Texas shooting: 14 children and one teacher killed in primary school shooting

[konfab]

Also, what the hell are you talking about in that second bit?

Red flags would prevent folk from getting something they don’t have, and for good reason… May as well wail about the federal government taking away the Porsche EV I’d like but don’t have now, and couldn’t afford anyway.

How on earth is that anything like asset forfeiture?

Why am I not surprised you have no idea what you are talking about, but nevertheless want to impose on other people....

A red flag law is a law that allows the state to confiscate someone's guns if the state believes they are a threat to either themselves or someone else:

In the United States, a red flag law is a gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.[1] Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense.[2][3] After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law

The existing laws are violations of due process and property rights IMO. You cannot confiscate someone's property without either them committing a crime with it, or the state paying compensation for it.

 

[greg0205]

Why am I not surprised you have no idea what you are talking about, but nevertheless want to impose on other people....

A red flag law is a law that allows the state to confiscate someone's guns if the state believes they are a threat to either themselves or someone else:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law

The existing laws are violations of due process and property rights IMO. You cannot confiscate someone's property without either them committing a crime with it, or the state paying compensation for it.

What does

ERPOs grant law enforcement clear authority to temporarily remove firearms from ERPO respondents and prevent them from purchasing new guns for the duration of the order.

Mean?

Extreme Risk Protection Orders

www.jhsph.edu

 

[Emjay]

No.

Every shooting thread on this forum I’ve advocated for background checks, and red flag laws, and proper licensing, and proficiency training, and safe storage laws, and a federal firearm registry, and extra of all of those if you want to buy a semiauto long gun.

It’s time for folks like you who say something needs to be done ‘but’ to show your cards.

If nothing I’ve ever suggested flies with you, Em, what’s your solution?

Nonsense, man. Now you are making up rubbish.

I agree with all your suggestions except for your most recent one (create a register to track "violence against women", which includes threats made via social media). I have said this to you a few times - but you are once again showing how short your memory is.

I have also suggested for gun owners to get testimonials (which would form part of the background check process) from 3 people, like in South Africa. Literally like a few pages back.

You want to talk about misogyny yet when I bring up another side of different coin (gangsterism and the glorification of violence in the gangster culture in the US), you baulk? This is why no progress is ever made.

 

[konfab]

What does



Mean?

Extreme Risk Protection Orders

www.jhsph.edu

ERPOs grant law enforcement clear authority to temporarily remove firearms from ERPO respondents and prevent them from purchasing new guns for the duration of the order.

If the state wants to take away someone's property, they cannot just do it and keep it for an effectively indeterminate amount of time without either compensating a person for their property, or they are charged for a crime in connected with said property.

As I stated. I don't see a problem with a temporary order, but that means it is temporary until either the person is charged with a crime that would invalidate them from owning a firearm, or the state pays compensation for expropriated property.

Take the example of a bona-fide lying narcissist like Amber Heard. A person like that would quite happily lie to be vindictive against an innocent person.

 

[greg0205]

@konfab Replying to your post won't include your two quotes... but... 'temporarily' must mean something different to you than it does to me.

As must 'clear authority'.

Guess you read, or ignore those, as well as 'prevent them from purchasing new guns for the duration of the order' in just the same way you read or ignore 'well regulated' in the 2A.

 

[greg0205]

Nonsense, man. Now you are making up rubbish.

I agree with all your suggestions except for your most recent one (create a register to track "violence against women", which includes threats made via social media). I have said this to you a few times - but you are once again showing how short your memory is.

I have also suggested for gun owners to get testimonials (which would form part of the background check process) from 3 people, like in South Africa. Literally like a few pages back.

You want to talk about misogyny yet when I bring up another side of different coin (gangsterism and the glorification of violence in the gangster culture in the US), you baulk? This is why no progress is ever made.

I've kept replies to you at a bare minimum for ages now, Em... Sure, we've discussed misogyny in terms of you defending the patriarchy, but this isn't a context where there's been a lot of back and forth between us.

Still, glad we can agree on the basics.

Disappointed we can't agree that if social media companies have systems in place to identify, suspend or ban folks making violent threats against women online, LE can't do the same.

Oh, and gangsterism is your red herring... We're talking about an 18 year-old who *legally* bought guns and ammunition in TX and then shot up an elementary school.

 

[konfab]

@konfab Replying to your post won't include your two quotes... but... 'temporarily' must mean something different to you than it does to me.

As must 'clear authority'.

Guess you read, or ignore those, as well as 'prevent them from purchasing new guns for the duration of the order' in just the same way you read or ignore 'well regulated' in the 2A.

Them purchasing new guns isn't what I was talking about.

And temporarily isn't what the law in some states actually allows:

• The person whose gun has been confiscated can ask the court to remove the order.
• The person can do this once a year.
• A judge will remove the order if he/she believes there is no longer any convincing evidence that the person is a threat.
• But after a court hearing, the court can extend the protective order if the person continues to pose a significant danger.

https://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/resources/californias-red-flag-law/

That is effectively permanent until proven otherwise. Being guilty of a crime until proven innocent. As I stated, either make it a crime to make a statement threatening violence against a person (There very well could be an existing law on this), or declare the person mentally ill (like them being suicidal), which would invalidate their right to firearm ownership. Having laws that allow multiple rights to be suspended indefinitely without any crime being committed is dangerous. It is exactly like civil asset forfeiture abuse, which also allows for a "clear authority" to take people's property.

