Take the guns first, due process second.

[Crixus]

Of those 75,000, have any done anything to justify their names being added to a data base of any kind?

I agree with you. I have worked with a lot of people with a "mental health" SSI disability. Most of them are not dangerous in the least. However, those mentally incompetent enough to lose their rights? That's a real high bar in a court of law, and if they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, they don't need to be trusted with a decision about who to shoot, either.

There's also a huge problem here with Mental Health being anyone's ringer, to begin with.

Some of a psychotropic drugs' side effects, are: manic, violent behavior.

Now - in some cases, these psychotropic side-effects occur in one in 2-million folks... that experience this side effect, so we deem the drugs okay to use. I'd agree with doing that, statistically. It's so rare, that it's not right at all to limit the other 1, 999, 999 other folks that won't experience this sort of side effect.

But I'm employing the same logic within the gun debate. It's very rare, even more rare than the statistic of folks that experience violent side-effects on these drugs, for someone to become a mass shooter. Not only that, but most of the folks are either pre-determined to have had a mental illness, or determined as much after the shootings. Something like 94% of shooters? (I'm going off memory)

So - we have a problem that really might be impossible to resolve. I guess we can employ mitigating factors. I dunno if there's any good answer.

You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

Because almost every mass shooter was on them or had been on them when they did their thing. It is a commonality among them.

 

[G.T.]

There's also a huge problem here with Mental Health being anyone's ringer, to begin with.

Some of a psychotropic drugs' side effects, are: manic, violent behavior.

Now - in some cases, these psychotropic side-effects occur in one in 2-million folks... that experience this side effect, so we deem the drugs okay to use. I'd agree with doing that, statistically. It's so rare, that it's not right at all to limit the other 1, 999, 999 other folks that won't experience this sort of side effect.

But I'm employing the same logic within the gun debate. It's very rare, even more rare than the statistic of folks that experience violent side-effects on these drugs, for someone to become a mass shooter. Not only that, but most of the folks are either pre-determined to have had a mental illness, or determined as much after the shootings. Something like 94% of shooters? (I'm going off memory)

So - we have a problem that really might be impossible to resolve. I guess we can employ mitigating factors. I dunno if there's any good answer.

You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

I didn't put up that pic in reply to you. Bootney.

Not all those deaths are caused by punk kids in gangs. I never said the Red Flag laws would be the be-all, end-all, either. Almost every mass shooter, in hind sight, was homicidal/suicidal prior to the shooting. Besides being more aware of the warning signs, a legal way to remove guns from a person in that kind of a crisis would be helpful. There is nothing irrational/emotional about that. It wouldn't stop all gun violence. Nothing will. This is low hanging fruit, though. No one wants a homicidal/suicidal person to have access to a gun. That is why the Republicans are grudgingly admitting it might not be a bad idea. No one said it was directly tied to the last mass shootings. Like the bumpstock law, the folks in Congress who have had their campaigns financed by the NRA are looking around for something that won't violate their gun rights. This is a no brainer, imo, G.T.

I don't know the Law's design - I don't know how much it costs vs. the effect it'd have, I don't know its possibility for abuse, I don't know how many of these shooters obtained their guns legally, versus the sandey hook shooter who got them from his mom...and how many would GET them illegally in-spite of the law preventing them from getting them legally....

for all I know, the law might have little to no effect - would cost money and would be open to abuse. That's not a no-brainer, to me anyhoo...and I do think if we're looking to prevent gun deaths...the national conversation needs to shift from mass shooters and over to gang violence. That's the low hanging fruit, in my opinion, because it would reduce the number the most... and it's an easier predictor than weeding out someone who's mentally ill and may not have seen any doctors...and was not apparently mentally ill to those who knew him - like the vegas shooter

 

[OldLady]

What is a Red Flag Law? Does one exist, promulgated by the Congress or any State Legislature and signed by the Executive?

There are 17. What is your point?

 

[OldLady]

You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

I didn't put up that pic in reply to you. Bootney.

