Latest "Mass" Shooting Discussion

[arakboss]

Philly is the local of the latest "mass" shooting event. It is likely gang related as multiple shooters were involved.

Philadelphia mass shooting on South Street leaves 3 dead, about a dozen injured

At least three people are dead in Philadelphia following a mass shooting incident. Police responded to the scene just after midnight.

www.foxnews.com

'Several active shooters' in a popular Philadelphia area leave 3 people dead and 11 others wounded

A bustling entertainment district turned into a scene of carnage when multiple shooters opened fire in the South Street area of Philadelphia, killing at least three people and wounding 11 others, police said.

www.cnn.com

Read More

 

[arakboss]

This video will give you an idea of who was attending the nights festivities on south street.


https://www.fox29.com/news/philadelphia-shooting-3-dead-at-least-11-wounded-on-south-street

 

[bionic knees]

South Philly, enough said.

 

[powermad]

Checks calendar...
Yep, Saturday.

Weird how one day just blends in the next isn't it?

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Everything's a mass-shooting now, a full-court "press" for gun control.

 

[arakboss]

Everything's a mass-shooting now, a full-court "press" for gun control.

I think the mass shooting threshold should be raised to account for inflation.

 

[arakboss]

Chattanooga shooting leaves 3 dead and 14 injured, some struck by fleeing cars

A shooting in downtown Chattanooga has left three dead and 14 injured, with some of the injuries coming when bystanders were struck by the suspects fleeing vehicle.

www.foxnews.com

Three killed, 14 injured in Chattanooga, Tennessee, shooting that left several victims hit by fleeing cars | CNN

Three people were killed and at least 14 others were injured after gunshots rang out in Chattanooga, Tennessee, early Sunday, with some victims struck by bullets and others by fleeing vehicles, according to local police.

www.cnn.com

 

[Abigfatdynamo]

This might not be the place for this question but is there any hard written language in relation to what constitutes a "red flag"? From what I read it pertains to people who are thought to be a danger to themselves or others. What's the qualifier? Reason I ask is in my early 20s I spent 5 days in the bin (don't recommend it) for being a stupid bubbleguming kid. That was 20 years ago. My worry is something like that might make the government one day decide that I no longer have the right to defend myself. I'm just concerned with how vauge it all is.

 

[arakboss]

This might not be the place for this question but is there any hard written language in relation to what constitutes a "red flag"? From what I read it pertains to people who are thought to be a danger to themselves or others. What's the qualifier? Reason I ask is in my early 20s I spent 5 days in the bin (don't recommend it) for being a stupid bubbleguming kid. That was 20 years ago. My worry is something like that might make the government one day decide that I no longer have the right to defend myself. I'm just concerned with how vauge it all is.

Being nice and appearing sane to the people around you will help reduce chances of red flag confiscation.

 

[Abigfatdynamo]

Being nice and appearing sane to the people around you will help reduce chances of red flag confiscation.

Doesn't really address my question but OK.

 

[bionic knees]

This might not be the place for this question but is there any hard written language in relation to what constitutes a "red flag"? From what I read it pertains to people who are thought to be a danger to themselves or others. What's the qualifier? Reason I ask is in my early 20s I spent 5 days in the bin (don't recommend it) for being a stupid bubbleguming kid. That was 20 years ago. My worry is something like that might make the government one day decide that I no longer have the right to defend myself. I'm just concerned with how vauge it all is.

would really depend on the offense.

 

[Abigfatdynamo]

would really depend on the offense.

No offense. Just a troubled kid and worried parents.

 

[Hop Sing]

No offense. Just a troubled kid and worried parents.

20 years is a long time so I wouldn't be too concerned.

 

[Abigfatdynamo]

20 years is a long time so I wouldn't be too concerned.

I figured as much. I guess I just get concerned any time the government gets to expand on what constitutes a prohibited person.

 

[spookshack]

It's going to get a heck of a lot worse before it gets better. Keep your powder dry….

