Latest "Mass" Shooting Discussion

[HA556]

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?

They don't pass muster where it really counts! But, time and again, they've proven to do just what they want and your rights be damned!

 

[VanceInWA]

They don't past muster where it really counts! But, time and again, they've proven to do just what they want and your rights be damned!

Exactly, but isn't that crossing the bright line that the Supreme Court is supposed to guard against? Hopefully a lawsuit is on its way to SCOTUS so these attempts to terminate our constitutional rights are themselves terminated. I believe the closest we have so far is the 2021 Caniglia case from Rhode Island that reversed the 1st Circuit's ruling on the legitimacy of a firearm confiscation. However, Caniglia was not based on a "red flag" law, it involved a discussed agreement between police and a man thought to be suicidal and then his firearms were confiscated without a warrant. "Red flag" laws will likely have similar 4th Amendment considerations, but additionally raise critical due process issues. We really need a specific SCOTUS judgement to strike this "red flag" stupidity once and for all.

 

[HA556]

We really need a specific SCOTUS judgement to strike this "red flag" stupidity once and for all.

Absolutely concur with this!

 

[VanceInWA]

Not to beat a dead horse (well, I suppose I am), but consider that if states like Washington and Oregon ultimately succeed in "temporarily" terminating your 2nd Amendment right based on you "posing" a threat to yourself or others, then all of your constitutional rights may be similarly subject to termination. Think your 1st Amendment right is sacrosanct? Think again. Remember, "posing" a threat is not the same as actually committing a crime. It is a "precrime" same as in that Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report. So take all this "Red Flag" law lingo and just replace it with, for example, hate speech. These laws would give the government power to shut down your right to free speech if they deem you "pose" a precrime threat of hate speech. That is just wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no way this should ever be allowed to stand.

 

[Flopsweat]

Not to beat a dead horse (well, I suppose I am), but consider that if states like Washington and Oregon ultimately succeed in "temporarily" terminating your 2nd Amendment right based on you "posing" a threat to yourself or others, then all of your constitutional rights may be similarly subject to termination. Think your 1st Amendment right is sacrosanct? Think again. Remember, "posing" a threat is not the same as actually committing a crime. It is a "precrime" same as in that Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report. So take all this "Red Flag" law lingo and just replace it with, for example, hate speech. These laws would give the government power to shut down your right to free speech if they deem you "pose" a precrime threat of hate speech. That is just wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no way this should ever be allowed to stand.

The 1st is already under assault with the "disinformation" legislation. They may not even need a court order.

 

[bradsteen]

This may not be a popular opinion, but I would have less of a problem with red flag laws if they were designed so that (a) the affected person has a very short (no more than 3 day) wait for a hearing in order to preserve due process as much as possible, (b) if evidence must be presented that the person represents a danger to themselves or others (threatening or implying intent to harm, history of violent behavior, etc), (c) if there is a clear path for rights restoration, (d) if there is an opportunity to rapidly appeal the initial ruling, and (e) if there are criminal penalties for those who intentionally file false reports (i.e. contentious divorce, personal vendetta, etc). Unfortunately no red flag laws currently meet these criteria, so in my opinion they all suck.

 

[dancinghippos]

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

Mass shooting used to refer to spree-shooters like the Uvalde and Parkland events. They changed the definitions in the style guides to refer to any event where 4 or more people are injured/involved (not sure if one or both). This lets them refer to gangs shooting at each other as "mass shooting". It is intentional.

 

[dancinghippos]

This may not be a popular opinion, but I would have less of a problem with red flag laws if they were designed so that (a) the affected person has a very short (no more than 3 day) wait for a hearing in order to preserve due process as much as possible, (b) if evidence must be presented that the person represents a danger to themselves or others (threatening or implying intent to harm, history of violent behavior, etc), (c) if there is a clear path for rights restoration, (d) if there is an opportunity to rapidly appeal the initial ruling, and (e) if there are criminal penalties for those who intentionally file false reports (i.e. contentious divorce, personal vendetta, etc). Unfortunately no red flag laws currently meet these criteria, so in my opinion they all suck.

The Uvalde and Parkland shooters posted things on social media and boasted to others of their plans. Those seem like real red flags to me, and they were completely ignored, even when (Parkland) others reported to cops and FBI. Social media could shut you down for "hate speech" or "fake news" in minutes, but they could not report threats to the cops? Yet more evidence that you can't depend on anyone but yourself for protection.