Not all those deaths are caused by punk kids in gangs. I never said the Red Flag laws would be the be-all, end-all, either. Almost every mass shooter, in hind sight, was homicidal/suicidal prior to the shooting. Besides being more aware of the warning signs, a legal way to remove guns from a person in that kind of a crisis would be helpful. There is nothing irrational/emotional about that. It wouldn't stop all gun violence. Nothing will. This is low hanging fruit, though. No one wants a homicidal/suicidal person to have access to a gun. That is why the Republicans are grudgingly admitting it might not be a bad idea. No one said it was directly tied to the last mass shootings. Like the bumpstock law, the folks in Congress who have had their campaigns financed by the NRA are looking around for something that won't violate their gun rights. This is a no brainer, imo, G.T.

We do have a right to be violently pissed about the shenanigans, do we not?

.

Violently? No. Pissed? Sure.

 

[Crixus]

I am not a Trumpkin, and you harm your cause when you use such insults.

I was likely one of the very first people no this forum to denounce Trump for these anti-Constitutional red flag laws.

Why do you want homicidal/suicidal people in crisis to have guns?

I don't.

I don't want YOU or ANYONE to take guns away from people who are NOT homicidal or suicidal.

You don't cure drunk driving by taking the privilege of driving away from those who are sober.

We are talking about Red Flag (ERPO) laws. They only apply to people who are homicidal or suicidal. I fail to see your issue.

Do you fail to see the violation of liberties to the American citizen? In your world, is it better to be thought guilty first and then force someone to become bankrupt trying to prove their innocence, all on the strength of an accusation?

Next you'll be saying that some liberties must be denied for the good of the many. A line and policy that every mass-murdering government in history has utilized.

It's not hard to prove you're not homicidal, and I don't believe you would have to pay for your own lawyer. Doesn't our court system provide one free of charge to defendants? The judge would automatically order a mental health evaluation (he/she would not make a determination without one) and that also would be paid for by the court.
You need to stop spinning this into something it isn't and never will be.

The court only appoints and attorney if you are facing jail time or children are being removed from the home. The court always charges a fee and only the law abiding would go through the process. Red flag laws are useles, much like banning cosmetic features on a gun and limiting magazine capacity.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

I didn't put up that pic in reply to you. Bootney.

Not all those deaths are caused by punk kids in gangs. I never said the Red Flag laws would be the be-all, end-all, either. Almost every mass shooter, in hind sight, was homicidal/suicidal prior to the shooting. Besides being more aware of the warning signs, a legal way to remove guns from a person in that kind of a crisis would be helpful. There is nothing irrational/emotional about that. It wouldn't stop all gun violence. Nothing will. This is low hanging fruit, though. No one wants a homicidal/suicidal person to have access to a gun. That is why the Republicans are grudgingly admitting it might not be a bad idea. No one said it was directly tied to the last mass shootings. Like the bumpstock law, the folks in Congress who have had their campaigns financed by the NRA are looking around for something that won't violate their gun rights. This is a no brainer, imo, G.T.

We do have a right to be violently pissed about the shenanigans, do we not?

.

Violently? No. Pissed? Sure.

If it happens again, violently YES. That's all I am saying.

This is why there is so much resistance to ANYTHING new. The gun-grabbers WAY overplayed their hand on the individual right issue.

Now we don't trust them on any new gun regulations. We expect ALL their actions to be deceitful and aimed at setting up a total ban and confiscation.

They did this. Not us.

.

 

[G.T.]

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

I didn't put up that pic in reply to you. Bootney.

Not all those deaths are caused by punk kids in gangs. I never said the Red Flag laws would be the be-all, end-all, either. Almost every mass shooter, in hind sight, was homicidal/suicidal prior to the shooting. Besides being more aware of the warning signs, a legal way to remove guns from a person in that kind of a crisis would be helpful. There is nothing irrational/emotional about that. It wouldn't stop all gun violence. Nothing will. This is low hanging fruit, though. No one wants a homicidal/suicidal person to have access to a gun. That is why the Republicans are grudgingly admitting it might not be a bad idea. No one said it was directly tied to the last mass shootings. Like the bumpstock law, the folks in Congress who have had their campaigns financed by the NRA are looking around for something that won't violate their gun rights. This is a no brainer, imo, G.T.

