For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
So you aren't opposed to shooting mass-stabbers who stab humans - you are just opposed to you doing the shooting?
I don't shoot people because I don't have a need for a gun.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 12:59 pmRight!Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 12:57 pm 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.
So in general you don't like shooting mass-stabbers, but if mass-stabbers are Islamic Terrorists then it's fine.
Please show me where in the law it says that and under what circumstances a police officer is allowed to kill somebody.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 1:34 pmI don't shoot people because I don't have a need for a gun.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 12:59 pmRight!Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 12:57 pm 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.
So in general you don't like shooting mass-stabbers, but if mass-stabbers are Islamic Terrorists then it's fine.
Our government employs police to shoot people. It's a police officers job to shoot
What training would that be? Mind-reading? Last I checked you have to call the armed police to come shoot somebody for you.
Yes, precisely!. Most people aren't terrorists - so you don't need any guns.
Is that what I said? I suppose that's what I must have meant then.
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.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.
So your armed police aren't members of the public? What are they? Superhumans from another planet?
Yeah. I can't make ANY sense of it.
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.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 1:39 pm
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.
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.
If I recall correctly I ASKED 'you' BEFORE "skepdick" if you REALLY WANTED to USE 'statics' here?Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 7:02 amThat's not information. That's misinformation. It's flat out false.Age wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 12:24 am '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'.
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
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'.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 1:39 pmPlease 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.
What training would that be? Mind-reading? Last I checked you have to call the armed police to come shoot somebody for you.
Yes, precisely!. Most people aren't terrorists - so you don't need any guns.
Then why do you need armed police?
Most people, ALSO, can NOT KILL AS EASILY, WITHOUT guns.
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!Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 1:55 pm 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.
I don't care what "most" of them do. I am asking you why ANY of them need guns.
Not when they are on duty, no.
Some of them might be, but only when they are not on duty.What are they? Superhumans from another planet?
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.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!
WHY, especially WHEN there ARE people like 'you' STILL AROUND "skepdick"?Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:03 pmYou 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!Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 1:55 pm 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.
So when is an "authorized firearm officer" allowed to use lethal force?
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!