California officer shoots and kills a 15-year old autistic boy

Hey OP, you started this 2nd amendment hit piece because of a guy getting shot for attacking a police officer.
You admitted you didn’t even watch the video. LoL
12 pages in and I have a question.

Have you watched the video yet?

originally posted by: Vermilion
Hey OP, you started this 2nd amendment hit piece because of a guy getting shot for attacking a police officer.
You admitted you didn’t even watch the video. LoL
12 pages in and I have a question.

Have you watched the video yet?

Hello again!

Now you are trying a different route!

What happened to the US is only in the 29th place? As if this is some great achievement...

The US is top among all the western countries from the link you linked earlier if you remember and the number of countries are not only 30 in this world.

I want to see how many attempts you are going to get..

So far the arguments for gun possession and use are:

Patriotism
The American way of life
The US is a large country
And a very strange interpretation of the 2nd amendment

I really enjoyed this conversation and in some ways is even more interesting than the conversations I had with a number of creationists in other threads. But there is a common denominator: Irrationality

a reply to: FlyersFan

Yes it is. You are a foreigner calling for taking away our right to self defense. You don't have to live with the result of what you are calling for. Therefore, the fact that you don't live here is VERY relevant.

You are guessing a lot.

But you are using the correct word to describe other nationals who live in the US: Foreigners or foreign nationals and not aliens. That's progress.

You have a very strange understanding of the second amendment and the right to self defense and you are attacking the strawman again and again. I never said anything against the right people have to defend themselves. I spoke about the huge problem the US has: gun possession and use

originally posted by: Venkuish1
You are guessing a lot.

Not even a little.

You have a very strange understanding of the second amendment

I have a perfect understanding of the second amendment.
You, as a foreigner (and a socialist if I remember correctly) don't understand it.

I never said anything against the right people have to defend themselves.

Yes you have. When you call for disarming the law abiding US civilian population and call for disarming the US police, you have spoken against the right of people to defend themselves.

Like has been said by a number of posters ... you don't know what you are talking about.

originally posted by: Vermilion
Have you watched the video yet?

He ignored the on topic question in favor of posting his rhetoric. No surprise.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: Vermilion
Hey OP, you started this 2nd amendment hit piece because of a guy getting shot for attacking a police officer.
You admitted you didn’t even watch the video. LoL
12 pages in and I have a question.

Have you watched the video yet?

So far the arguments for gun possession and use are:

Patriotism
The American way of life
The US is a large country
And a very strange interpretation of the 2nd amendment

A few others in there that you ignore because it seems are too lazy to read and interpret the numbers for what they are.

Coupled with the pointless rhetoric you continue to use even though we have proven you wrong again and again. A "serious problem" would be if more than a tenth of a tenth of the population were doing it......

But there is a common denominator: Irrationality

What is so irrational about the legal right to own a firearm? Are you so scared of guns that you think everyone who owns one is out to kill anyone and everyone?

originally posted by: PorkChop96

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: Vermilion
Hey OP, you started this 2nd amendment hit piece because of a guy getting shot for attacking a police officer.
You admitted you didn’t even watch the video. LoL
12 pages in and I have a question.

Have you watched the video yet?

So far the arguments for gun possession and use are:

Patriotism
The American way of life
The US is a large country
And a very strange interpretation of the 2nd amendment

A few others in there that you ignore because it seems are too lazy to read and interpret the numbers for what they are.

Coupled with the pointless rhetoric you continue to use even though we have proven you wrong again and again. A "serious problem" would be if more than a tenth of a tenth of the population were doing it......

But there is a common denominator: Irrationality

What is so irrational about the legal right to own a firearm? Are you so scared of guns that you think everyone who owns one is out to kill anyone and everyone?

So a serious problem is only when a country like the US on the top of the list or a large part of the population is getting involved in shootings and killings. I understand you are expanding the argument in all directions and keep pushing the bar to make your argument.

Can you not see how serious the problem is?

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Can you not see how serious the problem is?

Can you not see how serious of a problem your 'solution' is?
Disarming the law abiding citizens and disarming the police.
The USA would turn into a criminal wasteland.
The carnage and crimes would be through the roof.
Abject stupidity.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Venkuish1
You are guessing a lot.

Not even a little.

You have a very strange understanding of the second amendment

I have a perfect understanding of the second amendment.
You, as a foreigner (and a socialist if I remember correctly) don't understand it.

I never said anything against the right people have to defend themselves.

Yes you have. When you call for disarming the law abiding US civilian population and call for disarming the US police, you have spoken against the right of people to defend themselves.

Like has been said by a number of posters ... you don't know what you are talking about.

It doesn't look like you understand the second amendment well and you are arguing in a religious wat just as you do in other threads when you make arguments supporting the supernatural world.

And as always you are attacking the strawman. None of posts say the police should be dismantled and disarmed or that people shouldn't defend themselves. Strawman after strawman.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Venkuish1

Do you think people should wear signs if they have medical problems? That way when someone is charging a police officer with a weapon, they won't act.

Irrelevant.
The problem is elsewhere and we all know what this problem is.

Compare again with Europe, Australia, New Zealand and see the different approaches and their results.

You clearly stated in your OP that the kid had autism, my question is relevant. You just don't know how to answer it. Think ahead next time.

