I believe that’s a reference to the sound made as a concept or reference goes right over your head…

I understand "heads"

what does "swoosh' mean to us?

I believe that’s a reference to the sound made as a concept or reference goes right over your head…

In this specific instance, you missed the (what i hoped was obvious) sarcasm -- a callback to a particular forum member's words in his/her previous posts.

It's not funny if you have to explain it.   

I thought it meant "nothing but net" as in the sound a basketball makes when going thru the hoop without touching it. 

IIRC, that would be "Swish!"

 

Swoosh.

Asking about other possibilities is called objectivity, not feelings. Beliefs are irrelevant, you don't need evidence to question whether a study took into account certain variables. This is pretty basic scientific technique here.

The real question is why are you so triggered by a simple scientific question about the results?

No, that wouldn't make much sense. Unless you want to go on some technicality of a mass shooter who only manages to wound.

My argument is that mass shooters like this need to be understood for their unique motivations, backgrounds, etc.  Calling them evil psychopaths doesn't do anything to that end. Putting them into the general murderer category provides very limited informational value.

You cannot make blanket statements about red flag laws in such a manner, I have pointed this out to you before. Each jurisdiction comes up with their own form of red flag laws, they are not all the same. One jurisdiction's laws could have due process while another jurisdiction might not have proper due process procedures in place.

I believe red flag laws can be constitutional. Again, it all depends on what protections are put in place by the specific jurisdiction.

Thank you for clarifying your position. So here is the key questions:
How do we stop these individuals who exhibit "red flags" but have not yet committed a crime but while still protecting their constitutional rights? It seemed like you were getting at court dates being timely. Were you implying that a red flag law gun revocation could be reasonable if the hearing is within a short time period? That is one of my key things for me, someone should get their hearing quickly, like 5 days or something

What can be done to prevent this?

Sounds like there was enough evidence to arrest him, and hold him without bail as he was likely to re-offend.  Give him a mental evaluation and he'd likely be held for mandatory treatment.

Hopefully the treatment or just the passing time is enough to stop further aggression.  If she still felt threatened, she may have to move and get a CCW.

Government failed by not holding this guy, making CCW so difficult to get, and spending money on stupid stuff when they should be funding enforcement and treatment.

I'd like to see a law that gives the offender jail time equal to the amount of time it takes for someone to take the training and be issued a CCW.

Either that, or add an exception to the CCW requirements for anyone that can document a potential threat to their and/or their family's safety.

If the state wants to cause CCW applications to take 3-6 months, then the person that's threatening them needs to be locked up for 3-6 months.

This case is not the first time someone died waiting for the state's permission to buy or carry a firearm.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/no-one-helped-her-nj-woman-murdered-by-ex-while-awaiting-gun-permit

I'd argue that the fishing story is better for you. 

Better to lose them in the water rather than lose them gambling with somebody who might not be legally allowed to have them.

And, if they were handguns, then you needed to sign a permit to acquire. 

If the former chief told you that, he's a moron.

Or, from an objective viewpoint, maybe we just need better laws to find out the unique motivations behind domestic abuse and how to prevent it.

What can be done to prevent this?

Sounds like there was enough evidence to arrest him, and hold him without bail as he was likely to re-offend.  Give him a mental evaluation and he'd likely be held for mandatory treatment.

Hopefully the treatment or just the passing time is enough to stop further aggression.  If she still felt threatened, she may have to move and get a CCW.

Government failed by not holding this guy, making CCW so difficult to get, and spending money on stupid stuff when they should be funding enforcement and treatment.

Thats the million dollar question. No answer is ever going to satisfy all sides and even if one side got their way, with either no guns ever or no gun restriction ever, you will never be able to stop domestic violence murders. At most you could do is put small dents in the numbers. You would probably reduce the domestic violence numbers more by addressing alcohol use more than any gun restrictions. No one ever wants to talk about restricting alcohol though. Maybe anger management counseling. Cops can show up to a DV type incident with all sorts of options from suggesting one party leave, making one party leave, arresting one (or both) parties, but counseling is not in their normal tool bag. Not unless an officer happens to be quite good at counseling people.

A lot of times TRO applications make very serious claims about historical instances but the applicant decides to go the TRO route instead of pressing criminal charges. The TRO might mention rape, attempted murder, threats, etc. but without a criminal case being made the accused wont be charged criminally.

Going for a TRO or criminal charges present their own problems though and it is impossible to tell which one, if any, will produce the better results.

If I understand the reports correctly the guy had very little on his record to justify any sort of detention. The one thing I would be interested in pursuing is, as you said, a mandatory mental health evaluation. If a TRO applicant is reporting all sorts of mental health issue type behaviors and all they do is say don't talk to the applicant or own guns then there is a missed opportunity. There are going to be some real civil rights issues though given that forcing someone into a mental health hospital is taking away their rights.

Thats the million dollar question. No answer is ever going to satisfy all sides and even if one side got their way, with either no guns ever or no gun restriction ever, you will never be able to stop domestic violence murders. At most you could do is put small dents in the numbers. You would probably reduce the domestic violence numbers more by addressing alcohol use more than any gun restrictions. No one ever wants to talk about restricting alcohol though. Maybe anger management counseling. Cops can show up to a DV type incident with all sorts of options from suggesting one party leave, making one party leave, arresting one (or both) parties, but counseling is not in their normal tool bag. Not unless an officer happens to be quite good at counseling people.

A lot of times TRO applications make very serious claims about historical instances but the applicant decides to go the TRO route instead of pressing criminal charges. The TRO might mention rape, attempted murder, threats, etc. but without a criminal case being made the accused wont be charged criminally.

Going for a TRO or criminal charges present their own problems though and it is impossible to tell which one, if any, will produce the better results.

If I understand the reports correctly the guy had very little on his record to justify any sort of detention. The one thing I would be interested in pursuing is, as you said, a mandatory mental health evaluation. If a TRO applicant is reporting all sorts of mental health issue type behaviors and all they do is say don't talk to the applicant or own guns then there is a missed opportunity. There are going to be some real civil rights issues though given that forcing someone into a mental health hospital is taking away their rights.

If anti 2a orgs like MDA, ET, and Giffords were serious about gun issues, then they would pump $ into the mental evals that you mention. On call professionals ready to come on site to make a diagnoses.  I rememeber the Ross store knife guy in his underwear was deemed competent after the incident and later killed someone.

Maybe what should be done is a new law:

Someone who makes an accusation gets an almost instant CCW, HPD provided firearm training, and they can bypass the PTA 2 week wait.  Also added in is the other party is ordered to stay away and if they do come in contact, if they get shot by the filer, then it's on them.  Also immunity from civil liability.  If they need something from the petitioner, then send a friend or family member to pick it up or call HPD to assist.  This way there's no confusion or excuse like they needed to get something from the home they both live in.  At the same time, provide a hotel for the respondent or the petitioner. 1 should stay in a hotel.

The problem would be that if the they own the home, then now the government is removing it from  them without due process.  But if they ask which one wants to stay at a hotel, then it would be voluntary.  But what happens if neither wants to go to the hotel?  This is just a thought that took 1 min to think of, so it's not like I thought about it hard.