Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
The Kitchen Sink
16 dead in Germany school shooting
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ada Lovelace" data-source="post: 72354393" data-attributes="member: 354769"><p>I'm glad you agree it's common sense. Democrats have voted for similar common sense measures. </p><p></p><p>Last year the governor of Oregon - another state that has experienced the horrors of young people having their lives stolen or irrevocably impacted by shooting massacres at their school - signed gun control legislature creating a process for concerned family members and the police to petition the court to prohibit individuals presenting an imminent risk of harm to self or others from possessing firearms. The weapons are not merely seized without due process, though. In explaining the legislature, Brown stated that it's “the best way to ensure that a person who is at risk of harming themselves or others is identified, while still ensuring their rights are protected by a court review.” Brown is a Democrat, as are the lawmakers who pushed it into law by voting for it. Only one Republican voted yes. </p><p><a href="https://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2017/SB719/" target="_blank">Tracking Senate Bill 719 in the Oregon Legislature</a></p><p></p><p>The law is modeled on one adopted after a ballot referendum in 2016 in neighboring Washington, which had been initiated by a family hoping to help reduce the risk of other families experiencing a gun-related tragedy like their own. In turn, the Washington law had been modeled after one in California propelled forward after the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-new-gun-control-bills-introduced-in-response-to-isla-vista-massacre-20140611-story.html" target="_blank">Isla Vista massacre</a> and the advocacy of the parents of the disturbed young man who committed it. They'd tried unsuccessfully to have the authorities confiscate his weapons after he'd exhibited increasingly disturbing behavior and written unhinged manifestos and YouTube diatribes. He was cogent enough with the police when they came to the door to convince them he posed no immediate danger, so his parents were powerless. As a legal adult, they could not have him committed against his consent to a mental health facility, and they could not merely take his legally-purchased weapons from him. The father of one of his victims joined forces with his father in promoting the need for the law. </p><p></p><p>The laws are what are known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders. In addition to California, Washington, and Oregon, Indiana and Connecticut also have statutes that can be used to temporarily take guns away from people a judge deems a threat to themselves or others. Prompted by a number of mass shootings, 32 ERPO bills were being considered in the legislatures of 19 states (including Florida) and Washington, DC, but are, as expected, receiving significant push-back from the NRA. </p><p></p><p>At the federal level California Democrats Rep. Salud Carbajal and Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation last May that would encourage states to adopt the approach.</p><p></p><p>But, in general, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/more-killings-more-guns/541905/" target="_blank">in the United States after a mass shooting, gun laws are loosened. </a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ada Lovelace, post: 72354393, member: 354769"] I'm glad you agree it's common sense. Democrats have voted for similar common sense measures. Last year the governor of Oregon - another state that has experienced the horrors of young people having their lives stolen or irrevocably impacted by shooting massacres at their school - signed gun control legislature creating a process for concerned family members and the police to petition the court to prohibit individuals presenting an imminent risk of harm to self or others from possessing firearms. The weapons are not merely seized without due process, though. In explaining the legislature, Brown stated that it's “the best way to ensure that a person who is at risk of harming themselves or others is identified, while still ensuring their rights are protected by a court review.” Brown is a Democrat, as are the lawmakers who pushed it into law by voting for it. Only one Republican voted yes. [URL="https://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2017/SB719/"]Tracking Senate Bill 719 in the Oregon Legislature[/URL] The law is modeled on one adopted after a ballot referendum in 2016 in neighboring Washington, which had been initiated by a family hoping to help reduce the risk of other families experiencing a gun-related tragedy like their own. In turn, the Washington law had been modeled after one in California propelled forward after the [URL='http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-new-gun-control-bills-introduced-in-response-to-isla-vista-massacre-20140611-story.html']Isla Vista massacre[/URL] and the advocacy of the parents of the disturbed young man who committed it. They'd tried unsuccessfully to have the authorities confiscate his weapons after he'd exhibited increasingly disturbing behavior and written unhinged manifestos and YouTube diatribes. He was cogent enough with the police when they came to the door to convince them he posed no immediate danger, so his parents were powerless. As a legal adult, they could not have him committed against his consent to a mental health facility, and they could not merely take his legally-purchased weapons from him. The father of one of his victims joined forces with his father in promoting the need for the law. The laws are what are known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders. In addition to California, Washington, and Oregon, Indiana and Connecticut also have statutes that can be used to temporarily take guns away from people a judge deems a threat to themselves or others. Prompted by a number of mass shootings, 32 ERPO bills were being considered in the legislatures of 19 states (including Florida) and Washington, DC, but are, as expected, receiving significant push-back from the NRA. At the federal level California Democrats Rep. Salud Carbajal and Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation last May that would encourage states to adopt the approach. But, in general, [URL='https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/more-killings-more-guns/541905/']in the United States after a mass shooting, gun laws are loosened. [/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
The Kitchen Sink
16 dead in Germany school shooting
Top
Bottom