Does this mean...?

[Yamato]

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t3

With instances like this, are we going to discuss the restrictions on firearms to police officers? What about the military?

The idea of constraining arms in our military is a touchy subject in the US, to say the least. We can't even seriously consider meaningful budget cuts. Both parties like war, and too many of our people belong to either one of them. So there's barely a peep from the gun control advocates about the federal government and what they do in the world with their guns. I've brought it up multiple times in multiple threads and it's met largely with a collective hearing problem. They don't want the state to do what people have to do. It's two different groups with two completely different standards. I think that's tragic.

Police is where it gets more interesting. It's true, police are under a lot of stress, and there's a lot of corruption in police departments which is a very dangerous condition to allow a city or county because it's very difficult for the citizenry to fight enforcers of their laws.. It might be stretching it to assume that people don't care about police corruption, but what is clear is that people don't have the same emotional response to sensational news stories about police turning their guns on innocents. I'm not the one to usher in sweeping policy changes down at the PD over this story, but a uniform and a badge doesn't prevent mental illness or corruption. The reverse is closer to the truth, because power corrupts.

[Rafterman]

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t3

With instances like this, are we going to discuss the restrictions on firearms to police officers? What about the military?

"If only one life is saved" right?