Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:03 pm
You don't want guns in your country, right? DIsarm everybody!

Why do you object to our deciding for ourselves who should and should not be allowed to handle guns?

I believe this thread is about the public having guns, not law inforcement agencies having them.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:03 pm Not when they are on duty, no.

Legally, i have absolutely no. idea what that means. You have laws allowing for citizen's arrest.

For the purposes of arresting somebody who has just committed a crime there is no legal distinction between a citizen and a police officer.

They have equivalent mandates.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:03 pm Some of them might be, but only when they are not on duty.

Very strange system. You are entrusted to protect life with a gun only between 8 and 5.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:03 pm 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 only during working hours. Outside of working hours it becomes unreasonable again.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:03 pm 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.

How do you figure that? Sure sounds like you have some "guilty until proven innocent" thing going on here...

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:15 pm Why do you object to our deciding for ourselves who should and should not be allowed to handle guns?

I don't object to it. I am just trying to uderstand your reasoning.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:15 pm I believe this thread is about the public having guns, not law inforcement agencies having them.

Sorry, I don't understand the difference. I don't stop being a member of the public when I put on the uniform.
Nor do I stop being a police officer when I take it off.

I am a law-abiding and a law-enforcing citizen.

That some people get paid to perform the function is neither here nor there.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:17 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:03 pm Not when they are on duty, no.

Legally, i have absolutely no. idea what that means. You have laws allowing for citizen's arrest.

For the purposes of arresting somebody who has just committed a crime there is no legal distinction between a citizen and a police officer.

They have equivalent mandates.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:03 pm Some of them might be, but only when they are not on duty.

Very strange system. You are entrusted to protect life with a gun only between 8 and 5.

It IS a MUCH STRANGER 'system' AND 'society' where one BELIEVES that they NEED (MORE) guns 24 hours a day just to PROTECT "themselves".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:17 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:03 pm 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 only during working hours. Outside of working hours it becomes unreasonable again.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:03 pm 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.

How do you figure that? Sure sounds like you have some "guilty until proven innocent" thing going on here...

Considering what you have TOLD 'us' ALREADY, 'figuring that' would NOT be that hard AT ALL, REALLY.

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:21 pm It IS a MUCH STRANGER 'system' AND 'society' where one BELIEVES that they NEED (MORE) guns 24 hours a day just to PROTECT "themselves".

So you don' thave a seatbelt in your car? You call the Special Seatbelt Unit when you are having an accident.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:19 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:15 pm Why do you object to our deciding for ourselves who should and should not be allowed to handle guns?

I don't object to it. I am just trying to uderstand your reasoning.

BECAUSE guns are NOT NEEDED ANY MORE. Unless, OF COURSE, there are people LIKE 'you', "skepdick", STILL AROUND.

How much MORE SIMPLER could this GET?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:19 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:15 pm I believe this thread is about the public having guns, not law inforcement agencies having them.

Sorry, I don't understand the difference. I don't stop being a member of the public when I put on the uniform.
Nor do I stop being a police officer when I take it off.

I am a law-abiding and a law-enforcing citizen.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:19 pm That some people get paid to perform the function is neither here nor there.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:23 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:21 pm It IS a MUCH STRANGER 'system' AND 'society' where one BELIEVES that they NEED (MORE) guns 24 hours a day just to PROTECT "themselves".

So you don' thave a seatbelt in your car? You call the Special Seatbelt Unit when you are having an accident.

'This' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do WITH 'what' I SAID and WROTE here.

It is CALLED 'an accident' for a VERY OBVIOUS REASON "skepdick".

Do you wear a bullet proof vest when walking the streets in THAT society that you live in? Or do you call some special unit when you are having an accident WITH a BULLET, FROM a gun?

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:24 pm BECAUSE guns are NOT NEEDED ANY MORE. Unless, OF COURSE, there are people LIKE 'you', "skepdick", STILL AROUND.

I think you are lying.

Rewind history back to 1100 - guns didn't even exist. If we didn't need them then why did we invent them?

And if we did need guns then why did we need them? Nobody else had guns!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:29 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:24 pm BECAUSE guns are NOT NEEDED ANY MORE. Unless, OF COURSE, there are people LIKE 'you', "skepdick", STILL AROUND.

Nah. This can't possibly be true.

Rewind history back to 1100 - guns didn't even exist. If we didn't need them then why did we invent them?

But WHO EVER SAID that 'you', human beings, did NOT NEED guns, BACK THEN?

'you' REALLY DO NEED TO LEARN TO READ JUST THE WORDS, ONLY, THAT I SAY and WRITE here.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:29 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:24 pm BECAUSE guns are NOT NEEDED ANY MORE. Unless, OF COURSE, there are people LIKE 'you', "skepdick", STILL AROUND.

I think you are lying.

WITHOUT SEEKING CLARITY, FIRST, you WILL TEND TO SEE and IMAGINE SOME 'things', PRIOR.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:29 pm Rewind history back to 1100 - guns didn't even exist. If we didn't need them then why did we invent them?

And if we did need guns then why did we need them? Nobody else had guns!

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:31 pm But WHO EVER SAID that 'you', human beings, did NOT NEED guns, BACK THEN?

Why would we need guns "back then"?

If nobody has guns then why would anybody need to invent guns?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:17 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:03 pm Not when they are on duty, no.

Legally, i have absolutely no. idea what that means. You have laws allowing for citizen's arrest.

For the purposes of arresting somebody who has just committed a crime there is no legal distinction between a citizen and a police officer.

They have equivalent mandates.

So do you think the public should be issued with handcuffs, as well as guns?

Very strange system. You are entrusted to protect life with a gun only between 8 and 5.

And that is a strange way of describing how a firearms officer is only allowed to carry a gun while on duty.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:17 pm

Harbal wrote: 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 only during working hours. Outside of working hours it becomes unreasonable again.

I see your point. I now see that you shouldn't be allowed to have a gun under any circumstances.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:03 pm
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.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:03 pmI 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!

Yes, I agree, all guns should be eliminated from the face of the earth, and why they have not yet been, I cannot do anything about that.

All I know is that I live in a country where no one who lives here walks around with a gun stuffed down their knickers, except for the odd escapee from prison or some other weird nutjob institution, but then you'll always get some pockets of crazies creeping around in any human society.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:38 pm So do you think the public should be issued with handcuffs, as well as guns?

Issued? No.
Allowed to acquire their own? Of course.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:38 pm And that is a strange way of describing how a firearms officer is only allowed to carry a gun while on duty.

Oh, I am sorry. Did I get the exact numbers wrong, or are you trying to tell me that your superhuman armed officers work 24/7/365?

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:38 pm I see your point. I now see that you shouldn't be allowed to have a gun under any circumstances.

Yep. Get rid of the armed police! Resolve those mutually exclusive principles.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:19 pm
Sorry, I don't understand the difference. I don't stop being a member of the public when I put on the uniform.
Nor do I stop being a police officer when I take it off.

I am a law-abiding and a law-enforcing citizen.

That some people get paid to perform the function is neither here nor there.

I'm sure that impersonating a police officer is considered as serious an offence in your country as it is in mine, so I hope you only do it in the privacy of your own home, officer Skepdick.