No it is irrelevant because the officer would have responded the same way regardless of who the boy was. Officer felt threatened and pulled the trigger. I mentioned he had autism because the article mentioned he had autism...

Nah, you mentioned autism for shock factor. Now it's irrelevant to you.

LULZ

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Can you not see how serious the problem is?

Can you not see how serious of a problem your 'solution' is?
Disarming the law abiding citizens and disarming the police.
The USA would turn into a criminal wasteland.
The carnage and crimes would be through the roof.
Abject stupidity.

More strawman arguments.
See post above.
Never said the police should be disarmed or that citizens don't have the right to defend themselves.

But the reason this madness keeps happening is because of the use of guns and not the opposite.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Venkuish1

Do you think people should wear signs if they have medical problems? That way when someone is charging a police officer with a weapon, they won't act.

Irrelevant.
The problem is elsewhere and we all know what this problem is.

Compare again with Europe, Australia, New Zealand and see the different approaches and their results.

You clearly stated in your OP that the kid had autism, my question is relevant. You just don't know how to answer it. Think ahead next time.

No it is irrelevant because the officer would have responded the same way regardless of who the boy was. Officer felt threatened and pulled the trigger. I mentioned he had autism because the article mentioned he had autism...

Nah, you mentioned autism for shock factor. Now it's irrelevant to you.

LULZ

It is shocking they killed an autistic boy but it's on the article and I must include it.
More shocking is how easy it happens on many cases we have seen similar incidents.

a reply to: PorkChop96
I have already answered to the others who haven't made any serious and strong arguments other than patriotism, the american way of life, how large is the country and the confusion over the second amendment.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Venkuish1

Do you think people should wear signs if they have medical problems? That way when someone is charging a police officer with a weapon, they won't act.

Irrelevant.
The problem is elsewhere and we all know what this problem is.

Compare again with Europe, Australia, New Zealand and see the different approaches and their results.

You clearly stated in your OP that the kid had autism, my question is relevant. You just don't know how to answer it. Think ahead next time.

No it is irrelevant because the officer would have responded the same way regardless of who the boy was. Officer felt threatened and pulled the trigger. I mentioned he had autism because the article mentioned he had autism...

Nah, you mentioned autism for shock factor. Now it's irrelevant to you.

LULZ

It is shocking they killed an autistic boy but it's on the article and I must include it.

But you said it's irrelevant.

a reply to: Venkuish1

I don't know how many times I have to break this down for you man. These numbers are only being used because EU seems to be near and dear to your heart in comparing for some reason.

The US population is around 330 million, with those people own around 400 million guns.

In the same year those numbers were taken, there were 49,000 gun deaths in the Us, with 26-28,000 of those being suicides. That leaves about 22-24,000 gun deaths that we can link to accident, homicide, police, etc.

Also in that same year, EU had roughly 7,000 gun deaths with 75% being suicide, 15% being homicide, and the other 10% being unspecified. That is with roughly 80 million guns being owned in that year.

Europe actually had a higher death to gun ownership ratio than the US did (.000085% as apposed to teh US .00001%), so why is it not a "serious problem" in Europe? One would think you would focus more over there then come to the US first. And that is all with WAY stricter gun laws.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Venkuish1

Do you think people should wear signs if they have medical problems? That way when someone is charging a police officer with a weapon, they won't act.

Irrelevant.
The problem is elsewhere and we all know what this problem is.

Compare again with Europe, Australia, New Zealand and see the different approaches and their results.

You clearly stated in your OP that the kid had autism, my question is relevant. You just don't know how to answer it. Think ahead next time.

No it is irrelevant because the officer would have responded the same way regardless of who the boy was. Officer felt threatened and pulled the trigger. I mentioned he had autism because the article mentioned he had autism...

Nah, you mentioned autism for shock factor. Now it's irrelevant to you.

LULZ

It is shocking they killed an autistic boy but it's on the article and I must include it.

But you said it's irrelevant.

To the officer is irrelevant. They didn't care if he was autistic or not.

a reply to: Venkuish1

But yet when I show you the numbers you call ignore them and continue on with your rhetoric of it being a "serious problem".

Numbers don't lie, gun grabbing people who don't know jack about guns lie.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
...and the confusion over the second amendment.

There is no confusion for us Americans.
You, the foreigner, don't know what you are talking about.

a reply to: Venkuish1

What did it matter if he was or not?

Autistic or not, someone charges me with a large blade and doesn't stop they are getting put down.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Venkuish1

Do you think people should wear signs if they have medical problems? That way when someone is charging a police officer with a weapon, they won't act.

Irrelevant.
The problem is elsewhere and we all know what this problem is.

Compare again with Europe, Australia, New Zealand and see the different approaches and their results.

You clearly stated in your OP that the kid had autism, my question is relevant. You just don't know how to answer it. Think ahead next time.

No it is irrelevant because the officer would have responded the same way regardless of who the boy was. Officer felt threatened and pulled the trigger. I mentioned he had autism because the article mentioned he had autism...

Nah, you mentioned autism for shock factor. Now it's irrelevant to you.

LULZ

It is shocking they killed an autistic boy but it's on the article and I must include it.

But you said it's irrelevant.

To the officer is irrelevant. They didn't care if he was autistic or not.

You said it was irrelevant to this thread. You're crawfishing now.