We do have a right to be violently pissed about the shenanigans, do we not?

.

Violently? No. Pissed? Sure.

If it happens again, violently YES. That's all I am saying.

This is why there is so much resistance to ANYTHING new. The gun-grabbers WAY overplayed their hand on the individual right issue.

Now we don't trust them on any new gun regulations. We expect ALL their actions to be deceitful and aimed at setting up a total ban and confiscation.

They did this. Not us.

.

so if trump signs a red flag law you're going to get violent?

settle down, bunghole

 

[OldLady]

You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

I didn't put up that pic in reply to you. Bootney.

Not all those deaths are caused by punk kids in gangs. I never said the Red Flag laws would be the be-all, end-all, either. Almost every mass shooter, in hind sight, was homicidal/suicidal prior to the shooting. Besides being more aware of the warning signs, a legal way to remove guns from a person in that kind of a crisis would be helpful. There is nothing irrational/emotional about that. It wouldn't stop all gun violence. Nothing will. This is low hanging fruit, though. No one wants a homicidal/suicidal person to have access to a gun. That is why the Republicans are grudgingly admitting it might not be a bad idea. No one said it was directly tied to the last mass shootings. Like the bumpstock law, the folks in Congress who have had their campaigns financed by the NRA are looking around for something that won't violate their gun rights. This is a no brainer, imo, G.T.

I don't know the Law's design - I don't know how much it costs vs. the effect it'd have, I don't know its possibility for abuse, I don't know how many of these shooters obtained their guns legally, versus the sandey hook shooter who got them from his mom...and how many would GET them illegally in-spite of the law preventing them from getting them legally....

for all I know, the law might have little to no effect - would cost money and would be open to abuse. That's not a no-brainer, to me anyhoo...and I do think if we're looking to prevent gun deaths...the national conversation needs to shift from mass shooters and over to gang violence. That's the low hanging fruit, in my opinion, because it would reduce the number the most and it's an easier predictor than weeding out someone who's mentally ill and may not have seen any doctors...and was not apparently mentally ill to those who knew him - like the vegas shooter

Okay, you work on that, but I haven't heard much about legislation in Congress to impact inner city problems. Your state already has an ERPO law. Maybe there is some information on if/how well it is working. I have read that it seems to save lives, but they're talking about suicides.

 

[Papageorgio]

Except it is his family that is making the claim, not him. Why only now and not when he invented it?

Why now? Because there are people like you arguing that it was designed as a sport rifle.

His family is making the claim because he is dead.

Where did I claim it was designed as a sport rifle?

I am merely stating a fact. No one knows what he designed or intended. We have no idea what the family’s motivation for making the statement. Their statement didn’t use facts, it used emotion as in “we feel”. I look for motivation and deeper meanings and how things are said. I don’t take things at face value.

Ridiculous argument, imo.

What he designed was sold to the military; they added an auto fire feature and dubbed it the M-16. When Stoner's patent ran, Colt copied it. It was out of his hands.

His family knew him better than you, don't you think? The fact that he, an avid sportsman and ex-Marine, never owned one might tell you something, too. You are obfuscating to bury the main point.

It doesn't really matter what he thought, anyway. The guys who came up with the atom bomb might have lost a few nights of sleep, too, but regardless how they felt about it, the rest of us need to deal with it. Now. Doesn't matter what he thought. His family apparently was concerned about its knock off in the Pulse shooting and discussion of banning it.

I have no idea what Stoner's intent was, I am just saying at a time when the AR-15 is unpopular in the PC world, the family all of a sudden claims what they feel what his intent was.

You have no clue what his intent was either.

All of a sudden, three years ago, just after the Pulse nightclub shooting. Someone unearthed it again because we are once again talking about banning the AR after a mass shooting in which it was used.

So you have your opinion and nothing else, however you also say it doesn't matter.

 

[G.T.]

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

I didn't put up that pic in reply to you. Bootney.

