The Gun-control "movement"

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

I say "movement" because it is a popular attitude shared by many. It tends to be more Democrats than Republicans but not exclusively.

There seems to be a split in thinking by some that favor removing certain firearms from civilians. I understand the folks who think that civilians and most of law enforcement should be disarmed of their guns. I disagree but I understand.

This question is for those that believe in disarming civilians and leaving firearms in the hands of the police.
I infer that the principle reason for this is that the police would use that weapon in performing their duties.

Should it be among the duties of a police officer to defend his/her own life while endangering the life of another?

0 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	0 (0%)
	No
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[hollowdweller]

1. Confusing

Not sure what you mean here.

If someone is attacking them can they shoot Them?

Or do you mean like Iraq where they would shoot into a crowd where 1 person is shooting at them?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Yes

As part of the big question: "If you believe the police should be armed, what should their duties be?" I ask 'should self-defense be among those duties?'

I can think of 3 reasons for a cop to shoot someone:
> Self-defense
> Defense of another
> They were ordered to shoot

The scope of this is:
The officer is being attacked with deadly force.
The officer can distinguish the attacker.
The officer is armed and can return fire without substantially endangering a third party.