Sentences with phrase «use of the weapon if»

We might have more confidence in the police's use of the weapon if they had bothered to properly record and analyse information about its use.

Not exact matches

Also banned: instructions on «on how to make or use weapons if the goal is to injure or kill people,» unless there is «clear context that the content is for an alternative purpose (for example, shared as part of recreational self - defense activities, training by a country's military, commercial video games, or news coverage).»

Garcia is right about the benefits of being able to measure guards» use of force on inmates, Minor said, but problems can arise if guards become overly dependent on weapons.

«If President Trump had ordered the strike only to show that the US responded to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad's use of chemical weapons, then that goal has been achieved,» Israel's Ynetnews quoted a senior defense official as saying.

«But if there was another objective — such as paralyzing the ability to launch chemical weapons or deterring Assad from using it again — it's doubtful any of these objectives have been met.»

The year after Gates left the job, President Barack Obama told White House reporters a «red line» for US intervention in Syria would come if the regime of President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons.

And there's no way if she holds the S&P — or virtually none absent something happening with weapons of mass destruction — she [won't] have all the money she can possibly use.»

In a statement, UN Secretary - General Antonio Guterres called on the Security Council to reach an agreement on the «continued use of chemical weapons» in Syria and cautioned the situation could quickly spiral out of control if it didn't.

We don't yet know for certain if Stephen Paddock used an automatic weapon when he killed at least 59 people, including himself, and injured hundreds of others in Las Vegas on Sunday night.

Nervous investors are waiting to see if the U.S. will launch a military strike on Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons.

If Iran can get hold of a nuclear weapon, they are going to use it for sure against Israel, no matter how much consequences they might suffer.

A just cause must have probability of success and if the intent is to «deter» Assad and other rogues from using chemical weapons, lobbing a few cruise missiles won't accomplish such a goal.

So if I have a business and my religion teaches that war and weapons of war are immoral... My business doesn't have to pay taxes because some of those taxes will be used to buy weapons or to support the war in Afghanistan???

So the United Methodist bishops reject the traditional just - war argument because «we are convinced that no... use of nuclear weapons offers any reasonable hope of success» (p. 13) If we don't get peace, what might happen to us?

If I keep weapons in my home and know how to use them and teach my children the power of those weapons no one should have the right to paint with such a wide brush as to eliminate my right to ownership of a weapon because this country is too afraid to tackle mental health issues.

Even if the use of nuclear warheads were avoided, the outbreak of an international conflict using more conventional but highly sophisticated weapons remains possible.

Even if nuclear weapons were to be used as counterforce, and even assuming that noncombatants could be protected, the question of escalation would remain unanswered — not to mention long - term environmental or genetic damage.

If so, he should read Hartshorne's «Note» at the conclusion of Reality as Social Process, published in 1953.41 There he speaks of pacifism as error and afirms his conviction that the United States should not renounce the use either of strategic bombing or nuclear weapons in its «Cold War» with Russia.

Can there be any answer of an ethic of love to this situation other than to press for the total renunciation, unilaterally if necessary, of the use of such weapons?

The dilemma is easily stated: The non-Communist world needs nuclear power to deter Communist nuclear power (to prevent nuclear blackmail and pressure in the interests of Communist expansion); but if we ever use our nuclear weapons, they are likely to destroy all that they defend as deterrents.

If Kelley's conviction had been passed to the FBI, as required by law, the gunman wouldn't have been able to legally purchase some of the weapons he used in the deadly attack.

How confident are we that a «limited» strike can be calibrated so as to deter the use of chemical weapons if Assad believes they might make the difference between victory and defeat.

I am not sufficiently optimistic to think that if two thirds of us Americans were dying for lack of resources, we would fail to use our weapons to extract such resources from other, more favored, nations.

In his last chapter, he considers the special dimension of the threat of «Armageddon,» which would arrive if terrorists were to possess and possibly use weapons of mass destruction.

But if Paul were writing the book of Ephesians today, and comparing our pieces of spiritual armor to the types of armor and weapons used in modern warfare, I think that he would have a very ready illustration of what this secret weapon is.

There would be few objections from moral theologians to this use of physical force, meant to prevent murderers from completing their evil deed, even if the guerrillas did everything Mr. Trott objects to — «planning, carrying a weapon for the purpose, lying in wait, and carrying out the plan.»

Peanut Clusters in Crock Pot Recipe If you've spent any time on Freebie Finding Mom, you know that one of my most used not - so - secret weapons is the crock pot.

