"Let's just look at what you're saying Donthave. You are saying that it's acceptable, indeed a good thing that in certain circumstances, human beings kill each other. That's it! Now I know you're going to object to that and deny it. "
No I'm not going to deny it, you've accurately described my beliefs. I do believe that it's acceptable and sometimes a good thing in certain circumstances when a human being kills another human being. The part I was objecting to was
"Donthave logic at work ~ He, (the driver) deserved to have his brains blown out, (possibly) not tried and jailed."
The only thing that would make me feel the driver "deserved" to be shot was if he was a threat to life (either to the officer himself or anyone else in the vicinity) because the officer would have a clear case to shoot in self defence. However the facts available to us suggest this was NOT the case, and as such I don't support with or endorse the officers actions. If there is enough evidence to prosecute him then I say that is the correct way of handling it.
"You refuse to acknowledge the wrongfulness of this act, as long as it's committed by the Police pursuing law and order. I say, as do many others thankfully, that no matter how unlikable the person the Police killed was, a state sponsored/societal killing machine is wrong on every conceivable moral level"
I don't refuse to acknowledge the wrongfulness of any act. Murder is wrong no matter who does it, and I've said if the officer is guilty of what he's accused of then he should be jailed or given whatever punishment they have in his location for murder. The police should not be exempt from the law, I've never said they should so I don't know why you are leveling that claim against me.
"Taking life is not an act that should be condoned by any truly civilised society."
I disagree. I believe it depends on the circumstances. Someone who kills in self defence is not on the same level as someone who kills someone in a rage. Someone who euthanizes a loved one because they were begging to die but couldn't do it themselves while maybe legally guilty of a crime is not in my opinion on the same moral level as a random murderer.
"But that is what you, by defending the ubiquity of guns in certain societies are saying. Sorry but it is. You see guns provide the easy and ready means for death and destruction (far more than swords or catapults posed centuries ago) and guns wouldn't exist if human beings didn't have the base desire to harm each other with them."
Human beings do have the desire to harm each other, it's one of our flaws as a species. Some of us are good people, but humans as a whole have been killing each other for thousands of years and we show no signs of stopping. If we can't use guns, then we use knives or swords or baseball bats or fists. I see no logical reason to ban guns when it wouldn't make society safer. Do you seriously think that a school shooter will care that it's illegal for him to possess his weapon? I don't - He's already proven that he's willing to break the law against murdering people, I don't think any offensive weapon charges would deter him. States with strict gun control have higher violent crime than states with low gun control, which is one of the reasons I support the concept of an armed citizenry.