|
I read the article. No reference at all to whether the guard was armed or not - are you assuming that he wasn't armed, simply because he was overpowered?
He might well have been armed, but surprised by a group of attackers, one of whom already had a gun pointed at him. In which case, the robbers would have had ONE MORE gun to take with them.
Even if he wasn't armed, that's not really relevant - according to the article this was a guy locking the facility for the night, rather than someone standing guard over it for a shift. I don't think that Australia routinely arms its security men in such instances.
"This just goes to show what happens when you pass laws so strict that even the guy guarding the guns can't carry them..."
As mentioned - 1) you don't know he wasn't armed, 2) he wasn't guarding the guns 3) I believe that you don't know whether Australian laws prevented him being armed (although this may be the case) 4) even if he HAD been armed, there's no reason to suppose that he wouldn't have been overpowered (or simply killed upfront) anyway.
I think that I'll add 5)........this is Australia, and my comments were clearly in relation to Shatoga's comments about the USA.
You can't always stop a determined bunch of criminals from doing what they want to do - it seems odd to conclude from this incident that laws have failed and that a gun would have stopped it.
I have to logout now, I'm at a new job and don't want to get fired....
P.
|