First Gun Confiscation Killing...

[seer]

You seem to have misunderstood my statement, but admittedly it probably wasn't worded that well. So the claim made is that the complaint was made by one person (the aunt). The problem here is twofold. First, the source for that claim is also one person, the niece. So to complain about how the only evidence was from one person, it's necessary to cite the evidence of just one person.

Well neither article mentions any other evidence against this guy, so that is all we have to go on since the actual complaint is sealed (think Star Chamber). If there really was other evidence of threatening behavior why not just arrest him for that?

[Sparko]

The only "evidence" was a complaint from one person! She was a family member, but other family members said he wasn't a threat at all. He did have a drinking problem, so why not try rehab first instead of taking the guns away from a guy who is half drunk?

just remember, all you have to go on is this story which doesn't give a lot of detail. A protective order has to be approved by a Judge so he did get due process. Or actually was in the middle of it. We don't know what caused this. He could have made a threat against the person who asked for the protection order as far as you know.

We always say the police should have taken away the gun from some of these crazy mass shooters before they shot someone. What if this was such a case? If they had probable cause to think he could harm himself or others, the judge can take away his guns until he goes to court to show he is not a danger. I don't have a problem with that as long as it is not abused. Otherwise, if you tell someone "we are taking you to court to take your guns" he would just hide his guns, or worse, go on a rampage before they could take them.

[seer]

just remember, all you have to go on is this story which doesn't give a lot of detail. A protective order has to be approved by a Judge so he did get due process. Or actually was in the middle of it. We don't know what caused this. He could have made a threat against the person who asked for the protection order as far as you know.

We always say the police should have taken away the gun from some of these crazy mass shooters before they shot someone. What if this was such a case? If they had probable cause to think he could harm himself or others, the judge can take away his guns until he goes to court to show he is not a danger. I don't have a problem with that as long as it is not abused. Otherwise, if you tell someone "we are taking you to court to take your guns" he would just hide his guns, or worse, go on a rampage before they could take them.

If he really was a danger to himself and others he could have been, and should have been, arrested or involuntarily institutionalized. I mean he could have simply jumped in his car after he lost his guns and ran over a bunch of people or used a knife. It was never about that Sparko, you should know better...

[Mountain Man]

In other words, your source is internally consistent. Of course it's Wikipedia, so that's par for the course.

Of course I meant NOT internally consistent

[Leonhard]

If he did they could have just arrested him for that! That was not even on the table, they just wanted his guns.

Seems odd. I'll wait for more things about what this was about before passing judgement.

[Sparko]

If he really was a danger to himself and others he could have been, and should have been, arrested or involuntarily institutionalized. I mean he could have simply jumped in his car after he lost his guns and ran over a bunch of people or used a knife. It was never about that Sparko, you should know better...

If he had made a threat against someone it would be. That is what a protective order is.

[seer]

If he had made a threat against someone it would be. That is what a protective order is.

A protective order does not take away a right, it only serves to keep one individual away from another individual. If this was a protective order it did take a right away without due process.

[Jedidiah]

Not sure. A man who is mentally unstable and with a gun is a ticking time bomb. If he's mentally sound, he should get the gun back. If not and he can guess who reported him, that person can end up dead. I'd say there need to be safeguards against abuse, but that the safety of the general population takes precident if there is reason to believe an individual is an imminent threat.

Jim

So investigate and initiate "due process" instead of creating an incident of this sort.

[Jedidiah]

Not acting on warnings of instability has been a key component of several of the mass shootings the last few years. I can't imagine why anyone would be against trying to do something to change that fact.

But here we are.

Jim

Action does not have to start with jumping into the deep end. The failure to act you refer to is mostly just ignoring the expressed concern. Again you do not have to jump immediately into the deep end.

[oxmixmudd]

Action does not have to start with jumping into the deep end. The failure to act you refer to is mostly just ignoring the expressed concern. Again you do not have to jump immediately into the deep end.

Sometimes, sometimes not. I would say the fact the fellow was volatile enough to go for his gun and get himself killed is evidence this man needed to have his gun taken away. But you all are right in that to provoke unnecessarily is a bad policy. So hopefully the Leo's will look carefully at what the best way to handkerchief cases like this are.

But I wonder if you really believe he would have gone any quieter to a forced Psych eval?

Jim

[Jedidiah]

I would say the fact the fellow was volatile enough to go for his gun and get himself killed is evidence this man needed to have his gun taken away.

But That old not be known until after you already screwed up. So not a valid defense.

[oxmixmudd]

But That old not be known until after you already screwed up. So not a valid defense.

If he was sane and capable of rational judgement, worthy of keeping his gun, he would still be alive.

A police officer comes to my door and says there had been a report I'm mentally unstable and they need any guns I own. I say - are you serious? Now assuming they've identified themselves I'm not going to fight them. I'll tell them where the guns are and they can get them themselves (this is to protect myself). And my cell is running real time uploading to the cloud. But I let them take them, and then I call my lawyer, and then I call the local news and givery them the video, and then I call the national news and give them the video, and then I start uploading it to various social media platforms.

Jim

[Roy]

Less, comparable or not much greater.

Where did you get the stats that show "according to the stats mass shootings are really not more common now than they have been in the past decades"?

Quit dodging.

Again, define “really not more common” since you’re obviously a mind reader and know everything, oh great one!

Less, comparable or not much greater (re commonness).

Not that it matters, since it's clear you don't have any stats at all, let alone ones that show mass shootings are "really not more common" (whatever you think that means), and that as usual you're regurgitating misremembered and manufactured claptrap.

[Roy]

I suppose the next logical step is to preemptively jail people until they can prove they weren't planning to commit a crime.

By, for example, incarcerating everyone of Japanese ancestry? You lot did that once before, so it's hardly the next step.

[Roy]

In other words, your source is internally consistent. Of course it's Wikipedia, so that's par for the course.

Of course I meant NOT internally consistent

Do you have an actual point, or are you just trying (and failing) to hone your use of the genetic fallacy?