Depending on the whom shapes the eventual solution. Recent unrest over deaths at hands of "authorized protectors" runs parallel to the inequity in demographics of lives lost. Which makes for a very uncomfortable, yet necessary conversation about the unfortunate outcome "guns" have on a civil society, domestic and global.
A gun's purpose, if used correctly, can immobilize any perceived threat limited to a physical body. And though The United States Constitution authorizes its "law-abiding" citizens the right to "bear arms", not all are gun carrying owners. The inequity and consequently, the unfairness comes when some of the shooters face no equitable repercussions for ending a life.
Regardless of whether one's profession allows legal, authorized ownership and use of a deadly weapon, guns have been quite effective in ending lives, be it through the hands of law enforcement, military or legal and illegally sanctioned citizens.
Law enforcement officers are front and center of the drama. Not because they are solely responsible for the deaths but because they, more than any other profession are given authority to use and pack a gun in their briefcase which is important and by far the surest way to gain control in the potential, of a critically hazardous situation. Next are the licensed gunslingers/holders who have the legal right to subsequently brandish/use firearm against perceived "people threat" as well. And lastly, the groups of renegade, rogue and ideological zealots.
There's no argument that anyone who risk danger to protect the rights of another is a hero of sorts. Firefighters do this each time they do their job, armed with a hose and assumption that rational men come together quickly for the good.
Like law officers, most firefighters, EMTs, the "servers and protectors" are paid a salary for their efforts, yet the latter two groups are not issued guns, in professions where "fear of personal safety" is trumped by purpose and service.
The question then becomes, what profile characteristics are necessary in ensuring the moral compass, civic duty, and mental capacities are present in candidates before presentation of weapon with "justified" right to decide when life warrants a death resolution. When law enforcement officers deaths are work related, they are mourned, remembered and honored by many nameless fans. They become martyrs and saints simply by intent of their profession, which is to "...serve and protect..." many nameless fans.
To suggest that law enforcement officers by title alone, are honorable and deserving of an inherent immunity from criticisms and culpability is not only illogical but a dangerous assumption and especially when death is a result of the tools of ones work.
Law enforcement must realize that the effectiveness of the very nature of their job requires first, earned trust, respect and honor and two, and that they have way more supporters to assist them in doing effective good work than not. Their supporters are not inanimate objects, but flesh and blood breathing human beings who like them believe in the constitutional freedoms and rights afforded every individual, indiscriminately.
But all, the licensed, the rogue, and ideological/zealot groups should consider the future look of an equally armed society. Law enforcement officers and licensed gun holders should not fear potential danger but aim for the gun-less resolution by doing the right thing first, often. They should realize that they have ultimate power to right a wrong but that it requires an objective, compassionate, and brave human to do it.
