I actually agree with the cons on this one:

[Jay]

What a stupid world we live in....."to serve and protect (if we don't feel it's to risky)"

 

[TenPenny]

I believe that for police, and fire, the idea is that the employer provides the equipment (helmets, breathing apparatus, guns for self defense, etc) to reduce the danger component.

From what I understand, the border guards are claiming that they have a right to refuse dangerous work, on the grounds that the employer is not providing the tools and equipment necessary for safety.

In any job, you have the option to refuse work that is not safe. When I was a summer student working in a mine, my boss explicitly told me that no one, not even the mine manager, had the right to make me do anything that was not safe, and that I should not be shy in refusing to do it. When one of the workers suggested that we could use a 20 ft extension ladder in the bucket of his loader to reach higher up the wall, I refused. And everyone agreed with the decision.

 

[Curiosity]

Perhaps the border guards weren't armed as symbolic because of the "Peace Arch"? :idea: This would make more sense to me.

The Peace Arch

Is inscribed: "Children of a Common Mother" - it's beautiful. Every time I drive home I am reminded of our heritage - all of us. I hope we can maintain it.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: I actually agree with the cons on this one:

Hank C,

Although I see the rational for the argument for armed border patrol guards. It seems too me that it will also create more problems.

What if these guards were armed, then what would have happened in this scenario. More likely then not, those two men would be dead or wounded more seriously and there would be a huge fiasco of two american fugitives being killed by Canadian guards.

I don't see your point.

Two dead (or wounded bad guys......good.

You think the Americans are going to complain about Canadian peace officers shooting in self-defense?

Have you met any Americans?
\.

Thank you Colpy :lol: I seriously can not imagine an American criticizing a Canadian for shooting at armed murder suspects trying to get into the country.

They need to be armed and trained to use them, end of story. After that, they should not be able to run away from scary situations. What's the point of having border security if a gun will get you through because border guards run away from them? I mean, come on. Are you kidding me?

I find the notion that we can leave dangerous situations odd in those professions. I'm a nurse and worked during lockdown at our facility when one of our violent fathers snuck in past security trying to find his girlfriend/baby in our unit after he beat her to a pulp, but posted bail. As far as I know, I wasn't allowed to just leave my patients and go home if I want to keep my nursing license. And our security guards don't even have guns!

 

[Hank C]

Re: RE: I actually agree with the cons on this one:

Actually wanting police officers, border guards, etc... to NOT be armed is stupid in the exteme, with all due respect. These are the people who we count on to protect us from the most dangerous elements of society (be it domestic, or in this case, foreign) - and how the heck are they suppossed to do that when the other side has superior weaponry?

There's being a bleeding heart liberal, and then there's just being flat-out stupid and/or silly. Obviously our border guard, police officers, etc... should be armed. We already place great trust in these people by virtue of the highly important positions that they fill. We trust them to do that much, but we don't trust them to properly handle a firearm?

GET REAL...

yes its utterly pointless stands like this that makes bleeding heart liberals look less than credible or even "stupid". Our border guards should guard our soil when it is in danger, not run away! Obviously the officials will need to get the proper firearms training and defense skills, but this is a good investment for Canada.