry lethal force around on my hip to *feel* safe as you seem too.

If you are fortunate enough to live in an area with very little violent crime, good for you.

Yeah, whew, good thing I live where I do. The rest of Canada is an apocolypic wasteland full of guns and pirates ( of the Saskachewan ) after all. Why I'd be shot the moment I stepped outside of Vancouver.

However, you have no right to restrict the rights of people in more dangerous situations. They know their situation better than you, so it's best if you mind your own damn business. You don't want a gun? don't buy one, don't want to be around people who have guns? avoid them. May not always be possible, but you're just going to have to deal.

O...k, yeah, sorry, I got confused and thought you were talking to me. But you seem to be arguing with someone else entirely. My mistake. Where I live, its actually quite possible weirdly enough. Wait, right, third world anarchy. I need to get back to huddling under my desk apparently.

[Rapscallion]

Try and concentrate here buddy,

Can we knock off the personal stuff, please? We've currently got one fewer poster as a result of similar stuff recently. I'd prefer not to lose someone else for the same.

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

You'know, this would be a hell of a lot easier if you didn't fly wildly off-context as the majority of your retorts are already addressed in other parts of my posts, that said, here we go again.

You basically proved my point along with me when you said that only upper-tier Canadian LE is trained to respond to mass shootings and the like. I suppose you also don't want to sack the entire Canadian LE force over it, which is exactly my point.

Nowhere have I said that all concealed carriers are SWAT-level operatives, just that they are by and large on the same level as the majority of other armed people you may run into on a day-to-day basis. Just because those people wear a uniform doesn't automatically make them more trustworthy or competent, but you seem to assume that a police or security badge automatically denotes the wearer as supremely responsible compared to anyone else and that couldn't be further from the truth. Within any group or organization there is going to be a number of bad apples and incompetent twats, it's unavoidable. But, as a society we realize that the good of the whole outweighs the inevitable shortcomings but when we get to concealed carriers, suddenly that small portion becomes massively more important for no reason anyone's been able to adequately explain.

If I were to find myself in this sort of situation and a police officer or armed security guard were there with me only a small portion would be especially trained for the situation and that portion is most likely not going to be wandering around the mall. However, time and again we see examples of people with no training for dealing with emergencies rise to the occasion. Be it military, law enforcement or civilian, some people freeze, some people panic, and some people square their shoulders to the task ahead. Al in all it's better to have someone around with the capability and will to fight back.

Hollow points are legal more or less across the board due to their use in hunting, and seeing as how fragmenting rounds are basically just hollow-points-plus, they enjoy the same freedom from restriction. Yet somehow, hollow points are almost never used in either mass shooting or violent crime in general. Even if they were illegal for civilian sale, they would still be available on the black market if there were actually any demand for them among criminals. In Arizona hollow point ammo is as widely available as anywhere else, and is the round of choice among Law Enforcement and Self Defense communities. Keeping good guys from having access to the right tool for the job just because that tool might work it's way into the hands of some bad guys is ridiculous. If they want it they'll get it whether a piece of paper says they can or not. So, how about we let those so inclined to resist the efforts of murderers and psychopaths get on with it armed suitably?

Even if those numbers weren't inflated to hell and back, there's a large and important difference between educated, and smart. Academic education in no way enhances your ability to think logically any more than a practical education.

Furthermore, police officers and military personnel don't train for 6 months to carry a weapon and use it in the presence of bystanders. They train for 6 months to be cops and soldiers, the former of which has mostly to do with writing tickets and memorizing policy and the latter of which has mostly to do with doing what you're told and building muscle. 'Basic" training when it comes to armed conflict around civilians is basically a few hours of going over some basic concepts of recognizing valid and invalid targets, the concept of over penetration, and one or two other concepts. Not only is this widely and easily available to civilians, it's also not exactly rocket science. There's really very little reason to trust a police officer or soldier more than a CCW holder in situations like this, with any of them there exists the possibility that you'll end up with an incompetent Rambo wannabe or a high-speed low-drag badass. Most of all you're likely dealing with someone who's got a basic understanding of the factors in play and a moderate competency level, which, more often than not, is all you really need to make a positive difference.

