First Gun Confiscation Killing...

[Mountain Man]

US mass shootings with 10 or more fatalities, by decade:

1940s: 1
1950s: 0
1960s: 1
1970s: 1
1980s: 5
1990s: 4
2000s: 5
2010s: 12

There have been as many mass shootings this year as there were in previous decades.

Where did you get your stats from?

Interesting definition of "mass shooting". Why "10 or more fatalities"? Is it because that's the threshold that gives you the results you want?

Curiously, this is the very first sentence of your source: "There is no fixed definition of a mass shooting, but a common definition is an act of violence—excluding gang killings, domestic violence, or terrorist acts sponsored by an organization—in which a gunman kills at least four victims."

[lilpixieofterror]

Mental health professionals are surprisingly easy to fool if you're clever and know what they want to hear. The popular notion that psychiatrists are effectively omniscient and can know what anybody is really thinking simply by talking to them and observing their behavior is pure television fantasy.

They only truly work when someone is honest with them and if someone made up their mind to shoot up a bar. Fooling the doctors into thinking you’re okay isn’t too hard of a challenge since they are not any better at spotting liars than the rest of us are. It’s just like the drinking question that is asked at our annual medical checks. If I had a dollar for everyone I knew got drunk on their days off that said they drink 3 or less drinks per month, I’d be able to buy a Tesla.

[seer]

Mental health professionals are surprisingly easy to fool if you're clever and know what they want to hear. The popular notion that psychiatrists are effectively omniscient and can know what anybody is really thinking simply by talking to them and observing their behavior is pure television fantasy.

From what I read this guy had a drinking problem, perhaps the should have tried to get him into rehab or take away his whiskey...

[Roy]

Interesting definition of "mass shooting". Why "10 or more fatalities"? Is it because that's the threshold that gives you the results you want?

No, it's because that's the threshold used in the link I gave.

If you think a different threshold would lead to a different result - which I doubt, because I've also looked at many other sources - feel free to provide your own stats.

[Terraceth]

Really? How does that change the fact that this took place on the word of one person?

... or so claims the extremely biased article from Conservative Daily. Ironically, the claim that it took place entirely on the word of one person... is given based on the word of one person, who didn't even actually say that (all they did was say who the reporter was, not that there may not have been additional information given to the judge).

Based on my understanding of how these laws work, if someone is concerned, they petition a judge (or report it to police, who then contact a judge about it), and if the judge considers there to be enough of a possible danger based on the evidence presented, the order is given for confiscation and then a more full hearing is held soon afterwards to re-evaluate the situation. Apparently, a judge did think there was. This fact is never mentioned in the Conservative Daily article and instead presents the situation as one person telling the police and the police saying "welp, the donut shop is closed right now anyway, might as well do something."

[Roy]

How do you define, “really not more common” 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.

[Leonhard]

I don't believe this man should have been shot. But every single case of a person I've defended in these cases, weren't holding a gun and refusing to give it up. Castillo, as a counter-example, was trying to cooperate with the police officer and let him know there was a gun in the glove compartment. This was a guy who didn't want to let go of his gun.

Still the shooting is terrible.

As for due process. As far as I know a judge has to weigh the evidence and allow this happen. That's what I seem to find having done a little bit of research.

Wasn't that done?

[lilpixieofterror]

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!

[seer]

... or so claims the extremely biased article from Conservative Daily. Ironically, the claim that it took place entirely on the word of one person... is given based on the word of one person, who didn't even actually say that (all they did was say who the reporter was, not that there may not have been additional information given to the judge).

Based on my understanding of how these laws work, if someone is concerned, they petition a judge (or report it to police, who then contact a judge about it), and if the judge considers there to be enough of a possible danger based on the evidence presented, the order is given for confiscation and then a more full hearing is held soon afterwards to re-evaluate the situation. Apparently, a judge did think there was. This fact is never mentioned in the Conservative Daily article and instead presents the situation as one person telling the police and the police saying "welp, the donut shop is closed right now anyway, might as well do something."

No Terraceth, I gave two links. The Baltimore Sun made the same point, it was one person who made the claim. How is that evidence? So on hearsay you have no problem with circumventing due process?

[seer]

As far as I know a judge has to weigh the evidence and allow this happen. That's what I seem to find having done a little bit of research.

Wasn't that done?

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?

[Leonhard]

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?

Did he threaten to kill her? I can't imagine anything else that could have caused this. Though if he threatened her with murder, even if he was drunk, I believe he should face some sort of punishment.

[Mountain Man]

Easy to say when you're not the one living with the nut case. If you are going to have mental health intervention you'd better take the guns away first, don't you think?

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

[Terraceth]

No Terraceth, I gave two links. The Baltimore Sun made the same point, it was one person who made the claim. How is that evidence? So on hearsay you have no problem with circumventing due process?

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.

Okay, there are obviously differences between the two, but I found that amusing. But the more important part is that the niece's statement is simply that the aunt was the one who reported it. She didn't say that was the only evidence available to the judge (there's no way the niece could know that) or that no one else backed up the aunt's claim in front of the judge (there's no way the niece could know that).

So the repeated claim that it all came from "just one person" (1) comes from just one person (the niece), and (2) isn't what that person (the niece) actually said.

[Mountain Man]

No, it's because that's the threshold used in the link I gave.

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

[seer]

Did he threaten to kill her? I can't imagine anything else that could have caused this. Though if he threatened her with murder, even if he was drunk, I believe he should face some sort of punishment.

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