You realise this has already happened? Plainclothes officers attempted to arrest someone without identifying themselves, one was shot and it was ruled as self-defence.
Police get killed all the time, and nothing happens. I'm not exactly sure why you think this specific situation, that has already happened, will suddenly change things.
They are not legally required to, they however are expected to.
Just like you are not legally required to do your job (with rare exceptions), but you are still expected to and would certainly like the equipment to do it safely.
"It seems as though"
Things are not always what the seem prima facie, perhaps you should be studying more English.
Except that wasn't the commenters actual argument. It was merely a premise, upon which they argued that LE should be unarmed. I accepted (and clarified) the premise, but pointed out that premise is not actually sufficient.
"It will also be used to subjugate the citizen"
All power can be used for immoral purposes, even citizen militias (like naively extolled by anarkiddies) are perfectly capable of abuse.
The problem therefore is to minimise abuses and the solution is to implement immediate repercussions for immoral actions. Not disarm the police. That does nothing but mean that as long as you have enough bullets, you can run your own unaccountable government.
Nope, just like George Orwell you are asserting an unsupported form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
"Doublespeak" doesn't fundamentally change how people think, it is just deception by obfuscation.
The fact that the word anti-Semitism doesn't include anti-Arab sentiments is not the cause of why anti-Arab sentiments are not as criticised. The Holocaust is why anti-Semitism (the concept and by extension the word) holds a place of special concern. (And Islamic terrorist incidents are why anti-Arab sentiments are more accepted).
Case law established that police do not have a responsibility to act, (because nobody has a responsibility to act and making an exception would cause problems). This does not mean that there isn't an expectation to act, or that being armed would make individuals more willing to act.
China has absolutely zero interest in negotiating arms treaties, they aren't quite in a full arms race with the US. The way arms limitations treaties work is if there is a rival state that will always match or exceed your armament, then you actually have an incentive to stop. If you don't have such a rival then you can always ensure that you are on the top and ignore any treaties.
Second paragraph addressed that this simply isn't an actual issue.
"Go write an op-ed on all the great profits to be made"
Seems a little an unusual that someone who thinks profits are somewhat immoral (unless redirected towards beneficial goals), is characterised as hyper-capitalist or "management type" simply for pointing out that the narrative of people becoming impoverished due to an increasingly exploitative labor market simply isn't true.
Says the person who is ignoring a characterisation of long-term trends and fixating on short term affects.
"Who's going to pay to move these people who get displaced out of there jobs"
Nobody, because they don't need to. This is simply leftist conspiracism, people simply aren't suffering from mass unemployment, the median wages have steadily gone up (especially considering PPP per capital).
Just because you get displaced from your industry, doesn't mean that jobs don't exist or that you can't make just as much (or more elsewhere), all doing relatively unskilled work (I.e minimal or zero training).
"Gig economy jobs"
Proof that you literally have no idea what you are talking about. Gig economy jobs exploded during a competitive labour market people choose to work them primarily for work flexibility (often as additional spending money). They had tons of stable job opportunities and they still do.
Complaining about the "gig economy", is inanely out-of-touch, but because one or two idiot journalists whined about it as being some sort of dystopia, everyone jumped on it as some sort of valid critique.
Jobs are not going away, this myth needs to die. It will simply shift to whatever people are willing to pay for, just like it has done for the last 100 years.
Just like how forklifts didn't replace human labor, AI will not replace mental labor. It's simply impossible, with the scope of the problems we have any additional mental computation is advantageous no matter how minor it may be to an AI.
Do you literally not know what ethics is? You've acted like a complete and total moron in every reply on this post.
You realise you can sum your position to
If someone desires something
Then we should grant it despite any prohibition on active killing, ( presumably so long as it does not harm an individual other than the subject)
But this isn't actually accepted by virtually anyone, see suicidality for temporary conditions or just the fact that we have no apparent obligation to grant something based on mere desire.
The entire pro-euthanasia argument relies on basing moral principles on wildly variable emotions and sympathy.
The question is not whether or not someone should suffer, but whether it is permissible to kill another, or even a proper choice. Should assisted suicide be granted for temporary conditions? After all subjects of temporary conditions suffer too and they may even wish to die. If you say no, then clearly your decision making is able to override a desire of the subject. If you say yes, then there is no logical barrier to killing any momentarily sad person.
"Who are you to judge ... Why do you refuse to answer"
I've been answering this entire time. The answer is everyone is able to judge, there appears to be this underlying fundamental intuition and logic across humans that if followed leads to the statements I've made.
Feeling sad for someone and wanting to alleviate there suffering does not logically lead to "therefore we should actively kill them".
If you want consolation, you would more than likely be left to die. Children were extremely disposable up until the last few thousand years. Often subjects of cannibalism.
This claim comes from 2 people, I would be a little more cautious about broadly embracing there claims of systemic discrimination, without actually knowing the corpus of research on the topic.
Also there claim of endurance being an important factor is suspect. Women have better endurance in that there performance drops more slowly than men, however the drop isn't significant enough to result in any total advantage. Which is why women still lose in endurance competitions.
It's fair to say that women probably weren't significantly disadvantaged in hunting (especially smaller animals), but it's quite misleading to argue that their endurance added some additional advantage.
Reading Goldwasser's paper on elliptic curves, got me into math and then automating math calculations.