Summations Only

Try to keep up. Police are not trained to, "Shoot them in the legs." It's always, "Shoot to kill."

Is it?I was responding indirectly to jar's comments about being ready to shoot. In my example, jar would be ready to shoot the fleeing perpetrator if and only if the perpetrator turned to shoot. He would be prepared to preent that behaviour if necesary.I don't know if that is jar's position but that's the position I was suggesting.

Not at all. They should not have that authority. To that extent, I agree with marc9000.The problem in the US is that "self-defense" cuts both ways. If the police can shoot an alleged felon for simply having a gun on his person, the alleged felon is more likely to use it.If you give your police too much authority to use violence, you initiate an arms race between the criminals and the police - and then the gneral public don't want to be the only ones left out.

You gave me 5 words. Obviously. They'll empty a magazine into a guy. You can easily commit suicide by cop.You going somewhere?

Really? I got the same thing from crashfrog a couple of years ago. In Canada, it's one shot. We're pretty tight with our ammunition. I'm just playing devil's advocate on both sides. I think gun control is important in the civilized world but in the US it's a lost cause. You might as well try to dry up the Atlantic Ocean with a sponge.

Alleged? And what did marc9000 say about shooting an armed felon?The police are not limited to self defense. We ask them to stop crime. That means that they poke their nose into situations that ordinary citizens should avoid or flee from. I'm curious what you think a policeman is supposed to do when he finds an armed person in the midst of committing a felony.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Before you entered the conversation, a couple of us engaged jar on exactly that point. I'm not sure why you responded to me on some different point if you were addressing jar. Where did jar say anything like that?

In Canada the police are limited to defending themselves and defending civilians. "We" do not ask them to stop crime by shooting alleged felons. "You" do. He/she is supposed to apprehend the perpetrator, using lethal force if and only if he/she or a civilian is drectly threatened - i.e. if the perpetrator throws up his/her hands and doesn't go for his/her weapon, the police officer is definitely not supposed to use lethal force.

I was addressing you to clarify what (I think) jar meant. I think he advocates adjusting somebody's behaviour by being ready to shoot them if they don't adjust their behaviour voluntarily. If I'm wrong, jar can correct me.

Sure. So in the case of a non compliant thief with a gun in his waist band, a Canadian policeman will wait for the thief to make a move towards for his gat before he pulls his gun?In any event, I can respect your belief that protecting property is not worth the life of the thief. That is a completely reasonable expectation. But here in the US, the thief cannot count on that bit of politeness because it is not what the law requires before the policeman is allowed to use deadly force. Accordingly, when the Durham County sheriff tells an armed burglar whom he has come up mid burglary, to put the booty down and put his hands behind his back, the burglar should reasonably understand that the policeman is not making an idle threat. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Femoral artery - Wikipedia

If a weapon is visible, a Canadian police officer would draw his/her weapon and point it at the alleged perpetrator. He/she would not be authorized to fire unless there was a more imminent threat by the alleged perpetrator to use the weapon.I keep saying "alleged" because when the police arrive they don't necessarily know who the perpetrator is. You can't tell the good guys from the bad guys without a program, as Bugs Bunny would say.What if the alleged perpetrator is, in fact, the homeowner who is carrying his own TV and his own licensed firearm out his own window for reasons of his own? Police encounter situations stranger than that - and just as legal - every day. And honest citizens are likely to be just as hostile to police as real felons in such a situation.That's why Canadian police are not authorized to shoot people for just having a weapon or even for hesitating to surrender their weapon. An actual threat is required.

it's not about "capacity", it's about ease, speed and the possibility of accidental death.
With a firearm it is easy for an average joe, untrained and startled to make a bad judgement and kill someone. It's not so easy to "accidentally" beat someone to death. So why do you want to allow every citizen to be armed? you must see that this ends in death? (30,000-ish per year i think from some statistics presented in this thread).
That's like saying:
"I do not believe in personal point to point transportation for the masses"
...and then insisting that everyone should have a car. Ridiculous. Call it what you will, semantics, the end result is death, in many cases for a minor crime, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is key... Do you think that everyone has the skills and the level head to make a correct decision in this case? to make their actions proportionate to the "need"?
I do not. by your logic, anyone with functioning limbs has a deadly weapon, so that would mean every crime? maybe you should read what you post?
from your list:

quote:

---

[5/30/14] Cheswold (DE) resident shoots at burglary suspects (doverpost.com)

---

how can you reconcile this with:

Well that's what you said and that's what we've been arguing about. I can't read your mind, I can only go by what you say. All weapons have some amount of those qualities. You're on a slippery slope if you don't have some way of drawing a line between them.Gun, Bow, Atlatl, Spear, Katana, Bo-staff, baseball bat, cender block, brick, knifeWhere does a weapon become too difficult and slow to be allowable for a person to have?And on that note, why would I want to limit myself to defending myself with inferior weapons? I don't. But you think burglary is a minor crime... I think that someone breaking into my house is a major crime, very near the top. No. There is nobody else there to assess the need besides the person who is defending themself.Ya know, the perpetrator could just not commit crimes, right? Why are you so quick to defend the criminals at the expense of the victims? Well no, I mean, there's jaywalking...You have to be being assaulted to invoke self-defense. And yes, entering my home is assaulting me. Okay. Two men broke into their house. Someone who lived there shot at them. They missed. Nobody was hurt. The criminals ran away.That's a pretty bad example of "shooting someone dead for burglary". When you kill someone in self-defense, you are not punishing them for committing a crime. You are protecting yourself.

Why are we arguing gun control, when alcohol related deaths are much more frequent?
Why are we blaming an inanimate object for the problems PEOPLE are causing?
As for criminals, why should we give them another chance to rape/kill or steal from someone else that cannot protect themselves?