18 Year old shot by school safety officer.

a reply to: chr0naut

Even as a vague suggestion, it is still a bad one.

No, it's really not. I know there is nothing to change your mind so take solace that you don't live here.

But I think that you will find that the US Constitution consists of the overriding legal precepts in the country. If some legislature or statutory authority implements a law that is contrary to the US Constitution, then the Constitutional writ overrides it in all cases.

Yes, otherwise known as an inalienable right.

So, I'll call it a law.

And you would still be wrong.

a reply to: JinMI

Shooting at a moving vehicle in a populated district is your first clue that officer should never have been issued a fire arm. It's not just impulsive, it is patently double-digit-IQ stupid. The kind of stupid that says "I want to be a police officer so I can get in high-speed chases and see stuff explode like in the movies!"

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: JinMI

ScrOte fails to recognize that there was only one gun in this incident and it belonged to an officer. Could have happened right there in KiwiTwatland just as easily as anywhere else. That's why I refuse to respond to his nonsense. He's an idiot.

It didn't happen in New Zealand and we don't have any armed school safety officers, so it's not that likely.

In fact, having the need for armed officers - at a school - is somewhat of an indictment against that society.

a reply to: JinMI

At least someone cared enough to apply her perfect makeup... including false eyelashes...to her, so she looks great on life support!

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JinMI

Guns protect us all.

This wouldn't have happened if everyone was armed and had their gun up.

?

The only one shooting was a cop, there were no other guns involved.

a reply to: vonclod
This is a policing problem, not a gun problem. Even if you outlawed them tommorow, the police will carry on as they do..and they would not be giving them up.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: JinMI

Shooting at a fleeing car is attempted murder.

Not if it is a threat to others according to the supreme court.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: JinMI

Shooting at a fleeing car is attempted murder.

Not if it is a threat to others according to the supreme court.

That is of course what this cop will claim. I don't think he or anyone else was in mortal danger, there was more danger created by shooting.

a reply to: chr0naut

You'd be wrong then. I don't expect you to have much understanding on the subject though as the country you live in and presumably were educated in probably didn't educate you on the US constitution...which shows here in your response. You could always respond about the actual subject of the thread though which had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

a reply to: vonclod

Yes on its face it seems quite irresponsible and impulsive. Its going to take some serious evidence to justify this one...evidence I just didn't see in the videos presented.

a reply to: chr0naut

When a law becomes a major danger, and cause of death to its citizens, it is a bad law.

In 2018, before covid, there were 39,740 fatalities caused by injuries related to firearms in the United States.

More than 250000 people in the US die every year because of medical mistakes

www.statista.com...
1


And there are far fewer doctors than gun owners. Four-in-ten U.S. adults say they live in a household with a gun, including 30% who say they personally own one. While their are 938,966 Total Active Physicians.


www.pewresearch.org...
www.aamc.org...

That means on average a doctor kills an average of once every four years. While at the going rate it would take gun owners app 2,225 years to match one, four year term.

So my question is, are you going to go after the real danger? Or whine about people who are unlikely to harm you?

a reply to: chr0naut

You're right in that it is an indictment of that society, but not in the way you think. You want to blame the guns, but you miss the fact that the guns have always, always been there (you know, 2nd amendment and all that). They've only become a problem that calls into service armed school officers in the last decade or so.

So it isn't the guns that have changed. It's the people.

Removing the guns won't change the people who are the actual problem.

a reply to: ketsuko

Statistics and facts be damned.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

You're right in that it is an indictment of that society, but not in the way you think. You want to blame the guns, but you miss the fact that the guns have always, always been there (you know, 2nd amendment and all that). They've only become a problem that calls into service armed school officers in the last decade or so.

So it isn't the guns that have changed. It's the people.

Removing the guns won't change the people who are the actual problem.

Nah, remove the projectile weapons and people will still shoot each other with bananas

Pew pew...

a reply to: chr0naut

Ok, lets have a thought exercise;

Currently, there are more guns in the US than citizens (393M). Lets say tomorrow, all firearms are illegal.

How do you confiscate them, saftely?
Who do you send to confiscate them?

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: JinMI

Wow. Now lets check everyones skin color so we know ho to react.

I intentionally tried to leave that out and let the story speak for itself.

Yeah, i intentionally ignore those things. Media are outrage vampires. I wont feed them

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Facts just aren't profitable.

someday

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

You're right in that it is an indictment of that society, but not in the way you think. You want to blame the guns, but you miss the fact that the guns have always, always been there (you know, 2nd amendment and all that). They've only become a problem that calls into service armed school officers in the last decade or so.

So it isn't the guns that have changed. It's the people.

Removing the guns won't change the people who are the actual problem.

Nah, remove the projectile weapons and people will still shoot each other with bananas

Pew pew...

People who want to kill will find a way to do it.

Again, you aren't changing a thing I've said and you aren't helping your case.

originally posted by: Jason79
a reply to: chr0naut

When a law becomes a major danger, and cause of death to its citizens, it is a bad law.

In 2018, before covid, there were 39,740 fatalities caused by injuries related to firearms in the United States.

More than 250000 people in the US die every year because of medical mistakes

www.statista.com...
1

And there are far fewer doctors than gun owners. Four-in-ten U.S. adults say they live in a household with a gun, including 30% who say they personally own one. While their are 938,966 Total Active Physicians.

www.pewresearch.org...
www.aamc.org...

That means on average a doctor kills an average of once every four years. While at the going rate it would take gun owners app 2,225 years to match one, four year term.

So my question is, are you going to go after the real danger? Or whine about people who are unlikely to harm you?

Nah, that 250,000 figure is fairly bogus. But it is repeated a lot.

Are medical errors really the third most common cause of death in the U.S.? (2020 edition)

Well, what you can't do in quality, you can make do with quantity, eh?