While if you come at me with a fist, I'm not (usually) justified in pulling out a gun and shooting you or using some other deadly weapon, nor am I justified in continuing to pummel you after I've neutralized the threat... but I'm not required to gauge to a nicety in a split second how «hard» I hit you in order to maintain an exact «proportionality» of response.

If you are knocking guys out like Cody then there's not been a need to use his grappling yet, its exhausting and it takes his opponent away from his biggest weapon, I think whether he's great in the clinch, fighting for position or not his TDD will nullify a lot of the grappling anyway because Cruz didn't just miss takedowns he couldn't get close enough to hold Cody in any way.

Ben Arfa is unquestionably one of Pardew's best weapons to use on the pitch and with him being fully fit this season, he can provide the service that was missing for Papiss Cisse for most of last year, which could fire the club to a more healthier league standing this time around if all goes well in the final third of the field.

What is really being pushed on parents here is the arbitrary social idea and / or judgment that the earlier the infant does not need intervention the better (in some way for the infant and eventual child and adult) and this concept is inappropriately used as a weapon often by false claims suggesting that if an infant or child can not by some pre-determined age «self - soothe» it never will, or that something is either wrong with them, and is in need of repair, or that their parents are deficient (for not setting «boundaries»).

President Trump's base is the same people who criticized President Obama over setting «red line» for Assad over use of chemical weapons and not doing anything when he did use them (because they happen to think that gassing people with poison is Not a Good Thing, even if the gassed people are Muslims in Syria).

«I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.»

As Rex Tillerson, Trump's Secretary of State, argued, if the international community had merely condemned the use of chemical weapons but not responded to it, this would have risked normalizing their use.

It gets REAL ugly if the person doesn't remember signing up (a particular problem if you start using a semi-dormant list more actively) and sees you as a spammer, which seems to justify the use of linguistic weapons of mass destruction.

After all, even according to Waltz's own theory, Israel would never use its nuclear weapons against Iran even if Hezbollah or any of Iran's other allies repeatedly attacked it.

The questions is if Iran will want and decide in the future, after it is not being sanctioned by no one and the agreement is over, to follow a path to start using its nuclear program to create weapons of mass destruction.

Few weeks after the security services scuttle covert moves by the NPP to use foreign «mercenaries» in the training of the party's security in weapon handling, the NPP's acting Chairman, Freddie Blay has openly threatened that the party will cause mayhem if it loses this year's election.

The ban treaty, if it is adopted, will most likely be made up of a relatively short text declaring the use, possession, and transfer of nuclear weapons unlawful.

Also, Russian officials claim that while the Russian chemical weapons program and everything connected to it had been verifiably destroyed under foreign supervision, other countries like the UK, Slovakia, Sweden and the Czech Republic have carried out «intense research» on nerve agents like «Novichok» until today and are likely to possess samples of these substances (Which would be of interest if «Novichok» was indeed the poison used in the attack).

Therefore, even if Assad actually did use chemical weapons, the path of a bomber alone would not be sufficient to prove it.

If a «Red line» is drawn by the Obama administration over the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, because it is unconventional weapons, why is there no red line drawn for the use of a car bomb that killed 126 civilians in Aleppo Province on Easter Saturday?

Any hypothetical military engagement where a nuclear armed country were to be in danger of being completely overrun would change the calculation on whether they would be willing to use nuclear weapons, but Russia probably would not, for example, use their nuclear weapons as a deterrent against attacks against their conventional troops in Ukraine, even if they were in danger of being forced out of Ukraine completely because the retaliation would cost much more to them than what they would be losing.

«You have to put the Armageddon question the other way - if no action takes place following this appalling use of chemical weapons, what sort of Armageddon will the Syrian people be facing?»

If everyone got rid of their nuclear weapons would be that any state could secretly build nuclear weapons use them to bully other states around.

«The question we have to ask ourselves is if there is no action following this big use of chemical weapons is it going to be more likely in future that more and more regimes will use chemical weapons?»

During a public meeting the Republican candidate was asked if he could rule out the use of nuclear weapons in Europe.

This is not a situation of President Obama's making but a direct result of Assad using chemical weapons against his own people, so if you're getting all jacked up and thinking about giving Putin some type of international accolade on the level of the Nobel Peace prize, I'd caution you Congressman, I fully expect this whole deal to fall apart in about 3 days in any case; and for the President Obama to be forced to move forward post haste with Syrian Strike legislation.

Yet the use of chemical weapons against a country's own citizens surely requires a forceful act of intervention, even if that includes limited military action.

But the six - hour debate, in which Mrs May said she would use nuclear weapons if pushed, split Labour MPs three ways and sparked extraordinary scenes of open civil war between them.