 

[monkeybutler]

Mass shooting used to refer to spree-shooters like the Uvalde and Parkland events. They changed the definitions in the style guides to refer to any event where 4 or more people are injured/involved (not sure if one or both). This lets them refer to gangs shooting at each other as "mass shooting". It is intentional.

Nah, it's because, suddenly, affluent limpendich suburbanites really give a damn about other kinds of people shooting each other in the inner cities.

 

[nwslopoke]

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.

Depends on what you did as a troubled 20 something, that is an adult. If you didn't hurt anyone or haven't hurt anyone in 20 years I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[L84Cabo]

We really need some better definition around mass shootings. A nut job shooting up a school and "Bangers" going at it against each other over turf or traded insults is not even remotely the same problem.

As for Red Flag laws they are one of the most blatantly unconstitutional laws ever passed. It's a major flaw in our system that there is no way to challenge unconstitutional bills BEFORE they actually become law.

 

[Old Dog]

I have decidend that I will no longer acknowledge the term "mass shooting."

Let's go with two categories:

"Single incident multiple homicides induced by mental illness" or

"Single incident multiple shooting victims, gang or drug-related"

Why are we letting the mainstream media frame the narrative? Nine shooting victims is not a "mass shooting" necessarily -- sometimes, it is what it is -- a gang fight where handguns were introduced and shots were fired.

 

[arakboss]

We really need some better definition around mass shootings. A nut job shooting up a school and "Bangers" going at it against each other over turf or traded insults is not even remotely the same problem.

As for Red Flag laws they are one of the most blatantly unconstitutional laws ever passed. It's a major flaw in our system that there is no way to challenge unconstitutional bills BEFORE they actually become law.

Which type of event is taking more lives? If I was worried about preventing more deaths, I would concentrate on the problem causing more deaths first.

Edit: If I were just wanting the guns rounded up, I would focus on highlighting the deaths that would tug at peoples emotions the most.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

More "mass-shooting" stories this morning, here for example in the controlled opposition:

More than a dozen mass shootings over the weekend leave at least 17 dead across country

The Gun Violence Archive details there were 13 mass shooting incidents from Philadelphia to Phoenix over the weekend, leaving at least 17 dead and 69 others injured.

www.foxnews.com

 

[arakboss]

More "mass-shooting" stories this morning, here for example in the controlled opposition:

More than a dozen mass shootings over the weekend leave at least 17 dead across country

The Gun Violence Archive details there were 13 mass shooting incidents from Philadelphia to Phoenix over the weekend, leaving at least 17 dead and 69 others injured.

www.foxnews.com

Wait until we get a stretch of warm weather. Portland will get back in the news.

 

[arakboss]

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

And another domino begins to fall:

Manchin wants to raise age to 21 for gun purchases, doesn't see need for AR-15s

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia voiced his support Monday for raising the age to 21 for purchasing semi-automatic weapons and questioned why individuals need to own high-powered AR-15-style weapons, putting him at odds with Republicans who are resisting imposing any restrictions on access to...

www.cnn.com

 

[nwslopoke]

Republicans and Democrats have an ideology but they are supposed to support what we the people want. Not what they want.

What Manchin sees the need for isn't the point. Obviously the majority of these events would never have happened if government hadn't continously dropped the ball. If woke agents would jail, hospitalize or deport these people instead of watching them or ignoring threats, 99% of these problems don't happen.

It's laughable to think, once government gets people back to revolvers and knives, murder goes away. history sees it differently. Prison sees it differently. Recently the capital was surrounded with razor wire and teenagers with assault weapons ready to shoot, we the people. But that's OK, in there eyes.

 

[Ura-Ki]

 

[rjmt]

I read in this morning's news that the two original shooters in Philly were licensed concealed carry and shot at each other from about 10'
17 shots were fired between the 2 of them and only one hit
the rest of the bullets went into the surrounding crowd
then a 3rd shooter across the street with a Ghost gun and a 30 rn mag, open fired in the direction of the first shooting, with a cop standing just 15' away?!?!?!
when challenged by the police, he pointed his gun at them and was shot
at 10' and one of the shooters missed with ever shot
even with my Glock, I can do better than that

and my daughter ask why I don't come down to Portland to got out to pubs with here any longer

 

[nwslopoke]

Portland is a no go zone. Not so much out of fear, although I don't think it's safe, but out of zero financial support. They won't get a penny from me.

Missing a human sized target at 10ft? Probably been better off throwing their guns at each other.