Who are you talking too? Seeing as I said nothing of that nature.

Check again:

Here in real people land I can rest assured no one's bringing an assault rifle to a political rally just to prove a point.

So a guy takes on object that he's legally allowed to carry in public, to a public place, to make a statement. At no point is anyone physically harmed or endangered, but because that object's a gun, that's all somehow recklessly irresponsible? If it was a chainsaw or gallon of gasoline or any number of other potentially dangerous items I doubt you'd think twice. So what is it about a gun that makes the person possessing it suddenly and inexplicably dangerous?

Why does poor Steve even factor into this? Does every business in the US have security guards with orders to engage any potential gunman and lay down their lives for the sake of their just above minimum wage? Are you really calling Steve when this happens? Man, sucks to be Steve. Up here he would have just had to throw kids out of the mall and patrol construction sites.

Do I really have to outline for you that the reason you arm a security force is so that they have the capability to deal with lethal threats?
Security guards, police officers and CCW holders aren't doing what they're doing for the money. It's absolute crap pay, pretty fucking bad pay, and an enormous personal expense respectively. Consider for a moment that those who select to carry weapons in the event they might have to use them are risking their lives because it's the right thing to do, as opposed to any material benefit. The only thing that divorces CCW holders from cops and soldiers is that they're doing it on their free time as part of their lifestyle in the same way some people take first aid classes and travel with first aid kits without being paramedics.

If wishes were horses there would be a full SWAT, paramedic and firefighting team on every block. In reality you very rarely get the ideal thing in a timely manner. Until you do, it's best to make do with what you have, all the better if what you have is something more than nothing.

Sitting ducks from who? From what? Who is supposedly coming to get me?

If you're intense mistrust of the populace at large is any indicator, for you, it's probably everyone with a driver's license or access to sharp and or heavy objects. After all, any one of them could just randomly decide to start offing people right?
In actuality? Nuts like the shooter in Tuscon and any number of other incidents, common thieves and violent criminals. I shouldn't have to prove to you that they're out there, the evidence is everywhere. While an encounter isn't particularly likely in the grand scheme of things, they nevertheless happen, and when they do, it pays to be prepared.

Yeah, whew, good thing I live where I do. The rest of Canada is an apocolypic wasteland full of guns and pirates ( of the Saskachewan ) after all. Why I'd be shot the moment I stepped outside of Vancouver. ... O...k, yeah, sorry, I got confused and thought you were talking to me. But you seem to be arguing with someone else entirely. My mistake. Where I live, its actually quite possible weirdly enough. Wait, right, third world anarchy. I need to get back to huddling under my desk apparently.

I don't think I've ever seen a larger non-argument, but there it is. You really don't think it's hypocritical for someone living in relative safety to tell those who don't that they can't protect themselves from danger?

All those people who defend themselves with firearms every year, all the assault, robbery, rape and homicide victims that prevent themselves from becoming victims, they should all just have sucked it up and crossed their fingers hoping that they'd just get lucky. After all you don't see the point, so they're all just misguided.

Doesn't take Einstein to see that that argument adds about as well you're average Sasquatch sighting.

[Gravekeeper]

You'know, this would be a hell of a lot easier if you didn't fly wildly off-context as the majority of your retorts are already addressed in other parts of my posts, that said, here we go again.

...*I'm* the one flying horribly off context? ><

You basically proved my point along with me when you said that only upper-tier Canadian LE is trained to respond to mass shootings and the like.

An RCMP cadet isn't precisely what I would call upper tier LE. The RCMP are our national police force and are more common than local police are as the RCMP cover all municipalities, even those that don't have or can't afford their own police force. So you're going to have RCMP anywhere you have police, which means you're going to have someone responding that has at least some relevant training. There is no place in Canada that has police that does not have RCMP, and when both are present they have integrated task forces to handle different special occasions.

