[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

But police won't shoot children or just plain innocent people. There's a difference, a big difference.

There is nothing wrong with shooting and killing a known criminal. Killing innocent people... do I even have to say this?

Was I talking about "innocent People"? Cops are individuals who DO have the capability to choose to shoot who they want (crazy's). We still trust them to carry out there duty with the potential to end anyone life. You made a broad generalizing that everyone that had one is criminal. I will go father upon this, Let's replace criminal with soldier and use the same analogy. There is nothing wrong with using a weapon to kill a soldier.

First and foremost, you must decide if those people where innocent. We could decide that if you get drafted your innocent and do not deserve to be shot at. What about the people who build the tanks, the bullets, raise the next soldier?

Civilian DO have much to say as to what war they support. War has a price and if you DO NOTHING to prevent your country from being the aggressor (there is always a aggressor in war) you pay that price. That said, the only exception I would see would be children and less able adults, as such It's very much up the said country to protect them, while at the same time the country that uses such methods MUST live with the burden of killing said people.

All weapons are a double edge sword. they kill they defend. Nuclear weapons do fall under that category and they have stood as a blockage against massive wars. I'll push it more, you got a city you need to defend and you have a nuke which could possibly wipe out the enemy army, do you wast lives trying to defend that city or do yo use such nuke to wipe the enemy out saving YOUR troops lives while also saving the city? There is no easy choice in decisions to kill, or to save.