LongtimeAZDem
LongtimeAZDem's JournalIt would appear that Clinton has won the California primary
As of the latest updates:
Clinton - 2,685,515
Sanders - 2,281,273
Unprocessed ballots - 367,556
While we don't know the final spread yet, it is now mathematically impossible for Sanders to win.
Gun Violence Restraining Order
The other day I posted an idea about a "red-flag" system, similar to a restraining order, that could have prevented mass shootings where the perpetrator was known to authorities in advance:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027935828
It turns out my idea is not original, and I really think that this is something we should be promoting:
"The GVRO process is similar to the domestic violence restraining order process and provides the opportunity to defuse a potentially dangerous situation before permanent harm is done. Under a GVRO policy, family members and/or law enforcement officials can petition a judge to have firearms temporarily removed from an individual in crisis for a period of one year. This would allow those who are a threat to themselves and/or others the time they need to get help and heal. Equally important, the GVRO allows for due process, as individuals are able to petition to get their firearms back following a brief period of time."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/a-gun-law-that-could-have_b_10610360.html
The Aurora police had the Tarasoff letter from Holmes' psychiatrist; Pima college police knew Loughner to be a danger. Similar conditions existed for most of the major shootings.
A proposal to prevent dangerous individuals from obtaining firearms
(This is my first new discussion; if I have posted it in the wrong place, please accept my apologies)
In nearly all of the major mass shootings of the past few years, the fact that the shooter posed a danger was known in advance to various authorities. Loughner, Holmes, Cho, even Lanza (though that was more complex) were on the radar, but there currently exists no system for communicating that information to gun dealers.
I believe that we need a system to provide for a "red flag", much like a restraining order, to be entered into the background check system; with proper due process, this could be implemented while safeguarding individual rights.
For example, in the case of James Holmes, his psychiatrist had alerted the police via a Tarasoff letter. If the police had been able to red-flag the background check database, Holmes would have been unable to acquire his rifles. Similar conditions existed for the Tucson, Virginia Tech, Isla Vista, Orlando, and other shooters.
To protect the rights of the individual, such a system would require real due process; legitimate evidence of credible danger, and severe penalties for abuse of the system. A person in fear of an abusive ex must be able to taken seriously; one that just wants to make trouble should be held accountable. Conversely, there has to be a reasonable process for those so flagged to clear their names.
While a system such as this would not stop gun violence as a whole, it could have prevented the horrific mass shootings like we witnessed in Florida.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Jun 19, 2016, 03:08 PMNumber of posts: 4,494