Why does it matter whether the person using the gun to stop a violent criminal from injuring or killing innocent people is a civilian or sworn peace officer?

The simple, undeniable fact is that most murderers continue killing until they are confronted by someone with a gun. Whether that gun is used by some free citizen, who happens to be present and on scene when the crime takes place or a law enforcement officer who arrives fifteen minutes after the shooting begins, is not the most relevant point. It takes a good person with a gun to stop criminals with guns. Innocent people who are about to become victims of criminals do not care whether the person who shot the criminal has a badge or not.

Not everyone should be required to carry a gun, but prohibiting free citizens from carrying a gun makes as much sense as requiring police officers to lock their firearms in a box and giving the key to the box to one of their supervisors so that the firearm may only be deployed when a supervisor arrives and determines that the officer needs the firearm.

If someone is legally carrying a firearm and they break a law while in possession of the firearm, i.e., drunk with firearm CRS 18-12-106(1)(d) Prohibited use of weapons, they deserve to be charged and prosecuted for the offense. To prohibit the exercise of a right before a criminal act is committed is a form of prior restraint that just seems unAmerican on it's face and should be opposed by free citizens.