Not all those deaths are caused by punk kids in gangs. I never said the Red Flag laws would be the be-all, end-all, either. Almost every mass shooter, in hind sight, was homicidal/suicidal prior to the shooting. Besides being more aware of the warning signs, a legal way to remove guns from a person in that kind of a crisis would be helpful. There is nothing irrational/emotional about that. It wouldn't stop all gun violence. Nothing will. This is low hanging fruit, though. No one wants a homicidal/suicidal person to have access to a gun. That is why the Republicans are grudgingly admitting it might not be a bad idea. No one said it was directly tied to the last mass shootings. Like the bumpstock law, the folks in Congress who have had their campaigns financed by the NRA are looking around for something that won't violate their gun rights. This is a no brainer, imo, G.T.

I don't know the Law's design - I don't know how much it costs vs. the effect it'd have, I don't know its possibility for abuse, I don't know how many of these shooters obtained their guns legally, versus the sandey hook shooter who got them from his mom...and how many would GET them illegally in-spite of the law preventing them from getting them legally....

for all I know, the law might have little to no effect - would cost money and would be open to abuse. That's not a no-brainer, to me anyhoo...and I do think if we're looking to prevent gun deaths...the national conversation needs to shift from mass shooters and over to gang violence. That's the low hanging fruit, in my opinion, because it would reduce the number the most and it's an easier predictor than weeding out someone who's mentally ill and may not have seen any doctors...and was not apparently mentally ill to those who knew him - like the vegas shooter

Okay, you work on that, but I haven't heard much about legislation in Congress to impact inner city problems. Your state already has an ERPO law. Maybe there is some information on if/how well it is working. I have read that it seems to save lives, but they're talking about suicides.

I think that everyone should work on that, if their true interest is preventing the most gun deaths. It might make too much sense, who knows!

 

[Wry Catcher]

There's also a huge problem here with Mental Health being anyone's ringer, to begin with.

Some of a psychotropic drugs' side effects, are: manic, violent behavior.

Now - in some cases, these psychotropic side-effects occur in one in 2-million folks... that experience this side effect, so we deem the drugs okay to use. I'd agree with doing that, statistically. It's so rare, that it's not right at all to limit the other 1, 999, 999 other folks that won't experience this sort of side effect.

But I'm employing the same logic within the gun debate. It's very rare, even more rare than the statistic of folks that experience violent side-effects on these drugs, for someone to become a mass shooter. Not only that, but most of the folks are either pre-determined to have had a mental illness, or determined as much after the shootings. Something like 94% of shooters? (I'm going off memory)

So - we have a problem that really might be impossible to resolve. I guess we can employ mitigating factors. I dunno if there's any good answer.

You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

Which it won't do because if one wants to kill allot of people, or even just try they have many options to do just that. They can do like the Boston bombers did and use fireworks and pressure cookers, they can take over an aircraft, they can grab the keys and go for a drive, they can grab a knife from the kitchen, and axe from the shed or a spork from Taco Bell.

Duh. So what is your solution?

Consider this:

Common sense gun regulations may not prevent a monster from getting a gun, but no regulations assure a monster will get a gun and kill innocent people.

As for driving a car, using pressure cookers, taking over an aircraft or any other means to take a human life, guns seem to be the tool of choice.

 

[Rustic]

You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

Which it won't do because if one wants to kill allot of people, or even just try they have many options to do just that. They can do like the Boston bombers did and use fireworks and pressure cookers, they can take over an aircraft, they can grab the keys and go for a drive, they can grab a knife from the kitchen, and axe from the shed or a spork from Taco Bell.

Duh. So what is your solution?

Consider this:

Common sense gun regulations may not prevent a monster from getting a gun, but no regulations assure a monster will get a gun and kill innocent people.

As for driving a car, using pressure cookers, taking over an aircraft or any other means to take a human life, guns seem to be the tool of choice.

Wrong, In the Middle East they have access to anything they want they much prefer bombs and/or vehicles.
They are much more affective than firearms for terror.

Political correctness has made you fucking retarded

 

[G.T.]

