WE NEED MORE GUNS..

[commonsense]

You are evading the question. Replace "authorized firearm officer" with "civilian gun owner" and the exact same principle applies. Everybody who uses lethal force is accountable under the law!

So when is an "authorized firearm officer" allowed to use lethal force?

In answer to the question 'when', you'll have to ask the police officer armed with the firearm that question, not me. I'm assuming any firearm officer would instinctively use his or her own freedom of discretion in the immediate moment they find themselves coming face to face with an actual incident as and when, or if one occurs.

Stateside the use of lethal force is authorized only when necessary to protect the officer, or a civilian, from harm.

[commonsense]

There are police, and then there’s the public they serve. Officers have their own culture, their own lexicon, their own way of life, distinct from civilians and perps.

The fact that you belong to some sub-culture doesn't make you any less human; nor does it make the laws any more or less applicable to you.

Absolutely. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.

[commonsense]

Answer to both questions: for warfare.

Not sure this answers anything.

There was warfare for thousands of years before guns. Why would we need to invent guns?

Because you could engage the enemy from a distance. If you had such an invention for your army while your enemy did not, you would’ve had a huge advantage in combat.

[commonsense]

Citizens don’t have a mandate to protect and serve nor to make arrests.

Neither do police officers. Their mandate is to society, not to individuals in need of their life being defended.

Police officers have no duty to risk their life in order to protect yours. Of course, some do anyway.

OK. For another poster to have said that their mandates are equivalent was only a solopism referencing that nil is nil.

[Dontaskme]

WHICH, if WITHIN A society there were NO guns AT ALL, then, OBVIOUSLY, ABSOLUTELY NO one, nutjob or not, COULD 'get their hands' ON a gun.

Lets forget about all our man-made weapons for a minute.

I honestly think the problem of the need for self-defense is because sentient life-forms of any nature, including the human animal are unavoidably opportunistic by their very nature, and cannot help but exploit their habitats and their environments, doing exactly what they need to do to assure their survival. The life-forms with a mind, those with a strong sense of self-awareness of themselves and others seem to be more opportunistic, who are able to act with intent, which makes them more dangerous than say a lesser dumber, not so smart creature.

Anyways the point I'm making is...this is not about the banning of all deadly weapons, they are in the world in abundance now, and cannot be taken out...no more than we can put spilt milk back in a bottle....No, this is not about the guns anymore, it's more about does a human being have any problem or guilty conscience about killing or murdering another human being? ...if the answer is yes, then that human being will not do so. If the answer is no, then that human being will think of just about anything or anyway possible that will make the job of killing something easier to do. And that in my opinion is why humans invented lethal weapons called guns, to make the job easier.

It's not the fault of any weapon, it's the fault of nature, as nature is opportunistic...nature murders on mass every single second,minute, hour, day, year, after year... think about that for a minute...for every one human sperm to make it to life, millions are discarded....so all humans have done is just added to the killing by using their own artificial means in the form of their own made weaponry..

As long as there are people in the world who have no problem killing another human being, or anything for that matter, then the killing will continue on indefinitely, and not a damn thing can be done about it, not even the elimination of all deadly weapons.


.

[Skepdick]

Citizens don’t have a mandate to protect and serve nor to make arrests.

Neither do police officers. Their mandate is to society, not to individuals in need of their life being defended.

Police officers have no duty to risk their life in order to protect yours. Of course, some do anyway.

OK. For another poster to have said that their mandates are equivalent was only a solopism referencing that nil is nil.

Not sure what you are implying.

All I am saying is that there aren no consequences against me (as a police officer) if I decide to hide under my police car while the mass murderer murders you before my eyes.

[Dontaskme]

Neither do police officers. Their mandate is to society, not to individuals in need of their life being defended.

Police officers have no duty to risk their life in order to protect yours. Of course, some do anyway.

OK. For another poster to have said that their mandates are equivalent was only a solopism referencing that nil is nil.

Not sure what you are implying.

All I am saying is that there aren no consequences against me (as a police officer) if I decide to hide under my police car while the mass murderer murders you before my eyes.

As long as people like you who have no problem killing other people even when it makes you feel sick to the stomach, then killing will never stop.

It's no good just getting rid of every last weapon, you have to get rid of the problem of having no problem killing a sentient living organism of any description.

[commonsense]

OK, so we’re still stuck at either everyone has guns or no one (except the police and the military) has guns.

If everyone has at least one gun, theoretically everyone would be able to protect himself from someone else who has a gun.

If no one has any guns, then theoretically there would be no need for anyone to protect himself.