So yes, if a mass shooting occurs, someone, somewhere is going to have the training to deal with it and they'll be the one getting the call. I'm not sure which police force only sends its most undertrained, unexperienced members to deal with with such a scenario.

Nowhere have I said that all concealed carriers are SWAT-level operatives, just that they are by and large on the same level as the majority of other armed people you may run into on a day-to-day basis.

But the only armed people I run into on a day to day basis are the aforementioned law enforcement agencies, which again, have 6 months training ( 12 for RCMP ). The entirety of which is not spent learning how to write parking tickets.

Just because those people wear a uniform doesn't automatically make them more trustworthy or competent, but you seem to assume that a police or security badge automatically denotes the wearer as supremely responsible compared to anyone else and that couldn't be further from the truth.

I said absolutely nothing about a security badge. You're the one that keeps bringing security guards up for some reason. And yes, it *does* make them more trustworthy and compentent, because they're trained to be. In a choice between you and the guy with a year's worth of training, guess who I'm going with?

Within any group or organization there is going to be a number of bad apples and incompetent twats, it's unavoidable.

A small number yes, a number that managed to get through the filter designed to filter out bad apples and incompetent twats. A filter which has not been applied to the public at large.

If I were to find myself in this sort of situation and a police officer or armed security guard were there with me only a small portion would be especially trained for the situation and that portion is most likely not going to be wandering around the mall.

Again, that officer has more training than you and does this on a day to day basis. How is a gun owner an equal or superior option just because he has similar ardament?

However, time and again we see examples of people with no training for dealing with emergencies rise to the occasion. Be it military, law enforcement or civilian, some people freeze, some people panic, and some people square their shoulders to the task ahead. Al in all it's better to have someone around with the capability and will to fight back.

Yes, I would rise to the occasion, and you know what? I have training! Even if I didn't, I would still rise to the occasion, but I'd be lacking sorely needed knowledge. An officer is trained to try and control panic and control a situation. They're trained in crisis management, its their job. Your scenario seems to require that any present law enforcement wet itself and run away. Which is highly unlikely.

Keeping good guys from having access to the right tool for the job just because that tool might work it's way into the hands of some bad guys is ridiculous.

You're the one that said the Good Guys(tm) would have such ammo, but the Bad Guys(tm) would not. I only said if one side has it, you have to accept the possibility the other side will too.

So, how about we let those so inclined to resist the efforts of murderers and psychopaths get on with it armed suitably?

The murderers and psychopaths that are, again, armed with equal tools by the same culture and mechanisms that arm you to supposedly resist them.

Even if those numbers weren't inflated to hell and back, there's a large and important difference between educated, and smart.

Yeah, Gallup, those bastards, always inflating their polls to hell and back for.....some reason?

Academic education in no way enhances your ability to think logically any more than a practical education.

Yeah, cept for the all those pesky acamedics that offer courses in critical thinking. Though to be fair, I question the quality of said practical education if you leave it rejecting evolution and thinking the sun revolves around the Earth. >.>

They train for 6 months to be cops and soldiers, the former of which has mostly to do with writing tickets and memorizing policy and the latter of which has mostly to do with doing what you're told and building muscle.

Hrmf, odd, guess that 373 hours RCMP cadets spent on problem solving skills and scenarios, the 75 hours on defensive tactics and risk assessment and 64 hours specifically on firearm usage, firearm decision making and judgement in scenarios where fire arms are involved is really writing parking tickets.

I guess if we look at police, wait, no, they're actually required to complete 8 and a half months of training in Canada. My bad, thought it was 6. Out of which, lets see, 5 of 34 weeks are spent learning to "write tickets" as it were.

Yeah, I'm still gonna take the Constable over you. -.-

There's really very little reason to trust a police officer or soldier more than a CCW holder in situations like this, with any of them there exists the possibility that you'll end up with an incompetent Rambo wannabe or a high-speed low-drag badass.

