The police 70% of the time should not use execution bullets to fight crime
Yeah i think so
Side Score: 1
|
The usual is okay
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
1
point
I agree to a certain extent. If someone has a gun and pulls it out or is about to on a police officer, idgaf what color you are or how dangerous you are or what color or gender the police are. If someone reaches for a gun then the police need to deem them dangerous and fire. Sorry. I also don't care what family they have to taje care of, no one but God and maybe a judge should have any right not to cooperate with the police. If a police officer tells you to get in the fucking car, you do it so as not to go to jail even longer. If the person is cooperative then I agree. I also agree that the police are scary. Side: The usual is okay
1
point
You know if the police uses those guns i suggested, automatically no civilian would have the right or authority to hold dangerous guns. They will have to use the same type of gun as the police and anyone caught having these our usuals which can easily kill can be arrested and fined. That way the police will have the right to take all guns from civilians and replacing with the drugging guns. Rate of gun killings will reduce and more criminals will be arrested if they are shot with sedatives. Less police will die also from gun fights when they will only fall asleep incase they are shot and the criminal escapes.Only in critical conditions will the police use the normal guns but will be a crime if a civilian is caught with one. The world would be a better place. Also there is still guilt in you after killing someone even in self defence. There will be no guilt in putting a criminal who hasn't slept in nights to sleep right? Side: Yeah i think so
2
points
In computer security they say the point of security is not to eliminate risk. That is impossible. The point is to bring risk down to an acceptable level. Lets say its even remotely possible to predict and indefinitely prevent what any and any individual can do in terms of finding a gun loophole. You can get rid of the dark web somehow and people will just find another way. No matter how many loopholes you close there will always be another genius to find a new loophole and secretly spread the news. And if you find him they'll be another one to bring guns or gun making tutorials or something where people can get their assault rifles. Catch him and you'll find you did it just in time for someone to solve the ancient mystery of how to get guns. And making it illegal just gives every coming genius more illegally generated revenue and all the new geniuses after that. Make guns legal and you present a very high risk to anyone who wants to shoot up a school, which is a deterrent if criminals know they are probably going to die even before they do too much damage. There have been cases of civilians do this and no additional people die in gun fire. Now a lot of these people are former police officers, but do you think that's every case? Let's be honest, the concept that there always has to be additional cross shooting is false. Insome cases a gun is aied at the shooter feom the wrong angle and the shooter knows they don't have enough time to turn the gun back to the person before a potential headshot because they know they themselves get shot if they try to, orat least that it's very likely they'll suffer even one headshot and that'll be it if that's the case. There you go, no additional cross fire. Being a moralfag does not imply rational ethics to someone who is logical and rational. It only implies it for retards and wussies. Side: The usual is okay
|