WE NEED MORE GUNS..

[Dontaskme]

I am just here to pour fuel on the dumpster fire that is Philosophy - so it burns down quicker.

Why don't you just shoot it to death. Life's tough, always make sure you are wearing a hard hat.

[Skepdick]

So in general you don't like shooting mass-stabbers, but if mass-stabbers are Islamic Terrorists then it's fine.

It depends on whether the mass they are stabbing is human or not.

So you aren't opposed to shooting mass-stabbers who stab humans - you are just opposed to you doing the shooting?

I really can't make sense of your rules, hey. You don't want guns but you have armed police. Why? Just disarm them and let them figure it out.

[Dontaskme]

You are missing the point. You need to check the blades haven't gone blunt on you're sharpener.

The UK does not tolerate Islamic Terrorists taking over their country. Anyone acting on behalf of such terror organizations who are out to cause trouble in someone else's country are seen as grossly disrepectful to the normal native law abiding citizens. They must be dealt with according to the severity of their aggression.

As for life in general, our police do not pose any threat or intimidating stance toward normal law abiding natives of the UK or any migrants including foreigners that already adhere to the British beliefs, ideas, customs, and social behaviour as a mark of mutual respect.

Right!

So in general you don't like shooting mass-stabbers, but if mass-stabbers are Islamic Terrorists then it's fine.

I don't shoot people because I don't have a need for a gun.

Our government employs police to shoot people. It's a police officers job to shoot, they have been specially trained to spot the tell-tale signs that someone is planning to commit an act of terrorism. That's why we do not need to arm ourself to the teeth with guns because normal citizens of the UK are not terrorists.

[Skepdick]

You are missing the point. You need to check the blades haven't gone blunt on you're sharpener.

The UK does not tolerate Islamic Terrorists taking over their country. Anyone acting on behalf of such terror organizations who are out to cause trouble in someone else's country are seen as grossly disrepectful to the normal native law abiding citizens. They must be dealt with according to the severity of their aggression.

As for life in general, our police do not pose any threat or intimidating stance toward normal law abiding natives of the UK or any migrants including foreigners that already adhere to the British beliefs, ideas, customs, and social behaviour as a mark of mutual respect.

Right!

So in general you don't like shooting mass-stabbers, but if mass-stabbers are Islamic Terrorists then it's fine.

I don't shoot people because I don't have a need for a gun.

Our government employs police to shoot people. It's a police officers job to shoot

Please show me where in the law it says that and under what circumstances a police officer is allowed to kill somebody.

Because I am pretty damn sure that there are NO laws which grant police officers any special powers in this regard over and above the powers of granted to any regular citizen.

they have been specially trained to spot the tell-tale signs that someone is planning to commit an act of terrorism.

What training would that be? Mind-reading? Last I checked you have to call the armed police to come shoot somebody for you.

That's why we do not need to arm ourself to the teeth with guns because normal citizens of the UK are not terrorists.

Yes, precisely!. Most people aren't terrorists - so you don't need any guns.

Then why do you need armed police?

[Harbal]

So in general you don't like shooting mass-stabbers, but if mass-stabbers are Islamic Terrorists then it's fine.

It depends on whether the mass they are stabbing is human or not.

So you aren't opposed to shooting mass-stabbers who stab humans - you are just opposed to you doing the shooting?

Is that what I said? I suppose that's what I must have meant then.

I really can't make sense of your rules, hey. You don't want guns but you have armed police. Why? Just disarm them and let them figure it out.

The public don't have guns, and ordinary police officers don't carry guns, and I am in favour of that situation. The police force has armed units, which are deployed as and when necessary. That also seems sensible. If you can't make sense of that, you are doing it deliberately.

[Skepdick]

The public don't have guns, and ordinary police officers don't carry guns, and I am in favour of that situation. The police force has armed units, which are deployed as and when necessary.

So your armed police aren't members of the public? What are they? Superhumans from another planet?

That also seems sensible. If you can't make sense of that, you are doing it deliberately.

Yeah. I can't make ANY sense of it.

Why is it "sensible" to call somebody with a gun if somebody is trying to murder me, but it's "not sensible" for me to have a gun at the exact same situation? I am already at the fucking murder scene!

[Harbal]

Yes, precisely!. Most people aren't terrorists - so you don't need any guns.

Then why do you need armed police?

Because we tend not to train our wives to do the job here.

[Skepdick]

Because we tend not to train our wives to do the job here.

Why do you train anybody? Does the job even need doing?

Most people are not mass murderers.

[Dontaskme]

Please show me where in the law it says that and under what circumstances a police officer is allowed to kill somebody.

Because I am pretty damn sure that there are NO laws which grant police officers any special powers in this regard over and above the powers of granted to any regular citizen.

Each authorised firearms officer is individually responsible and accountable for their decisions and actions, nothing can absolve them from such responsibility and accountability. Police do not set out to deliberately kill suspects, rather, they shoot to incapacitate.

Yes, precisely!. Most people aren't terrorists - so you don't need any guns.