Again, the possibility of ending up with Rambo or Bad Ass is magnified in a CCW holder as they have not undergone months and months of training. So there are tons of reasons to trust a police officer over a CCW holder. Sorry.

I don't know if you just have really really shitty cops down there or what to be so vehement about this.

So a guy takes on object that he's legally allowed to carry in public, to a public place, to make a statement.

I don't recall saying "evil" at any point.

At no point is anyone physically harmed or endangered, but because that object's a gun, that's all somehow recklessly irresponsible?

Walking into a crowd with an assault rifle? Yes, that's irresponsible. End of story. If you can't grasp that, we truly have nothing to discuss. Which is, honestly, how pretty much every one of these gun debates seems to end between Team US and Team The Rest Of Us Stratching Our Heads.

If it was a chainsaw or gallon of gasoline or any number of other potentially dangerous items I doubt you'd think twice.

Actually I would still think twice. Wtf are you doing at a political rally with a chainsaw?

So what is it about a gun that makes the person possessing it suddenly and inexplicably dangerous?

The fact they feel they need a gun to wander around in public. They may not be actually dangerous, but I'm going to err on the side of caution because this is a person that thinks they need a gun to wander around in public.

Do I really have to outline for you that the reason you arm a security force is so that they have the capability to deal with lethal threats?

I don't know what the hell is going on down there, but up here it's not the job of a security guard to deal with a lethal threat.

Security guards, police officers and CCW holders aren't doing what they're doing for the money. It's absolute crap pay, pretty fucking bad pay, and an enormous personal expense respectively.

Actually up here yeah, security guards do what they do for the pay. Because its just a job. Its actually pretty good pay up here if you don't mind working off hours. Police officers up here make pretty good money too. 55k a year for the Vancouver PD for a 1st year constable. Thats the PD too, not the RCMP.

CCW holders don't get paid, because they're not doing a job. I'm not sure how they got included in your sentence there.

Consider for a moment that those who select to carry weapons in the event they might have to use them are risking their lives because it's the right thing to do, as opposed to any material benefit.

Bullshit. Every person that has chosen to carry a gun is not some sort of superhero. It's not the "right thing to do". You're essentially declaring yourself a vigilante now. It's not your job nor your responsibility, and frankly the mentality you're displaying *does* make me distrust you with a firearm.

The only thing that divorces CCW holders from cops and soldiers is that they're doing it on their free time as part of their lifestyle in the same way some people take first aid classes and travel with first aid kits without being paramedics.

Also bullshit. Again, you're not a hero because you own a gun. I have first aid training all the way up to industrial where I'm trained to recover pieces of you ( and by god that's a vivid course ). I am not a hero because of it. It's not part of my "lifestyle." And when I need to use it, I don't run the risk of randomly injuring or killing bystanders.

If you're intense mistrust of the populace at large is any indicator, for you, it's probably everyone with a driver's license or access to sharp and or heavy objects.

Getting a tad personal? Thanks for the free psych assessment.

While an encounter isn't particularly likely in the grand scheme of things, they nevertheless happen, and when they do, it pays to be prepared.

I have a better chance of being struck by lightning. Doesn't mean I wander around in a rubber suit every day.

You really don't think it's hypocritical for someone living in relative safety to tell those who don't that they can't protect themselves from danger?

Really, where is this warzone you seem to live in where you have to carry a gun every day to protect yourself from danger?

All those people who defend themselves with firearms every year, all the assault, robbery, rape and homicide victims that prevent themselves from becoming victims, they should all just have sucked it up and crossed their fingers hoping that they'd just get lucky.

Because they're completely incapable of defending themselves in any other way aside from a firearm, so they may as well just roll over and suck it up? Sorry, that's nothing more than bullshit rhetoric.

Doesn't take Einstein to see that that argument adds about as well you're average Sasquatch sighting.

I wish you'd read as much into your own argument as you apparently are into mine.

