@SanguineTear I see, so you mean something like someone who is willing to kill someone is probably not going to change (there actually was a famous philosopher who thought so too). Too bad you don't want to debate it, would have been interesting!
Maybe we mean the same thing with what I said that it is a bit too simple. Moral parsimony, if it actually is moral parsimony, should not be based on any kind of social correctness (I'm not saying it is not used like that, just saying it should not). Rules like "the morally right thing to do is to always give white people an advantage" or "it is morally right to always maximize the amount of damage you can do to society" would be very parsimonious, even though many would not call it morally right. That's also what I mean with that the quiz is too simple, it probably doesn't factor in such rule (although I'm not sure it doesn't). So yeah, maybe they only factor in rules that kinda presuppose ideas like "killing is wrong" but I can't be sure.
In some European countries, policemen are not allowed to kill an attacker if it is not necessary. They are only allowed to use the kind of force that is necessary in the given situation. Of course this is hard to judge especially when the attacker has a firearm etc. I do get the problem of putting your colleagues at risk but I suppose that is something that takes a lot of experience to judge correctly.
(this doesn't refer to this debate specifically, just in general) I also want to add that in philosophy people are quite straightforward, so if someone has an opinion which someone else thinks is false or not well argued for, philosophers usually say so in exactly those words. Just making sure no one thinks that someone wants to offend someone else.