In practice, lots of people have guns in the US.

Therefore, on the whole it would be theoretically and practically more sensible to permit everyone to have guns.

Sadly, I must concede that Skepdik has been right all along.

[Skepdick]

As long as people like you who have no problem killing other people even when it makes you feel sick to the stomach, then killing will never stop.

Try another moral high horse.

Every single one of your armed police officers likely feel the exact same way after taking a life. That's what the therapy is for...

It's no good just getting rid of every last weapon, you have to get rid of the problem of having no problem killing a sentient living organism of any description.

So you would much prefer it if your armed police couldn't pull the trigger to end a terrorist attack?

[commonsense]

Neither do police officers. Their mandate is to society, not to individuals in need of their life being defended.

Police officers have no duty to risk their life in order to protect yours. Of course, some do anyway.

OK. For another poster to have said that their mandates are equivalent was only a solopism referencing that nil is nil.

Not sure what you are implying.

All I am saying is that there aren no consequences against me (as a police officer) if I decide to hide under my police car while the mass murderer murders you before my eyes.

Sorry. I should have been more clear. All I’m saying is that whoever said citizens and the police have equivalent mandates was only trivially correct.

[Skepdick]

Sorry. I should have been more clear. All I’m saying is that whoever said citizens and the police have equivalent mandates was only trivially correct.

Well, they are legally correct. Not sure if that's trivial or not.

Of course you could argue that citizens have a stricter mandate - there's negative consequences to you if somebody doesn't protect your life when it needs protecting.

Who should do it?

[Dontaskme]

As long as people like you who have no problem killing other people even when it makes you feel sick to the stomach, then killing will never stop.

Try another moral high horse.

Every single one of your armed police officers likely feel the exact same way after taking a life. That's what the therapy is for...

It's no good just getting rid of every last weapon, you have to get rid of the problem of having no problem killing a sentient living organism of any description.

So you would much prefer it if your armed police couldn't pull the trigger to end a terrorist attack?

Why are you still going on about this. What is the point, what are you trying to achieve?

I'm saying, as long as you or anyone else has no problem killing someone else, then the killing will never stop. The banning of all the weapons in the world won't make the slightest bit of difference to the ending of murder and killing people and animals. So there is no point in talking about this subject anymore, since what is talking about it going to do to change what will obviously never be changed?

Do you personally, have a problem killing someone?

If the answer is no, then you and you alone is the one who is creating the problem that will never stop, until you do.

[Skepdick]

Why are you still going on about this. What is the point, what are you trying to achieve?

Expose your bullshit.

I'm saying, as long as you or anyone else has no problem killing someone else, then the killing will never stop. The banning of all the weapons in the world won't make the slightest bit of difference to the ending of murder and killing people and animals. So there is no point in talking about this subject anymore, since what is talking about it going to do to change what will obviously never be changed?

Do you personally, have a problem killing someone?

So you are actually equating the mass-murder perpetrated by a terrorist with the killing of a terrorist done by an armed policeman.

What a retard.

[Sculptor]

Wars are unique with respect to their particular details, but from a larger perspective they are all the same. There’s meals that taste like canned dog food, heavy equipment to carry or wear, fatigue, inhospitable climate and terrain, boredom interrupted by sheer terror, separation from loved ones back home, going to sleep in fear of dying and coming to terms with the possibility of sudden death.

WIth respect, what about the sitting in front of a computer screen taking out targets with crones, type of war experience?
War never changes - excpet when it does.

Right. I overlooked this.

Okay. On the other side of reality..
Actually there was a time when war was far more up-close and personal than today's foot soldier. When men clashed on the shield wall and were close enough to smell the enemy and get covered in their blood and guts, chopping people up with swords, and knives and staves. Where you could not "wait till you see the whites of their eyes", but had to wait till you were face to face to see their horror fear or anger.
This may well heve been after a long march with little or no food, sleeping rough in all weathers with no protection.
Wars where risk of disease was as high as death by wound. Wars with no medivac, no medi at all. Often to die days later of a abdomen would in excessive pain without any anitbiotics, or even sterile equipment.

Humans are idiots.

[commonsense]

Sorry. I should have been more clear. All I’m saying is that whoever said citizens and the police have equivalent mandates was only trivially correct.

Well, they are legally correct. Not sure if that's trivial or not.

Of course you could argue that citizens have a stricter mandate - there's negative consequences to you if somebody doesn't protect your life when it needs protecting.

Who should do it?

I was only pointing out the solipsism. You and/or the police should provide the necessary protection.