Girl that wrote anti gun violence essay killed with a gun

[W2L]

The car analogy stinks...cars aren't designed to kill people. It's wrong to pretend that a gun is just a tool that can be used to kill someone like it's a coincidence....guns are for killing. Cars are for transportation. No one is saying that cars can't be misused....but if used correctly, no one dies. If guns are used correctly....at least someone or something dies. It's the other uses for guns, like shooting competitions or pretending you're Clint Eastwood in the mirror, that are the coincidences.

Guns are also for hunting. Cars have been used in war to kill.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Guns are also for hunting.

Which is why I said that they are designed to kill...

Cars have been used in war to kill.

Really? I can't say I've heard of this. You got examples?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Some people need guns to protect themselves and their family.

From what exactly?

Myself i dont have guns but i use to.

I'm not judging you here W2L....I'm just pointing out that there's a difference between a "want" and a "need".

 

[W2L]

From what exactly?



I'm not judging you here W2L....I'm just pointing out that there's a difference between a "want" and a "need".

If i were a teacher i would want to arm myself. Also, with all the shootings going on people should arm themselves.

 

[W2L]

Really? I can't say I've heard of this. You got examples?

Sure just look in the news. We have had multiple terrorist attacks using vehicles.

 

[Sketcher]

Sandra Parks, who wrote an essay about gun violence, is killed by stray bullet - CNN

Congrats America, you've invented a dose of irony that even makes me sick.

I think I am going to have to pull back on my comments here. It's clear from various sources including this girl's essay that large swathes of the US population live in active war zones and suffer PTSD.

No because we severely restrict access to guns.


Yes it is - you have nut-jobs with an arsenal at their disposal and people like you support their right to have it


Agree - control is the answer. Get rid of the guns - which of course you wont do....so cue the next mass shooting within five days.

If shootings are frequent in her neighborhood, that's one of the symptoms of it being a high-crime neighborhood. Drugs are in these neighborhoods as well, by and large. The government already prohibits drugs, so if they do an equally good job with guns, these kinds of shootings will still occur.

 

[SummerMadness]

Can I assume that you wouldn't mind be stopped and frisked when you are walking down the street minding your own business?

Of course not, that's for black and brown people.

 

[disciple Clint]

Can I assume that you wouldn't mind be stopped and frisked when you are walking down the street minding your own business?

the only person who has something to fear is the person who is breaking the law. So no I have no problem with an officer doing his job.

 

[disciple Clint]

Which is why I said that they are designed to kill...



Really? I can't say I've heard of this. You got examples?

they call it a car bomb and i shouldn't have to explain that to you if you are what you say you are.

 

[SummerMadness]

the only person who has something to fear is the person who is breaking the law. So no I have no problem with an officer doing his job.

Obviously you ignored that stop and frisk is a racist practice that nets few if any guns. The reason why people like you support such practices is because you are not the target of such practices. I'm pretty sure if you would sing a different tune if you got frisked everyday for just leaving your home.

 

[disciple Clint]

Obviously you ignored that stop and frisk is a racist practice that nets few if any guns. The reason why people like you support such practices is because you are not the target of such practices. I'm pretty sure if you would sing a different tune if you got frisked everyday for just leaving your home.

"why people like you" Who exactly are people like me? Time to check some filters? Frankly if I lived in an area where children are being killed at the rate they are in some areas of our county I would do anything I could to put a stop to it including suffering the inconvenience of being checked for illegal carry of a gun or having a stolen gun. I would consider it a very small price to pay to rid the streets of guns and the irresponsible people who do not give any thought to using them. So if we want to solve the problem we have to enforce the law. When things are out of control and they are out of control the responsible people in a community have to support the police and give the police the tools they need to get the job done or nothing is going to change. I don't object to being checked for a gun when I go to the airport or the court house or other government buildings. It is not a racist practice as you claim, it is a proven deterrent to violence. So do people want to save lives or is their pride more important?

 

[Freodin]

Yes we defend it along with our other freedoms but no worries Big Brother
is chipping away in our country just like he did in yours.

Err... weren't you the one who posted
"If you truly want to stop it the police need to be allowed to do stop and frisk and get the guns and the people who use them off the streets..."

So police needs to be allowed to stop and frisk and get the guns and the people who use them... but if they do, they are "Big Brother" chipping away at your rights?

Ah, I get it! The police should only stop and frisk "them". The bad guys.

Right? Because at first, you need all the facts before you decide if someone is justiably killed somewhere before you decide who is a "bad guy" who needs to be controlled? Right?

 

[Freodin]

and some people love using their cell phones while they drive this results in the deaths of many innocent people we have yet to take away cell phones or cars. Others love to drink and drive but their irresponsible use of a car has not caused anyone to call for a ban on cars.