You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

Which it won't do because if one wants to kill allot of people, or even just try they have many options to do just that. They can do like the Boston bombers did and use fireworks and pressure cookers, they can take over an aircraft, they can grab the keys and go for a drive, they can grab a knife from the kitchen, and axe from the shed or a spork from Taco Bell.

Duh. So what is your solution?

Consider this:

Common sense gun regulations may not prevent a monster from getting a gun, but no regulations assure a monster will get a gun and kill innocent people.

As for driving a car, using pressure cookers, taking over an aircraft or any other means to take a human life, guns seem to be the tool of choice.

The tool of choice is, for all anyone knows, a copycat phenomena and if it went "viral" like all mass killings do that a box truck was used to drive through an outdoor concert and mow down 50-100 people, then that would be copy-catted as well.

The problem here is that when there's 340, 000, 000 people - when there's 340million ANYthing, there will be psychotic outliers that we might never know about until they act. It's a fact of life that, statistically, is at a comfortable level - emotions aside. Tragedy will always be a part of us, but when we're limiting something (and liberty is our ethos), we have to set the emotion down for a moment and view these things from an un-biased, analytical and emotionless tenor. It's more practical, and produces the better outcomes.

 

[danielpalos]

...what if, female militia corporals demand to be able to "grab gun lovers" where ever they can find them and get them muster and become well regulated.

Whatever shall we do?

 

[OldLady]

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

I didn't put up that pic in reply to you. Bootney.

Not all those deaths are caused by punk kids in gangs. I never said the Red Flag laws would be the be-all, end-all, either. Almost every mass shooter, in hind sight, was homicidal/suicidal prior to the shooting. Besides being more aware of the warning signs, a legal way to remove guns from a person in that kind of a crisis would be helpful. There is nothing irrational/emotional about that. It wouldn't stop all gun violence. Nothing will. This is low hanging fruit, though. No one wants a homicidal/suicidal person to have access to a gun. That is why the Republicans are grudgingly admitting it might not be a bad idea. No one said it was directly tied to the last mass shootings. Like the bumpstock law, the folks in Congress who have had their campaigns financed by the NRA are looking around for something that won't violate their gun rights. This is a no brainer, imo, G.T.

I don't know the Law's design - I don't know how much it costs vs. the effect it'd have, I don't know its possibility for abuse, I don't know how many of these shooters obtained their guns legally, versus the sandey hook shooter who got them from his mom...and how many would GET them illegally in-spite of the law preventing them from getting them legally....

for all I know, the law might have little to no effect - would cost money and would be open to abuse. That's not a no-brainer, to me anyhoo...and I do think if we're looking to prevent gun deaths...the national conversation needs to shift from mass shooters and over to gang violence. That's the low hanging fruit, in my opinion, because it would reduce the number the most and it's an easier predictor than weeding out someone who's mentally ill and may not have seen any doctors...and was not apparently mentally ill to those who knew him - like the vegas shooter

Okay, you work on that, but I haven't heard much about legislation in Congress to impact inner city problems. Your state already has an ERPO law. Maybe there is some information on if/how well it is working. I have read that it seems to save lives, but they're talking about suicides.

I think that everyone should work on that, if their true interest is preventing the most gun deaths. It might make too much sense, who knows!

True! If you look at our recent shooting history, though, more completely innocent people seem to be getting shot at work and at play than in the past. It is not just gangsters and domestic violence situations, which is what people used to think of as being the primary cause. I go to work and die because some eejit with a legally owned handgun is pissed off he got fired. That kind of shit is more frequent than it used to be. Then you've got shootings at Walmart, at the garlic festival, at a bar, all in a week.... There used to be a maxim that if you minded your own business, you'd be pretty safe. Not any more. Is media overplaying it? How do you "overplay" getting gunned down in Walmart, for chrissakes? Guns are entering the white burb sphere too much, G.T. and people are going to do SOMETHING, regardless if it solves the whole problem.
js

 

[Wry Catcher]

What is a Red Flag Law? Does one exist, promulgated by the Congress or any State Legislature and signed by the Executive?