 

[monkeybutler]

I like big butts and I cannot lie.

 

[Ginocide]

This might not be the place for this question but is there any hard written language in relation to what constitutes a "red flag"? From what I read it pertains to people who are thought to be a danger to themselves or others. What's the qualifier? Reason I ask is in my early 20s I spent 5 days in the bin (don't recommend it) for being a stupid bubbleguming kid. That was 20 years ago. My worry is something like that might make the government one day decide that I no longer have the right to defend myself. I'm just concerned with how vauge it all is.

It is intentionally vague and flexible as it is created by design to be abused. Anyone can claim you are a zephrous "threat" and a judge can strip you of your rights behind closed doors without any due process, representation, or even habeas corpus whatsoever.

If someone files one against you, you won't even know it until police show up to take them by surrender or force.

 

[Flopsweat]

It is intentionally vague and flexible as it is created by design to be abused. Anyone can claim you are a zephrous "threat" and a judge can strip you of your rights behind closed doors without any due process, representation, or even habeas corpus whatsoever.

If someone files one against you, you won't even know it until police show up to take them by surrender or force.

I've seen a few state-level red flag laws that don't even require a specific threat. If an expressed, specific threat were the threshold, and strong evidence were required, we might have something to discuss. As it stands, it's a hard no for me.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

This might not be the place for this question but is there any hard written language in relation to what constitutes a "red flag"? From what I read it pertains to people who are thought to be a danger to themselves or others. What's the qualifier? Reason I ask is in my early 20s I spent 5 days in the bin (don't recommend it) for being a stupid bubbleguming kid. That was 20 years ago. My worry is something like that might make the government one day decide that I no longer have the right to defend myself. I'm just concerned with how vauge it all is.

Red flag law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/red-flag-laws-what-are-they-and-which-states-have-them/?cq_src=google_ads&cq_cmp=17309415764&cq_con=&cq_term=&cq_med=&cq_plac=&cq_net=x&cq_pos=&cq_plt=g&gclid=Cj0KCQjwqPGUBhDwARIsANNwjV4idNBfC7P3c9oL2mku--wqYCkjiJ1hykOxHDJDQ79BJwqEq3CS90IaAvurEALw_wcB

Oregon's Red Flag Law - Oregon Department of Justice

From the Office of Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum: Many of us are asking how we can better keep Oregonians safe and keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people. While there is still a lot of work to do, Oregon has made significant gains to strengthen our gun safety laws. This is the...

www.doj.state.or.us

 

[VanceInWA]

Red flag laws are a terrible idea. You have a constitutional right to bear arms. End of story. Yet it's not the end of story in the State of Washington which has RCW 7.94, the "Extreme Risk Protection Order Act." That law gives the State of Washington the right to take your guns away from you simply based on an allegation that you "pose a significant danger" to yourself or others. While the law says it must be triggered by law enforcement or a family member, it also allows it to be triggered anonymously. Who determines the order should be put into effect? It could be a Superior Court, District Court, Municipal Court, or even a Juvenile Court. YOU do not have any involvement in that determination, all the allegations against you are presented to the court without your knowledge or participation. How's that for due process? After your firearms are seized a hearing must be held within 14 days and only then do you get a chance for your side of the story to be heard. If it doesn't go your way, you can lose your firearms for a year. Note, in particular, section 7.94.040(3)(i) which could result in you losing your firearms due to, "The respondent's ownership, access to, or intent to possess firearms." How's that for the barn door being wide open? Or section 7.94.040(3)(m) which reads, "Corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent." So what is abuse of alcohol? Two drinks per day? Three drinks per day? Another barn door. The denial of your right to bear arms can get repeated, year after year after year, and the law specifically says you only have the right to make one appeal for termination of the order every 12 months.

Needless to say, the real abuse here is this awful law and its ability to terminate your constitutional rights, which begs the question: How can these abusive Red Flag laws pass constitutional muster?