But we do ban the right to use a car... take away your driver's license. We do even take tests and checks before awarding someone a driver's license.

And that is for the use of an object that has the function of transporting.

But for objects that have no other use than killing... no checks, no tests, no controls, no bans. Because someone somewhen said that it is a "right".

 

[disciple Clint]

Err... weren't you the one who posted
"If you truly want to stop it the police need to be allowed to do stop and frisk and get the guns and the people who use them off the streets..."

So police needs to be allowed to stop and frisk and get the guns and the people who use them... but if they do, they are "Big Brother" chipping away at your rights?

Ah, I get it! The police should only stop and frisk "them". The bad guys.

Right? Because at first, you need all the facts before you decide if someone is justiably killed somewhere before you decide who is a "bad guy" who needs to be controlled? Right?

You are making a lot of assumptions and you know what happens when you assume.

 

[disciple Clint]

But we do ban the right to use a car... take away your driver's license. We do even take tests and checks before awarding someone a driver's license.

And that is for the use of an object that has the function of transporting.

But for objects that have no other use than killing... no checks, no tests, no controls, no bans. Because someone somewhen said that it is a "right".

You claim "But for objects that have no other use than killing... no checks, no tests, no controls, no bans. Because someone somewhen said that it is a "right"." Once again you are making unwarranted assumptions. Guns are not used exclusively for killing. We do have checks and tests and some controls and some limited bans. Each state has its own laws in addition to federal laws.

 

[Hank77]

the only person who has something to fear is the person who is breaking the law. So no I have no problem with an officer doing his job.

And it's an officer's job to pat down people without cause?
Interesting, for some reason I thought you were conservative but I see that you are actually liberal. Conservatives favor of freedom and the Bill of Rights.

 

[disciple Clint]

And it's an officer's job to pat down people without cause?
Interesting, for some reason I thought you were conservative but I see that you are actually liberal. Conservatives favor of freedom and the Bill of Rights.

I do not see stop and frisk as a violation of constitutional freedoms

 

[Hank77]

I do not see stop and frisk as a violation of constitutional freedoms

Terry Stop / Stop and Frisk

A terry stop is another name for stop and frisk; the name was generated from the U.S Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio. When a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, engaged, or about to be engaged, in criminal conduct, the officer may briefly stop and detain an individual for a pat-down search of outer clothing. A Terry stop is a seizure within the meaning of Fourth Amendment.

Reasonable Suspicion

Pat-Down Search
A pat-down search is when a police officer pats down the outer surfaces of a person’s clothing in an attempt to find weapons. A pat-down search constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
....
in Rogue v. States, 311 Ga. App. 421, 715 S.E. 2d 814 (2011), the court found that because the police lacked specific information about the vehicle passenger during a valid traffic stop, the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion that the passenger was armed and dangerous; therefore the police officer was not justified in the pat-down search of the passenger.

In Rogue the pat down search was unconstitutional; thus an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment.

 

[Ana the Ist]

they call it a car bomb and i shouldn't have to explain that to you if you are what you say you are.

Well...that's not really using a "car" as a weapon. It's using a bomb.

 

[SummerMadness]

I do not see stop and frisk as a violation of constitutional freedoms

It is a violation of the Constitution, or is this just one of those things you choose to ignore because it's not how you want the Constitution to apply. You mention the crime rate being a factor, but studies on the topic have found that the crime rate of the area has nothing to do with the rate of stop and frisk tactics (similar to police stops of vehicles). The dominant factor for stopping people and performing unconstitutional searches has been skin color.

 

[disciple Clint]

Terry Stop / Stop and Frisk

A terry stop is another name for stop and frisk; the name was generated from the U.S Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio. When a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, engaged, or about to be engaged, in criminal conduct, the officer may briefly stop and detain an individual for a pat-down search of outer clothing. A Terry stop is a seizure within the meaning of Fourth Amendment.

Reasonable Suspicion

Pat-Down Search
A pat-down search is when a police officer pats down the outer surfaces of a person’s clothing in an attempt to find weapons. A pat-down search constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
....
in Rogue v. States, 311 Ga. App. 421, 715 S.E. 2d 814 (2011), the court found that because the police lacked specific information about the vehicle passenger during a valid traffic stop, the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion that the passenger was armed and dangerous; therefore the police officer was not justified in the pat-down search of the passenger.

In Rogue the pat down search was unconstitutional; thus an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment.

Q: Was the police technique of “stop-and-frisk” found unconstitutional?

A: The practice is not unconstitutional, but a judge ruled in 2013 that New York City’s stop-and-frisk program was carried out in a manner that violated the U.S. Constitution.

Is Stop-and-Frisk Unconstitutional? - FactCheck.org

You did a very good job on your post and provided many significant facts, I say that because it is one of the best prepared posts I have seen so far and you deserve credit for it.