This discussion is completely pointless obviously. As it always is with this topic. I should have just copy pasted from the last gun thread and saved myself the headache.

[Rapscallion]

Actually I would still think twice. Wtf are you doing at a political rally with a chainsaw?

Well, if it was advertised that the candidate was a zombie, then...

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

Well, if it was advertised that the candidate was a zombie, then...

Oh, Raps. Everyone knows that melee weapons are a bad idea in the event of a zombie apocalypse.

[Rapscallion]

Bad idea as first choice, but as ammunition dwindles (and by ammunition I mostly mean folded chairs) they become more acceptable.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

Good point. Shovels work well in a pinch, too.

[Ipecac Drano]

*cough* Crowbar *cough*

[Gravekeeper]

Are we talking undead zombies or infection zombies? Undead zombies sure, but infection zombies you need to keep at arm's length so definately shovel. It's got reach.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

[QUOTE=Gravekeeper;76016]...*I'm* the one flying horribly off context? ><[quote]
Basically inevitable with all these damned quote-ladders, was trying to get away from that but to hell with it. If that's the way you want to go.

An RCMP cadet isn't precisely what I would call upper tier LE. The RCMP are our national police force and are more common than local police are as the RCMP cover all municipalities, even those that don't have or can't afford their own police force. So you're going to have RCMP anywhere you have police, which means you're going to have someone responding that has at least some relevant training. There is no place in Canada that has police that does not have RCMP, and when both are present they have integrated task forces to handle different special occasions.

So basically they're like the federal police down here, who are also all patrol officers i.e. meant more for dealing with emergent situations.

So yes, if a mass shooting occurs, someone, somewhere is going to have the training to deal with it and they'll be the one getting the call. I'm not sure which police force only sends its most undertrained, unexperienced members to deal with with such a scenario.

We're not talking about the people who are sent to deal with a situation, we're talking about the people who are caught in it. Regardless of how specially trained and professional a response team is, they are minutes away, in many cases as much as twenty to thirty minutes away. Same goes for firefighters and paramedics. Specialized response teams are all good and well, but you're best chance for surviving situations like these is if there are people in the immediate area who can do something. Time and again killing sprees are ended early, and violent crimes are stopped because the victims were fortunate enough for there to be someone, be it law enforcement, private security, or civilian with the tools, skills and will to do something.

But the only armed people I run into on a day to day basis are the aforementioned law enforcement agencies, which again, have 6 months training ( 12 for RCMP ). The entirety of which is not spent learning how to write parking tickets.

The entirety? no. The grand majority? yes. When you get right down to it, the amount of time spent on preparing police officers for active shooter scenarios and ongoing violent crime is a very small portion, more in the order of hours perhaps spread over a few days.

I said absolutely nothing about a security badge. You're the one that keeps bringing security guards up for some reason. And yes, it *does* make them more trustworthy and compentent, because they're trained to be. In a choice between you and the guy with a year's worth of training, guess who I'm going with?

By the looks of it it was a pretty accurate inference, again, you're making the mistake of interpreting my argument as being about the specialized personnel who are sent to these emergencies. You're blowing right past the fact that I'm not talking about special responders, or even first responders (LE generally sends every available unit to try and help while SWAT's getting their shit together. They understand that while the experts are ideal, getting even an amateur on-scene as quickly as possible can and does do a lot of good.) I'm talking about the people who are out and about who find themselves in these situations.

A small number yes, a number that managed to get through the filter designed to filter out bad apples and incompetent twats. A filter which has not been applied to the public at large.

If you think about it, the most substantial filters against police misconduct are even stronger as applied to civilians. Perhaps the single most important of which is just the sheer hassle involved. Between all the varying local ordnance and restrictions, to say nothing of the number of areas in which even a licensed concealed or open carrier cannot go, the amount of effort involved tends to weed out the uncommitted pretty fast. Add onto that the enormous weight of legal liability should a CC fuck up, if anything worse than that leveled towards law enforcement because they lack the sort of protections LE enjoys when shit hits the fan.
It therefore true that, training mandates and permits aside, CCW holders are already a group that's been thinned from the herd. Add those in and I'd say you've gotten well within the ballpark of refinement that basic LE training provides.

Again, that officer has more training than you and does this on a day to day basis. How is a gun owner an equal or superior option just because he has similar ardament?

First of all: not necessarily. For a relatively small amount of money any civilian can avail themselves of training equal to and even greater than the baseline required for LE status. Remember again, we're talking about CCW permit holders who are, due to a number of factors, a much different breed of person than the average gun owner.
Even so, there's really only three things one needs to have to make a difference:
-A working (aka basic) understanding of the situation, pretty easy to acquire.
-Proper equipment, the centerpiece of this debate, as without it, you're practically hamstrung.
-The will to act, probably the most important. By itself it can work out in some situations, such as the above titled incident. The more it's augmented by the other two, the better the outcome.

Yes, I would rise to the occasion, and you know what? I have training! Even if I didn't, I would still rise to the occasion, but I'd be lacking sorely needed knowledge. An officer is trained to try and control panic and control a situation. They're trained in crisis management, its their job. Your scenario seems to require that any present law enforcement wet itself and run away. Which is highly unlikely.

Knowledge is even easier to acquire than training. This is the information age, shouldn't be too hard. Your scenario requires that law enforcement be omnipresent, problem being that it isn't. LE is a very small sector of society and just by the law of averages shit's going to hit the fan when they're not around more than when they are. More so given that those who wish to do us harm go out of their way to make sure LE is nowhere to be seen when they strike. I'd point out that the heroes that saw the opening in Tuscon and took had no training either, as well as the armed civilian who arrived late. Yet they all rose to the occasion without any training whatsoever. A prime example if ever there was one that training is preferable, but far from required.

You're the one that said the Good Guys(tm) would have such ammo, but the Bad Guys(tm) would not. I only said if one side has it, you have to accept the possibility the other side will too.

Nowhere did I say that only good guys would have it, merely that it's what the good guys should be using. Again, in practical application the bad guys are either too cheap or too ignorant to select the better ammo. While some inevitably do, it's ultimately more important for the good guys to be properly outfitted than it is for the bad guys not to be, especially since they have a nasty tendency to defeat even the strictest disarmament measures.

The murderers and psychopaths that are, again, armed with equal tools by the same culture and mechanisms that arm you to supposedly resist them.

I like the 'supposedly'. As if armed resistance is not, by definition, resistance. But what's equally humerus is your casual dismissal of an extensive system dedicated to disarming murderers and psychopaths, both of whom again have a nasty tendency to arm themselves in spite of provisions against it, scarcity, etc.

Yeah, Gallup, those bastards, always inflating their polls to hell and back for.....some reason?

I would've imagined that by now it would be common knowledge that opinion polls need no tampering to be inaccurate. Guess, not.

Yeah, cept for the all those pesky acamedics that offer courses in critical thinking. Though to be fair, I question the quality of said practical education if you leave it rejecting evolution and thinking the sun revolves around the Earth. >.>

Yeah, solving math problems amply prepares you for critically observing anything.
By practical education, I refer to the skills and knowledge gained through life experience, which more than any academic field deals with critical thinking and problem solving. Hands-on skillsets that rely heavily on observing a situation, considering options, and choosing a course of action.
Your average person learns more about critical thinking during a rousing game of paintball than a history class.
Academics are all good and well, but they're just that, academic. Critical thinking as does pertain to history and math is an entirely different beast than critical thinking in terms of practical application, the latter of which is not dealt with at all in academic settings.

Hrmf, odd, guess that 373 hours RCMP cadets spent on problem solving skills and scenarios, the 75 hours on defensive tactics and risk assessment and 64 hours specifically on firearm usage, firearm decision making and judgement in scenarios where fire arms are involved is really writing parking tickets.

I guess if we look at police, wait, no, they're actually required to complete 8 and a half months of training in Canada. My bad, thought it was 6. Out of which, lets see, 5 of 34 weeks are spent learning to "write tickets" as it were.

Yeah, I'm still gonna take the Constable over you. -.-

You keep going back to parking tickets, and the RCMP which is anything but basic which is the point of debate here.
More to the point, you're again fallaciously equating the needs of being a police officer with the needs of a CCW holder. The latter of which, doesn't have to worry about the majority of things an officer of the law does. Arrest procedure, grab attempts, taking hostile suspects into custody, all that stuff is way outside the preview of civilian self-defense. All a civilian self-defense situation needs is a basic knowledge of proportional force and basic gun safety.
You're still assuming that you have the liberty of choosing who the people around you are when someone starts shooting. You don't, no one does. The Constable, while quite possibly preferable, is only as likely to be there as people like me are. You've faced with a decision of one or both, not either or, and the data is pretty conclusive in that both is the superior option.

Again, the possibility of ending up with Rambo or Bad Ass is magnified in a CCW holder as they have not undergone months and months of training. So there are tons of reasons to trust a police officer over a CCW holder. Sorry.

I don't know if you just have really really shitty cops down there or what to be so vehement about this.

Vehement? try realistic. Police officers are just as human as the rest of us. Some people just aren't cut out for it and the training quite often fails to eliminate them when it comes to practical application.
You keep going back to the months and months of training. As if all of it is directly relevant with LE and not CCW holders.
As you so helpfully pointed out, the minimum a purpose-trained police officer has in training time is a number of somewhat relevant weeks worth and a maximum of months and months of directly relevant training for those individuals who avail themselves of it voluntarily.
At the very worst a CCW holder has 0 weeks of hands on training, but in my experience even the lowest common denominators still have the equivalent of a few days worth of knowledge just by virtue of their own research leading up to acquiring the permit. However, CCW holders also have a maximum of months and months as well.

My point, one that seems to have been lost in the deluge, is that in both communities you have individuals who are ideal, damn near perfect, and less than ideal. (CCW holders and LE at large, that is) Given the choice you'd naturally want the better prepared individuals and more of them, but the fact of the matter is that even with the less ideal they're better than nothing and stand to make a contribution in addition to the ideal, so it's a good thing to have both as it increases the likelyhood that some one of them is immediately available.

Walking into a crowd with an assault rifle? Yes, that's irresponsible. End of story. If you can't grasp that, we truly have nothing to discuss. Which is, honestly, how pretty much every one of these gun debates seems to end between Team US and Team The Rest Of Us Stratching Our Heads.

Yeah, because assault rifles have magical minds of their own, and often go off all by themselves. What's more, they insidiously take over the minds of bystanders and incite them to turn into raving psychopaths at the drop of a hat.

Those are the prime examples of what people have told me their worried about (in humerous terms, anyway) and not only have neither of them come to pass, but it's the perfect example of the sort of irrational fear that leaves team pro gun scratching their heads. As much as anti-gunners like to blither on and on about how CCW holders are motivated only through irrational fear, their the ones who're content to trample all over a basic right practiced by a significant portion of the population, for the exact same reason.

As if the collective rest of the West even comes close to making up the sort of overwhelming majority they seem to think they do. Perhaps it's that the US isn't so arrogant as to believe that the world is some how different than it used to be, nor so self centered as to have forgotten how we got as far as we have.

Actually I would still think twice. Wtf are you doing at a political rally with a chainsaw?

If you're afraid that someone is going to randomly decide that the Texas Chainsaw massacre wasn't quite realistic enough for them just by virtue of having one and being near people, that's more than a little paranoid. As to what point they could be making? I don't know, something about logging, deforestation... use your imagination.

Actually, come to think of it, the anti-gunners who parade weapons about at their rallies are more worrying than the pro-gunners. Probably has something to do with the average anti-gunner's complete lack of gun safety knowledge: