School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thermal said:
You don't think the accused might move the weapons? And I think a fourth amendment issue might come up if the authority to search is based on 'somebody says'.
Click to expand...

Not if is that "somebody's" house. If my spouse or my own roommate threatens to kill me, I can absolutely allow the police to search my own house. Search warrants are often based on nothing more than "somebody says", if that somebody is a direct witness to crimes or threats related to the cause of the search warrant.

They may move the weapons, or maybe not.
 
Last edited:
crescent said:
Not if is that "somebody's" house. If my spouse or my own roommate threatens to kill me, I can absolutely allow the police to search my own house. Search warrants are often based on nothing more than "somebody says", if that somebody is a direct witness to crimes or threats related to the cause of the search warrant.

They may move the weapons, or maybe not.
Click to expand...

True. By the time a Red Flag law became enforceable, I would think the accused would be aware enough to re-hide the guns, knowing they were going to be taken. If registered, there would at least be cause to hold him on obstruction or something
 
Thermal said:
First step to implementing any Red Flag policy would be licensing and registration. Across the board, this has to happen in any gun control scenario.

Shooting at the gun confiscators? Virtually guaranteed. Not a job I'd like. I wonder if combining smartgun technology with a remote disabling feature is practical?
Click to expand...

Probably not. Top of my head:
- A few hundred million guns currently on the street have no such device.
- these devices can be tampered with, gun parts swapped or bought out of state or country.
- these devices may fail when a gun is needed most. That will a be a big argument.
- people can make their own guns via parts purchased or custom milled. It may not be a big thing now, but I predict it would be.
 
Last edited:
It just seems to me that the mass murder psychotic types are exactly the kind who would hide guns to prevent Red Flag from taking them all away. These types would not even allow close family members to know that they had these hidden guns if they knew that Red Flag could take them away. "You can keep some guns at your house that people know about. But you must keep a few secretly stashed which are not known of by your spouse, parents, children, siblings, friends... nobody!"
 
Thermal said:
True. By the time a Red Flag law became enforceable, I would think the accused would be aware enough to re-hide the guns, knowing they were going to be taken. If registered, there would at least be cause to hold him on obstruction or something
Click to expand...
Hold him in jail for obstruction when they don't "find all of his guns"? How long in jail and until what?

Sir, your girlfriend has Red Flagged you. That's why we are here for your guns. She says you have five guns but we can only find four. Where is the fifth gun?

I don't know.

We are going to keep you in jail until you tell us where is that fifth gun. We don't care if it takes 10 years, we will hold you until you tell us. Now where is that fifth gun?

I don't know.
 
What would Cruz have done if Florida had Red Flag?

He sort of always knew he wanted to be a school shooter. Maybe he wouldn't have talked about killing online if he knew Red Flag would take his guns. Maybe he would have deeply hidden the AR-15 knowing that Red Flag is always looming. Maybe if he anticipates Red Flag Dudes coming then he shoots up the school right now because it can't wait until tomorrow.
 
William Parcher said:
Hold him in jail for obstruction when they don't "find all of his guns"? How long in jail and until what?

Sir, your girlfriend has Red Flagged you. That's why we are here for your guns. She says you have five guns but we can only find four. Where is the fifth gun?

I don't know.

We are going to keep you in jail until you tell us where is that fifth gun. We don't care if it takes 10 years, we will hold you until you tell us. Now where is that fifth gun?

I don't know.
Click to expand...

These are intended to be temporary. You might hold him, but only until the immediate threat has passed.
The battered spouse move out.
Or, the battered spouse removes the abuser's stuff from the house and changes the locks.
The restraining order is put in place.
The meds take effect
The mental health evaluation says that you are no longer a threat
That kind of thing.

Once the immediacy of the danger passes, the guns would be returned anyway, unless there was enough of a crime to trigger prosecution. Lots of restraining orders never result in prosecution. Red Flag holds are really just a different sort of restraining order, or an additional criteria added to the existing process of creating restraining orders.

And again, none of us know how many people would hide the guns. We just don't know that. They may not be aware that the red flag hold is even coming until the authorities show up to enforce it. That can lead to a temporary seizure of the guns, with the person still able to go through the courts to get them back.

It is not a perfect concept. It does not need to be. It has been working for decades in some places.

You can dig through the concept here:
Extreme Risk Protection Orders
 
William Parcher said:
I think that the Red Flag is a good idea and should be used and improved if possible.

I also think that it will be circumvented by some and that those cases will be made prominent (His guns were taken away but he had one more hidden from everyone). I also think that some of the guys who "come to remove the Red Flag guns" will get shot.
Click to expand...

I think all of that is pretty much on point. It's a useful but imperfect tool that can prevent some but not all tragedies. After more states implement them we'll have more data in a few years and can make adjustments to the laws as needed. I'm assuming the Red Flag laws won't be exactly the same in every state so we'll be able to compare the different models after a while.
 
William Parcher said:
Hold him in jail for obstruction when they don't "find all of his guns"? How long in jail and until what?

Sir, your girlfriend has Red Flagged you. That's why we are here for your guns. She says you have five guns but we can only find four. Where is the fifth gun?

I don't know.

We are going to keep you in jail until you tell us where is that fifth gun. We don't care if it takes 10 years, we will hold you until you tell us. Now where is that fifth gun?
....
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's not how it would work. The girlfriend could be mistaken or maliciously wrong. The guy might have sold a gun and forgotten about it. It might have been stolen without his knowledge. What I suspect would happen would be that the police would conduct a thorough search -- either by the authority of the court order, or with the guy's permission, or with a warrant -- and would either find other guns or determine that there weren't any. Nobody would need to go to jail as long as they cooperate.
 
Bob001 said:
I'm pretty sure that's not how it would work. The girlfriend could be mistaken or maliciously wrong. The guy might have sold a gun and forgotten about it. It might have been stolen without his knowledge. What I suspect would happen would be that the police would conduct a thorough search -- either by the authority of the court order, or with the guy's permission, or with a warrant -- and would either find other guns or determine that there weren't any. Nobody would need to go to jail as long as they cooperate.
Click to expand...

This sort of thing was in the news - today. Gotta watch out for the pretty ones, I guess.
 
Florida has just passed a bill which includes raising the gun buying age from 18 to 21, and a ban on bump stocks, and allowing at least some teachers to be armed in school. The Governor can still veto the bill.
 
Thermal said:
Yes, you did. From your post #2728, for example:

Quote:
But even more importantly, where the vast mass of the US shootings each year are NOT spree shooting such as that in the Florida school, but are instead the sort of incidents I described above where a home owner has simply taken his guns and decided for various reasons to shoot at people …
Click to expand...


Well, without reading the rest of your post – the above (which is what you accused me of saying earlier on this page), most definitely does NOT say what you claimed I had said! And it very obviously does not say it! :eye-poppi

Your quote above simply talks about the vast mass of all the shootings each year (where spree shootings are only a tiny a fraction), and it just says that the vast majority of those shootings are of course (inevitably) cases where a gun owner has his guns in the home and simply takes the guns from his home to shoot at people …

... it does not say one single word about what you had accused me of when you were talking about what I had earlier said about the fact that many shooting cases each year will we inevitably be cases where the shooter was intoxicated or under the influence of drugs (which is inevitable amongst 100,000 shooting cases each year ... murders + suicides + woundings etc.).

OK, so just to repeat for absolutely clarity - that quote you just gave does NOT show in any way whatsoever what you had said about my earlier statements re. the involvement of drink or drugs.


Just for easy reference, here's that actual exchange with what each of us said -

Originally Posted by Thermal -
Apologies if it sounded like I was taking offense, I certainly don't. You seem to be saying that you think a large percentage of killings in the US are impulsive, fuelled by drinking or anger, and I really think that is not the case. While it is for sure possible, in practice the gun owners statistically do so very rarely. The gun problem in the US, and it's a big one, overwhelmingly revolves around suicide and street crime.

Reply by IanS -
No, I am not saying it's a large percentage of all the cases (I don't think I actually said that, did I?). I have no guess as to what percentage it might be. However, I am saying it's probably a large number of cases ... the point being that with so many US gun owners and so many shooting cases each year (not just all homicides, but also the much less reported cases of wounding or shooting where people might very easily have been wounded or killed), it's virtually certain amongst such large numbers that many of the cases will involve shooters who are either intoxicated or else high on drugs.
 
crescent said:
Times have changed...and not for the better.
Click to expand...

It may be worth noting that the ACLU was praising the NRA not too long ago for changing the meaning of the 2nd Amendment from addressing militia rights to addressing individual rights.