There are 17. What is your point?

My question was who, where and what. Posting the code would be very helpful

In CA the Welfare and Institutions code covers situations where a person may be a danger to themselves or others. It allows LE to detain a person who raises a "red flag" and bring them to a secure psychiatric hospital, and be held for 72 hours for observation (5150 W&I).

The detainee can be released anytime by the psychiatrist, but must be released at the end of 72 hours unless s/he is determined to need treatment. The patient then can be held for two weeks (5250 W&I), and if the medical doctor decides more treatement is needed they must petition the court under LPS Act, see details in the link below:

Lanterman–Petris–Short Act - Wikipedia.

 

[G.T.]

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

I didn't put up that pic in reply to you. Bootney.

Not all those deaths are caused by punk kids in gangs. I never said the Red Flag laws would be the be-all, end-all, either. Almost every mass shooter, in hind sight, was homicidal/suicidal prior to the shooting. Besides being more aware of the warning signs, a legal way to remove guns from a person in that kind of a crisis would be helpful. There is nothing irrational/emotional about that. It wouldn't stop all gun violence. Nothing will. This is low hanging fruit, though. No one wants a homicidal/suicidal person to have access to a gun. That is why the Republicans are grudgingly admitting it might not be a bad idea. No one said it was directly tied to the last mass shootings. Like the bumpstock law, the folks in Congress who have had their campaigns financed by the NRA are looking around for something that won't violate their gun rights. This is a no brainer, imo, G.T.

I don't know the Law's design - I don't know how much it costs vs. the effect it'd have, I don't know its possibility for abuse, I don't know how many of these shooters obtained their guns legally, versus the sandey hook shooter who got them from his mom...and how many would GET them illegally in-spite of the law preventing them from getting them legally....

for all I know, the law might have little to no effect - would cost money and would be open to abuse. That's not a no-brainer, to me anyhoo...and I do think if we're looking to prevent gun deaths...the national conversation needs to shift from mass shooters and over to gang violence. That's the low hanging fruit, in my opinion, because it would reduce the number the most and it's an easier predictor than weeding out someone who's mentally ill and may not have seen any doctors...and was not apparently mentally ill to those who knew him - like the vegas shooter

Okay, you work on that, but I haven't heard much about legislation in Congress to impact inner city problems. Your state already has an ERPO law. Maybe there is some information on if/how well it is working. I have read that it seems to save lives, but they're talking about suicides.

I think that everyone should work on that, if their true interest is preventing the most gun deaths. It might make too much sense, who knows!

True! If you look at our recent shooting history, though, more completely innocent people seem to be getting shot at work and at play than in the past. It is not just gangsters and domestic violence situations, which is what people used to think of as being the primary cause. I go to work and die because some eejit with a legally owned handgun is pissed off he got fired. That kind of shit is more frequent than it used to be. Then you've got shootings at Walmart, at the garlic festival, at a bar, all in a week.... There used to be a maxim that if you minded your own business, you'd be pretty safe. Not any more. Is media overplaying it? How do you "overplay" getting gunned down in Walmart, for chrissakes? Guns are entering the white burb sphere too much, G.T. and people are going to do SOMETHING, regardless if it solves the whole problem.
js

The maxim that if you mind your own business, you'll be pretty safe still works, what are you talking about? It's as true as almost...ever. I'll bet it might be more true than when it was invented...we should look at the year by year comparison.

Don't you understand why it is vitally important to look at and understand statistics? You're looking at the TV and thinking it's an armageddon, when it's as docile as any other time.

Yes, of course it's overplayed when a mass shooting happens.
..not by the media, though, but in peoples' minds and emotions. It's horrific! But that doesn't mean that it's common AT ALL! There are 340 million folks in this Country, and you even KNOW about "Walmart" because, despite us having this many people, it's still shocking because it's RARE.

I sincerely don't understand the thought process here - that anybody feels less safe - if they bothered to hash out that "feeling" through the reality of the situation.

Mass shootings since 2000 are up - but overall violent crime is down.

Violence = down.

That = MORE safe.


More, not less.

Math, data, math, data...


And you keep dismissing things that MATTER to the conversation. You care about people dying by gun, you seem to want to circumvent the circumstance where it MOSTLY happens - GANG violence.

You mention workplace shootings - - - - - these people became manic because of losing their job. Would they lose their guns under a red flag law post-hoc of having already done the shooting? How does that make any sense...you gunna red flag everyone who gets fired, ever? Not following why that would even be brought up.

 

[OldLady]

I didn't put up that pic in reply to you. Bootney.

Not all those deaths are caused by punk kids in gangs. I never said the Red Flag laws would be the be-all, end-all, either. Almost every mass shooter, in hind sight, was homicidal/suicidal prior to the shooting. Besides being more aware of the warning signs, a legal way to remove guns from a person in that kind of a crisis would be helpful. There is nothing irrational/emotional about that. It wouldn't stop all gun violence. Nothing will. This is low hanging fruit, though. No one wants a homicidal/suicidal person to have access to a gun. That is why the Republicans are grudgingly admitting it might not be a bad idea. No one said it was directly tied to the last mass shootings. Like the bumpstock law, the folks in Congress who have had their campaigns financed by the NRA are looking around for something that won't violate their gun rights. This is a no brainer, imo, G.T.

I don't know the Law's design - I don't know how much it costs vs. the effect it'd have, I don't know its possibility for abuse, I don't know how many of these shooters obtained their guns legally, versus the sandey hook shooter who got them from his mom...and how many would GET them illegally in-spite of the law preventing them from getting them legally....

for all I know, the law might have little to no effect - would cost money and would be open to abuse. That's not a no-brainer, to me anyhoo...and I do think if we're looking to prevent gun deaths...the national conversation needs to shift from mass shooters and over to gang violence. That's the low hanging fruit, in my opinion, because it would reduce the number the most and it's an easier predictor than weeding out someone who's mentally ill and may not have seen any doctors...and was not apparently mentally ill to those who knew him - like the vegas shooter

Okay, you work on that, but I haven't heard much about legislation in Congress to impact inner city problems. Your state already has an ERPO law. Maybe there is some information on if/how well it is working. I have read that it seems to save lives, but they're talking about suicides.

I think that everyone should work on that, if their true interest is preventing the most gun deaths. It might make too much sense, who knows!

True! If you look at our recent shooting history, though, more completely innocent people seem to be getting shot at work and at play than in the past. It is not just gangsters and domestic violence situations, which is what people used to think of as being the primary cause. I go to work and die because some eejit with a legally owned handgun is pissed off he got fired. That kind of shit is more frequent than it used to be. Then you've got shootings at Walmart, at the garlic festival, at a bar, all in a week.... There used to be a maxim that if you minded your own business, you'd be pretty safe. Not any more. Is media overplaying it? How do you "overplay" getting gunned down in Walmart, for chrissakes? Guns are entering the white burb sphere too much, G.T. and people are going to do SOMETHING, regardless if it solves the whole problem.
js

The maxim that if you mind your own business, you'll be pretty safe still works, what are you talking about? It's as true as almost...ever. I'll bet it might be more true than when it was invented...we should look at the year by year comparison.

Don't you understand why it is vitally important to look at and understand statistics? You're looking at the TV and thinking it's an armageddon, when it's as docile as any other time.

Yes, of course it's overplayed when a mass shooting happens.
..not by the media, though, but in peoples' minds and emotions. It's horrific! But that doesn't mean that it's common AT ALL! There are 340 million folks in this Country, and you even KNOW about "Walmart" because, despite us having this many people, it's still shocking because it's RARE.

I sincerely don't understand the thought process here - that anybody feels less safe - if they bothered to hash out that "feeling" through the reality of the situation.

Mass shootings since 2000 are up - but overall violent crime is down.

Violence = down.

That = MORE safe.


More, not less.

Math, data, math, data...


And you keep dismissing things that MATTER to the conversation. You care about people dying by gun, you seem to want to circumvent the circumstance where it MOSTLY happens - GANG violence.

You mention workplace shootings - - - - - these people became manic because of losing their job. Would they lose their guns under a red flag law post-hoc of having already done the shooting? How does that make any sense...you gunna red flag everyone who gets fired, ever? Not following why that would even be brought up.

Just having a cordial convo here, G.T.

 

[G.T.]

I don't know the Law's design - I don't know how much it costs vs. the effect it'd have, I don't know its possibility for abuse, I don't know how many of these shooters obtained their guns legally, versus the sandey hook shooter who got them from his mom...and how many would GET them illegally in-spite of the law preventing them from getting them legally....

for all I know, the law might have little to no effect - would cost money and would be open to abuse. That's not a no-brainer, to me anyhoo...and I do think if we're looking to prevent gun deaths...the national conversation needs to shift from mass shooters and over to gang violence. That's the low hanging fruit, in my opinion, because it would reduce the number the most and it's an easier predictor than weeding out someone who's mentally ill and may not have seen any doctors...and was not apparently mentally ill to those who knew him - like the vegas shooter

Okay, you work on that, but I haven't heard much about legislation in Congress to impact inner city problems. Your state already has an ERPO law. Maybe there is some information on if/how well it is working. I have read that it seems to save lives, but they're talking about suicides.

I think that everyone should work on that, if their true interest is preventing the most gun deaths. It might make too much sense, who knows!

True! If you look at our recent shooting history, though, more completely innocent people seem to be getting shot at work and at play than in the past. It is not just gangsters and domestic violence situations, which is what people used to think of as being the primary cause. I go to work and die because some eejit with a legally owned handgun is pissed off he got fired. That kind of shit is more frequent than it used to be. Then you've got shootings at Walmart, at the garlic festival, at a bar, all in a week.... There used to be a maxim that if you minded your own business, you'd be pretty safe. Not any more. Is media overplaying it? How do you "overplay" getting gunned down in Walmart, for chrissakes? Guns are entering the white burb sphere too much, G.T. and people are going to do SOMETHING, regardless if it solves the whole problem.
js

The maxim that if you mind your own business, you'll be pretty safe still works, what are you talking about? It's as true as almost...ever. I'll bet it might be more true than when it was invented...we should look at the year by year comparison.

Don't you understand why it is vitally important to look at and understand statistics? You're looking at the TV and thinking it's an armageddon, when it's as docile as any other time.

Yes, of course it's overplayed when a mass shooting happens.
..not by the media, though, but in peoples' minds and emotions. It's horrific! But that doesn't mean that it's common AT ALL! There are 340 million folks in this Country, and you even KNOW about "Walmart" because, despite us having this many people, it's still shocking because it's RARE.

I sincerely don't understand the thought process here - that anybody feels less safe - if they bothered to hash out that "feeling" through the reality of the situation.

Mass shootings since 2000 are up - but overall violent crime is down.

Violence = down.

That = MORE safe.


More, not less.

Math, data, math, data...


And you keep dismissing things that MATTER to the conversation. You care about people dying by gun, you seem to want to circumvent the circumstance where it MOSTLY happens - GANG violence.

You mention workplace shootings - - - - - these people became manic because of losing their job. Would they lose their guns under a red flag law post-hoc of having already done the shooting? How does that make any sense...you gunna red flag everyone who gets fired, ever? Not following why that would even be brought up.

Just having a cordial convo here, G.T.

Same, I just have a bad grasp at dealing with it when reality speaks far differently than emotional-drama does. Not yours, but everyone's surrounding this issue, seemingly.

People gunna diiee...self-driving cars are safer than people driving cars...but they fuck up too...but they'd save lives....the issue of reality vs. being emotional will end up costing lives.

Let's attack the head of the beast down...not chip away at dumb/rare shit that yepp, it's more sensational but n'aw...there's not even a real fix for it anyhow and without the media, the odds of it directly effecting our actual lives are like a thousandth of one percent or less. Getting hit by a bus is more frightening, at this point.

 

[playtime]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

May I copy this post to another thread?

sure - of course...