Then why do you need armed police?

Our police force do not have a policy to shoot to kill. Most of them do not carry guns. And neither are the private civilians or any of the general public armed.

[Age]

'you' may well have absolutely NO idea here "skepdick", but I can and WILL inform 'you' that 'you' are LESS 'safe' in a society with MORE 'weapons' than 'you' are in a society with LESS 'weapons', and thus conversely 'you' are MORE 'safe' in a society with LESS 'weapons' than 'you' are in a society with MORE 'weapons'.

That's not information. That's misinformation. It's flat out false.

Societies with less weapons on the left.
Societies with more weapons on the right.

Of course, your feelings about weapons are impervious to data.

trends.png

If I recall correctly I ASKED 'you' BEFORE "skepdick" if you REALLY WANTED to USE 'statics' here?

And, from what I have NOTICED, you NEVER ANSWERED. NOT that you REALLY EVER DO.

Now, if you STILL WANT TO CLAIM that 'you' ARE MORE SAFE in a society with MORE WEAPONS, and LESS SAFE in a society with LESS WEAPONS, then please FEEL FREE TO EXPLAIN HOW, and WHY, EXACTLY?

If you EVER DO, then I WILL SHOW and PROVE HOW and WHY one is MORE SAFE in a society with LESS WEAPONS, and LESS SAFE in a society with MORE WEAPONS.

Is this UNDERSTOOD, by you?

[Age]

Right!

So in general you don't like shooting mass-stabbers, but if mass-stabbers are Islamic Terrorists then it's fine.

I don't shoot people because I don't have a need for a gun.

Our government employs police to shoot people. It's a police officers job to shoot

Please show me where in the law it says that and under what circumstances a police officer is allowed to kill somebody.

Because I am pretty damn sure that there are NO laws which grant police officers any special powers in this regard over and above the powers of granted to any regular citizen.

they have been specially trained to spot the tell-tale signs that someone is planning to commit an act of terrorism.

What training would that be? Mind-reading? Last I checked you have to call the armed police to come shoot somebody for you.

That's why we do not need to arm ourself to the teeth with guns because normal citizens of the UK are not terrorists.

Yes, precisely!. Most people aren't terrorists - so you don't need any guns.

Then why do you need armed police?

TO PROTECT 'us' FROM people like 'you', "skepdick", who are walking around WITH guns READY to SHOOT and KILL 'people' who they think, IMAGINE, or BELIEVE MIGHT HAVE guns and who want to SHOOT or HARM 'them'.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, would NOT be HAPPENING if there were NOT guns IN society, AGAIN OBVIOUSLY.

[Age]

Because we tend not to train our wives to do the job here.

Why do you train anybody? Does the job even need doing?

Most people are not mass murderers.

Most people, ALSO, can NOT KILL AS EASILY, WITHOUT guns.

So, WHY do we, supposedly, NEED MORE guns?

[Skepdick]

Each authorised firearms officer is individually responsible and accountable for their decisions and actions, nothing can absolve them from such responsibility and accountability. Police do not set out to deliberately kill suspects, rather, they shoot to incapacitate.

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?

Our police force do not have a policy to shoot to kill. Most of them do not carry guns. And neither are the private civilians or any of the general public armed.

I don't care what "most" of them do. I am asking you why ANY of them need guns.

You don't want guns in your country, right? DIsarm everybody!

[Harbal]

The public don't have guns, and ordinary police officers don't carry guns, and I am in favour of that situation. The police force has armed units, which are deployed as and when necessary.

So your armed police aren't members of the public?

Not when they are on duty, no.

What are they? Superhumans from another planet?

Some of them might be, but only when they are not on duty.

Why is it "sensible" to call somebody with a gun if somebody is trying to murder me, but it's "not sensible" for me to have a gun at the exact same situation? I am already at the murder scene!

If you've had the training and psychological assessment that firearms officers undergo, it might be reasonable to let you have a gun, I suppose. But then again, if you were already at the scene of the murder, it would probably have been you who committed it, so on balance I think it better that you don't have a gun.

[Age]

Each authorised firearms officer is individually responsible and accountable for their decisions and actions, nothing can absolve them from such responsibility and accountability. Police do not set out to deliberately kill suspects, rather, they shoot to incapacitate.

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?

Our police force do not have a policy to shoot to kill. Most of them do not carry guns. And neither are the private civilians or any of the general public armed.

I don't care what "most" of them do. I am asking you why ANY of them need guns.

You don't want guns in your country, right? DIsarm everybody!

WHY, especially WHEN there ARE people like 'you' STILL AROUND "skepdick"?

ONCE 'your' kind of thinking HAS BEEN REMOVED, then REMOVING guns, COMPLETELY, CAN BEGIN, and WILL HAPPEN, EXPONENTIALLY.

But while INDOCTRINATE people like "yourself" "skepdick" ARE STILL INDOCTRINATING 'the younger ones' WITH the EXACT SAME DISTORTED BELIEFS, 'legal systems' and 'armed officers of the law' ARE NEEDED.