I also hear that the NRA changed directions rather dramatically from being nonpartisan after the far right effectively staged a coup, at which point it began its concerted efforts to change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. The NRA still does a lot of good stuff, even now, but it also does so much bad now, too.
 
Last edited:
IanS said:
Well, without reading the rest of your post – the above (which is what you accused me of saying earlier on this page), most definitely does NOT say what you claimed I had said! And it very obviously does not say it! :eye-poppi

Your quote above simply talks about the vast mass of all the shootings each year (where spree shootings are only a tiny a fraction), and it just says that the vast majority of those shootings are of course (inevitably) cases where a gun owner has his guns in the home and simply takes the guns from his home to shoot at people …

... it does not say one single word about what you had accused me of when you were talking about what I had earlier said about the fact that many shooting cases each year will we inevitably be cases where the shooter was intoxicated or under the influence of drugs (which is inevitable amongst 100,000 shooting cases each year ... murders + suicides + woundings etc.).

OK, so just to repeat for absolutely clarity - that quote you just gave does NOT show in any way whatsoever what you had said about my earlier statements re. the involvement of drink or drugs.


Just for easy reference, here's that actual exchange with what each of us said -

Originally Posted by Thermal -
Apologies if it sounded like I was taking offense, I certainly don't. You seem to be saying that you think a large percentage of killings in the US are impulsive, fuelled by drinking or anger, and I really think that is not the case. While it is for sure possible, in practice the gun owners statistically do so very rarely. The gun problem in the US, and it's a big one, overwhelmingly revolves around suicide and street crime.

Reply by IanS -
No, I am not saying it's a large percentage of all the cases (I don't think I actually said that, did I?). I have no guess as to what percentage it might be. However, I am saying it's probably a large number of cases ... the point being that with so many US gun owners and so many shooting cases each year (not just all homicides, but also the much less reported cases of wounding or shooting where people might very easily have been wounded or killed), it's virtually certain amongst such large numbers that many of the cases will involve shooters who are either intoxicated or else high on drugs.
Click to expand...

Hold up- I'm not accusing you of anything, and I don't know why this is an argument. If you think that drunk shootings are a big problem, which would you say is responsible for more deaths, guns or drunkenness? I'll go out on a limb and say it is alcohol, from drunk driving figures alone. So the problem, based on your reasoning, is alcohol available in homes. Vast masses of tequila bottles and whatnot. So shouldn't you be railing against the primary problem, being the home ownership of alcohol?
 
Last edited:
That's another thing .. when I handle gun while drunk, when I even have gun on me when I'm drunk here in Czech Reublic .. I loose my license, and I have to get rid of the gun (it's not confiscated right away, but I can't have it anymore).
In US, even felons are only denied the purchase, do I understand it correctly ? I mean the federal law. They can still have the gun if they had it before ? Can they be gifted the gun ? I couldn't find any details on that.
And just handling the gun while drunk on public is OK, as long as you don't actually cause damage, right ?
 
Dr.Sid said:
That's another thing .. when I handle gun while drunk, when I even have gun on me when I'm drunk here in Czech Reublic .. I loose my license, and I have to get rid of the gun (it's not confiscated right away, but I can't have it anymore).
In US, even felons are only denied the purchase, do I understand it correctly ? I mean the federal law. They can still have the gun if they had it before ? Can they be gifted the gun ? I couldn't find any details on that.
And just handling the gun while drunk on public is OK, as long as you don't actually cause damage, right ?
Click to expand...



Can I ask what the penalty for carrying an illegal firearm is in Czech?

Similarly, what are the penalties in each US state?

In both instances, is the legislation enforced with vigor?
 
Dr.Sid said:
That's another thing .. when I handle gun while drunk, when I even have gun on me when I'm drunk here in Czech Reublic .. I loose my license, and I have to get rid of the gun (it's not confiscated right away, but I can't have it anymore).
In US, even felons are only denied the purchase, do I understand it correctly ? I mean the federal law. They can still have the gun if they had it before ? Can they be gifted the gun ? I couldn't find any details on that.
Click to expand...

No owning a gun is illegal for a felon. Not just purchasing. Having guns while drunk would be a state offence and might be a felony or not, thus causing you to lose your guns. For example typically it is illegal to carry in a bar even if you are not drinking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom