Suicide teams sent to Europe, US and Canada

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

Drive a tank to work....

Trust me, I've driven them, they're tough to park, lousy on gas, slow on the deerfoot, but there's something about doing a right hand signal with a 105 mm sabot round that gets you where your going.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Trust me, I've driven them, they're tough to park, lousy on gas, slow on the deerfoot, but there's something about doing a right hand signal with a 105 mm sabot round that gets you where your going.

Yeah.

Those cool SUVs that Blackwater uses are much cooler.

.50 caliber machine gun on top...good to go.

[worth]

The original article is about suicide bombers, not airplanes.

My point is the right to protect myself and my family. Which none of us have in Canada.

If a suicide bomber is about to blow himself up downtown and I spot this, what am I to do? Call the police and wait 5 minutes for them to show up while the bomber blows and everyone around himself up?

The government cannot protect it's citizens, and the citizens of this country should understand that it is their own responsibility to protect themselves. When that happens, you'll have less crime all together.

Anyway, i'm sure the government is just hoping that one of these guys blows themselves up in a Canadian city. More funding for police, military, and the ability to introduce any sort of civil protection law they wish.

[Burninator]

So you want to carry around a gun is what your saying?

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by worth

If a suicide bomber is about to blow himself up downtown and I spot this, what am I to do?

Well, for starters, I would imagine you would alert the people around you as to what you see . Other than that, since a lot of suicide bombings happen by surprise, well, that might make it bit hard for you to shoot someone I guess.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by worth

If a suicide bomber is about to blow himself up downtown and I spot this, what am I to do?

How likely are you to spot a suicide bomber even if there was one 20 feet away? And if you did think you spotted one, would you be 100% in that?


I'm less worried about suicide bombers then allowing people to carry concealed weapons that could be firing off rounds because they think they see a suicide bomber.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by worth

The original article is about suicide bombers, not airplanes.

My point is the right to protect myself and my family. Which none of us have in Canada.

If a suicide bomber is about to blow himself up downtown and I spot this, what am I to do? Call the police and wait 5 minutes for them to show up while the bomber blows and everyone around himself up?

The government cannot protect it's citizens, and the citizens of this country should understand that it is their own responsibility to protect themselves. When that happens, you'll have less crime all together.

Anyway, i'm sure the government is just hoping that one of these guys blows themselves up in a Canadian city. More funding for police, military, and the ability to introduce any sort of civil protection law they wish.

Fair enought.
So what exactly would you propose to do in that situation that you are not allowed to do right now?

In Canada you're allowed to use the same ammount of force to subdue someone who is trying to hurt you, so if you see a suicide bomber, I think you could make a pretty good case, that no matter what you did to him, you would be within the equivalent force criteria....unless you somehow blow him up twice.

[Azure]

Basically the only way to stop a suicide bomber is to kick his ass out the back of the subway train....oh wait...

Seriously though, they to be stopped BEFORE they get this bombs strapped on. When they're out in the open, I'm pretty sure they would blow themselves up anywhere if they felt threatened.

[worth]

The intention of my post was to draw the parallel that people depend on the government too much. The government can not solve this problem. If people go crying to the government saying take my liberties but make me safe, I don't see this helping either.

I'm not saying guns in civilians will solve the problem, but when you introduce the ability for instant action, you may have a chance at a stopping some bad from happening.

I mean, Israel has stopped bomb attacks by killing the person trying to set off the bomb. An instant later and it kills 20 people.

[CrusaderPi]

Do you really believe a person's cultural and societal upbringing have no effect on a person, and how they live their life?

It seems to me if a person is raise in a culture that doesn't like us in general, they may be more likely to try and harm us.

[atb]

Pretty sure the last thing we need is people making their own judgement calls to what they consider a threat.

Also, if you're worried you can pick up one of these: http://www.amazon.com/JL421-Badonkad.../dp/B00067F1CE

[worth]

Check the stats on CCW licences in the States being revoked. The percentage is lower than police officers who are arrested.

[atb]

I'd be more concered about unreported incidents, or the incidents that ultimately do not result in a licence being revoked.

[Cube Inmate]

Just to return to my point about racial/ethnic profiling...

Profiling, based on myriad factors including ethnicity, is a valid technique to more effectively allocate scarce security resources. It would be stupid to dismiss its validity. Our society...our government...has disavowed the technique, however, because it makes some people feel persecuted. So, there's the tradeoff...personal freedom from persecution vs. enhanced security? For every decision of this nature, there are people who will feel that they're benefitting from it, and others who feel like they're getting the shaft. Nobody wants to be on the "shafted" end, but somebody has to be!

Use profiling, and the innocent people who fit the profile are shafted with inconvenient scrutiny. Disavow profiling, and the effectiveness of the security system is reduced, thereby increasing the danger for all flyers. In this case, I know what I would personally choose, given the magnitude of the competing negative consequences. Our country has chosen the other alternative, though.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

Do you really believe a person's cultural and societal upbringing have no effect on a person, and how they live their life?

It seems to me if a person is raise in a culture that doesn't like us in general, they may be more likely to try and harm us.

I think it would be quite counter-productive to assume people are guilty.

Treating an entire race as possible terrorist seems like a very good way to generate resentment and turn them into real terrorists.

Think back to last year and the thread about racial profiling at Calgary nightclubs. Look at how people felt when they were "profiled" and frequently not let into those clubs. Now expand that profiling to include lots of everyday actions. I contend that this will make things worse.

[Azure]

Why not just install an X-ray scanner at all airports?

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I think it would be quite counter-productive to assume people are guilty.

Treating an entire race as possible terrorist seems like a very good way to generate resentment and turn them into real terrorists.

Think back to last year and the thread about racial profiling at Calgary nightclubs. Look at how people felt when they were "profiled" and frequently not let into those clubs. Now expand that profiling to include lots of everyday actions. I contend that this will make things worse.

I never said I would assume them to be guilty. What I am saying is 'more likely to commit a certain crime'. I think that's a big difference.



As far as feeling persecuted at a nightclub, wasn't that one of Sundeep's thread? I kind of think that kills off all credibilty.

[CaptainCrunch]

You have a right to protect yourself and your family by using reasonable force. So as an example, if you shoot a mime because you felt that he was threatening to lock your family in an invisible box, your probably using unresonable force.

On the suicide bomber thing, most of them are starting to use deadman switches, which means the bomb goes off if the pressure is removed from the switch itself. In other words if you kill or incapacatate him your probably going to set off a bomb.

Most people are woefully undertrained in the art of taking a terrorist down who has been training for this one moment for his whole life.

I hate the idea of citizen joe carrying concealed weapons in the street, there are too many idiots or loose cannons out there who will be opening beers and turning off thier lights with a gun. Plus a pistol is the least accurate weapon you can have, its pretty easy to miss someone who's further then 10 feet away, and as a civilliain are you going to keep your head in the crisis, understand the situation and act accordingly,or are your going to dive from behind a car, emptying a clip in the general direction of the crisis.

A friend once told me that in the even of a bombin the only way that you can protect your family is to dive for cover and get on top of them.

[worth]

You can build a bomb once you get here.

And in the US your licence is revoked once you are convicted on any crime. Doesn't have to be firearms related. If you get a DUI, licence revoked.

The people that go through the time and effort and money to legally register and carry a firearm are not the people you need to worry about.

You must take a CCW course in the states before carrying. And myself, personally, I was in the Army as well.

The mime example would get you in trouble just about anywhere. But again, if you were to shoot someone who had a gun in your house, you would have to prove to the court that if you did not shoot them, they would have killed you. I tell you what, someone comes on my property with a gun, i'm shooting them no matter what. I don't really want to wait around to see if he's actually going to go through with it.

"he believes on reasonable grounds that he can not otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm."

"he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it (the assault) as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself ... arose."

I think the laws are extremly restrictive toward protecting oneself. We grow up with the idea that the police should protect us, and that bad things don't happen here. That's not really true.

But I think i'm getting wayy off topic, so i'll shut up.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

I never said I would assume them to be guilty. What I am saying is 'more likely to commit a certain crime'. I think that's a big difference.

The semantics are different, but in practice I think that it would tend to merge into the same thing (and I'm not picking on you, yours was just the most recent post when I decided to throw my 2 cents in).

I would like to think that it would be "safer" to be able to racial profile, but I get the uneasy idea that the end results would be worse than minor possiblity that exists today.

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

As far as feeling persecuted at a nightclub, wasn't that one of Sundeep's thread? I kind of think that kills off all credibilty.

This is the thread of was thinking of: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=26409