So should the police not have shot at all and let the gunman execute more people since politicians (not the police) enacted stupid laws? I'm confused...
Again, I do not hold the police responsible in this situation, it sounds like they should have gone in and taken the guy out. Politicians and police unions/lobbies and the media (as well as an unknown percentage of beat cops, in big cities probably the vast majority) universally affirm that:
1). Those employed by the people to work for their increased long run security against private criminals are more ethical than the average citizen and so can be trusted with guns over their employers/fellow citizens. This is false.
2). Those employed by the people to work for their increased long run security against private criminals are more capable of handling firearms and that the average citizen not employed and "trained" by the government cannot safely handle firearms. This is false.
3). Those employed by the people to work for their increased long run security against private criminals are also capable of providing for their increased short term protection against private criminals. This is a sick joke.
Further, let us say an illegally armed Australian had stopped the terrorist and one of his bullets had killed a hostage....
1. He would be charged and convicted (the purpose of juries being forgotten in Australia as well) for being illegally armed
2. He would be charged and convicted of manslaughter (the purpose of juries being forgotten in Australia as well) for killing the hostage.
3. There won't be any charges (and there should not be) against the police who killed the hostage. This is a double standard.