What part of what I am recommending an issue for you? That the state has to charge people with a crime in order to limit their constitutional rights?

 

[greg0205]

Them purchasing new guns isn't what I was talking about.

And temporarily isn't what the law in some states actually allows:



https://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/resources/californias-red-flag-law/

That is effectively permanent until proven otherwise. Being guilty of a crime until proven innocent. As I stated, either make it a crime to make a statement threatening violence against a person (There very well could be an existing law on this), or declare the person mentally ill (like them being suicidal), which would invalidate their right to firearm ownership. Having laws that allow multiple rights to be suspended indefinitely without any crime being committed is dangerous. It is exactly like civil asset forfeiture abuse, which also allows for a "clear authority" to take people's property.

What part of what I am recommending an issue for you? That the state has to charge people with a crime in order to limit their constitutional rights?

Purchasing guns is what I was talking about.

Also, 'effectively' doing all the work for you there, konfab... A theoretical problem more urgent that nineteen kids dead in a classroom right now.

 

[konfab]

Purchasing guns is what I was talking about.

Also, 'effectively' doing all the work for you there, konfab... A theoretical problem more urgent that nineteen kids dead in a classroom right now.

14 days to flatten the curve. It was just meant to be a two week lockdown. This type of thing isn't a theoretical problem. Constitutional rights are not a "theoretical problem".

To use an analogy
Lets do an Orange flag law for abortions. A judge may prevent a woman from getting an abortion if someone who knows said woman thinks she isn't in a mental state to get one. And she only gets the right to abortion once she approaches the court for permission that she isn't in fact mentally ill.

 

[berrypi]

interesting... no one proposed profiling... they do it to all other groups of people who have a "diverse" appearance...

 

[rietrot]

There are background checks.

Red flag laws are pretty dangerous IMO. They could easily end up in the realm of civil asset forfeiture. It needs to have protections for due process and property rights. California's law for example, can confiscate someone's property for a year without any criminal conviction, and can be extended indefinitely. Which effectively amounts to expropriation without compensation. They should be temporary, like 60 days or so, to give a prosecutor the chance to file charges for a crime. If no criminal charge is filed, then the firearms are returned, or if they are lost, monetary compensation is paid.

I am not an expert on US law, but there should be a federal or state crime for stating you want to kill someone, or do a school shooting. That stuff isn't protected by the 1st amendment.

Criminal Threats: Laws and Penalties

Threatening someone with harm or death can result in serious penalties. It's a crime even if you don't intend to carry out the threat.

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

Criminal threats explained.

 

[rietrot]

interesting... no one proposed profiling... they do it to all other groups of people who have a "diverse" appearance...

The last shooter had a diverse appearance, so much for your racial nonsense.

 

[berrypi]

The last shooter had a diverse appearance, so much for your racial nonsense.

out of how many? as much as you'd like to believe, profiling is not done to the vanilla.... when in this case of school shootings/mass shootings in the usa, vanilla has the higher % points attributed to it.

 

[rietrot]

out of how many? as much as you'd like to believe, profiling is not done to the vanilla.... when in this case of school shootings/mass shootings in the usa, vanilla has the higher % points attributed to it.

Most mass shooters have a diverse appearance. There's a collage of them going around.

 

[ForceFate]

Most mass shooters have a diverse appearance. There's a collage of them going around.

Not really. The collage you saw was of gang related murderers for the past year, which happened to include unprovoked mass murderers.

Not that it should make any difference.

 

[Defonotaltaccount]

How about.
Shall not be infringed ?

Kill cats and fill a bag with them.
Issue threats of violence.
Mental health in decline.
Unsafe actions.
Sure, investigate.
With cause, and only if heavily substantiated.
Remove weapons.

Other than that.
Shall not be infringed.
Bill of rights.
Not bill of needs/etc.

 

[Emjay]

I've kept replies to you at a bare minimum for ages now, Em... Sure, we've discussed misogyny in terms of you defending the patriarchy, but this isn't a context where there's been a lot of back and forth between us.

Still, glad we can agree on the basics.

Disappointed we can't agree that if social media companies have systems in place to identify, suspend or ban folks making violent threats against women online, LE can't do the same.

Oh, and gangsterism is your red herring... We're talking about an 18 year-old who *legally* bought guns and ammunition in TX and then shot up an elementary school.

Yeah, mansplain more to me about patriarchy.

We are talking about gun violence. Gangsterism makes up a huge amount of gun violence, or are you going to deny this basic fact?

(incoming deflection and finger pointing because it's not part of the narrative)

 

[Defonotaltaccount]

https://nypost.com/2022/05/30/mugsh...quez-after-threat-to-shoot-up-florida-school/

Salvador Ramos
Issac Marquez

 

[Temujin]

Most mass shooters have a diverse appearance. There's a collage of them going around.

This site only shows last 3 years, 4+ victims(note, 64% unsolved mass shootings for last year)

Mass shooting database

mass-shootings.info

 

[ponder]

Not really. The collage you saw was of gang related murderers for the past year, which happened to include unprovoked mass murderers.

Not that it should make any difference.

The collage was compiled from the wikipedia 2021 mass shooting list as defined by the fbi (edit: if i recall correctly), a mass shooting is a mass shooting.