Red flag warnings

[bts09]

for those who think more laws and gun bans will curb violence , look to Chicago. certainly hasn't done any good there

Or maybe it has. This is one of the inherently difficult issues with the gun control argument--we can see when laws don't work to prevent shootings, but we don't have any visibility into when they DO work. Who knows. As bad as the violence is in Chicago, maybe it would be worse if there weren't the restrictive laws there are. Maybe background check laws have stopped would-be shooters. Maybe the 1994 assault weapons ban has saved thousands of lives.

No law is going to stop all instances of a crime. The question is balancing the restrictiveness of the law against the benefit gained.

 

[antelopedundee]

just saw where there are four dead in California from a mass stabbing incident .

look out guys, now they got their eyes on yer butter knives.

for those who think more laws and gun bans will curb violence , look to Chicago. certainly hasn't done any good there

They just buy them outside of the city and bring em back in.

 

[antelopedundee]

That's because they have not corrected or tackled the root problems.

In Chicago, much like other big cities, the gangs and their members want gun control. They want power and the advantage over others. So, if they eliminate law abiding citizens guns, they have an edge. The violence will not stop, and has not stopped by taking guns away because they want/need the violence to survive and gain power. Gangs and thugs like/want the lawlessness. Many of them have been conditioned to it and can not break away. Even in the prisons, without guns there is a hierarchy and to a degree lawlessness.

They need the military to go in and clean up that mess. Same with LA and other large cities.

 

[antelopedundee]

I have said for a few years now that this is a solution in search of a problem.

Fact is that gun violence is a problem that is so statistically insignificant that it wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for people wanting to ban guns.

How many people in the US died from dropping an electronic device into the sink or bath tub? Where is the outrage and demand for action?

Too bad we as a society can’t spend this amount of time and effort on real problems that will effect most people on his forum.

Gun violence is one form of cause of death. Generally it tends to be on the dramatic side. The kick in the nuts is that as a COD it's far greater here than in many other places in the world. Access to guns is far easier here than in most of the rest of the world. Also I don't need a CDC study to tell me that.

 

[antelopedundee]

Also, how many times has it been documented where someone is arrested, their firearms seized, the arrestee tried and acquitted and their firearms never returned to them simply because some LEO refused to do so in spite of court order/s compelling said LEO to do so?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Also, how many times has it been documented where someone is arrested, their firearms seized, the arrestee tried and acquitted and their firearms never returned to them simply because some LEO refused to do so in spite of court order/s compelling said LEO to do so?

A good question but only if we also ask for the numbers of returned as well. Otherwise it just a list of anecdotes.

Also, if I am innocent of some criminal charge and spend $100,000 to defend myself and get the acquittal, how much does the return of a $600 gun matter at that point. Permanent Seizures of cars and cash are far more egregious in many circumstances.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

In the wake of two mass shootings the brilliant minds in Hollywood are releasing this blockbuster. The Cultural problem starts in the Hollywood aka the devils playground. What is wrong with people?

https://www.theepochtimes.com/movie...ted-to-hit-theaters-in-september_3033214.html

 

[antelopedundee]

A good question but only if we also ask for the numbers of returned as well. Otherwise it just a list of anecdotes.

Also, if I am innocent of some criminal charge and spend $100,000 to defend myself and get the acquittal, how much does the return of a $600 gun matter at that point. Permanent Seizures of cars and cash are far more egregious in many circumstances.

Compliance with an order or directive doesn't need to be acknowledged or given an atta boy since it is expected to be done.

The point is that if your guns are seized under RF there is no guarantee that you will ever get them back. That would need to be included in ANY RF legislation as well as some sort of recourse if the person bringing about the RF action does so for nefarious or revengeful reasons.

Also it's possible that a person whose firearms were impounded could seek to inflict harm upon the person who turned them in.

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

Compliance with an order or directive doesn't need to be acknowledged or given an atta boy since it is expected to be done.

The point is that if your guns are seized under RF there is no guarantee that you will ever get them back. That would need to be included in ANY RF legislation as well as some sort of recourse if the person bringing about the RF action does so for nefarious or revengeful reasons.

Also it's possible that a person whose firearms were impounded could seek to inflict harm upon harm the person who turned them in.

In which case it would seem that they likely deserved to be turned in don't you think? These are the people that concern me and I would hope that person never gets their firearms back.

 

[antelopedundee]

In which case it would seem that they likely deserved to be turned in don't you think? These are the people that concern me and I would hope that person never gets their firearms back.

Likely so, but it's only assurance that they won't harm you with those specific weapons and no assurance against harm by other means. TROs get violated every day. Do what you feel you need to do, but be aware that there may be unintended consequences as a result of your action/s.

 

[Pelican]

These are the people that concern me and I would hope that person never gets their firearms back.

Yet we as a society let convicted rapists, murders, and child molesters out of prison. What sense does it make to punish someone forever because they may commit a crime while releasing other people that have a history of committing violent acts?

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

Yet we as a society let convicted rapists, murders, and child molesters out of prison. What sense does it make to punish someone forever because they may commit a crime while releasing other people that have a history of committing violent acts?

Fair enough, I should haven't have said "never". I hope that person doesn't get their firearms back until they are no longer a danger to others. I'll let someone else figure out how long that might be.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Compliance with an order or directive doesn't need to be acknowledged or given an atta boy since it is expected to be done.

The point is that if your guns are seized under RF there is no guarantee that you will ever get them back. That would need to be included in ANY RF legislation as well as some sort of recourse if the person bringing about the RF action does so for nefarious or revengeful reasons.

Also it's possible that a person whose firearms were impounded could seek to inflict harm upon the person who turned them in.

I am not saying we need to give recognition for return, what I am saying is we need some sense of the scale of the problem. If 5 guys get hosed but it works fine for 50,000 then that is a pretty darn efficient system. But if 10 guys get hosed and 1 works the way it is supposed to that is a problem. In a country with 350 million people, having 4 or 5 anecdotal stories floating around the internet is just not a good basis for policy consideration.

And yes, gun owners should help in the drafting to make sure that quick hearings, effective return processes and consequences for bad faith accusers are part of it. But my guess is they will boycott and be stuck with the gun hater version. (See Obamacare).

 

[hossblur]

Of course gun owners don't want a part in writing legislation leading to gun seizure. How is that bad.

Same as non Obama care supporters didn't want to attach their names to a failure insurance scam.

The premise of red flag rules is that YOU ARE GUILTY WITHOUT HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME.

My mom about died once when she asked how much ammo I owned during the Clinton, Michigan militia vs.

Over 10, 000 rounds apparently sounded real hard core to even my own mom. Now let's not forget all the buildings listening to calls in Utah. Microsoft admitting today they lusten to Skype. Etc, and so on.

My definition of what's normal, a guy, and 2 kids who shoot a lot owning 10k in ammo, vs someone anti gun to start with, suddenly I'm a flag.

To not be i have to shut down my business, hire a lawyer, hire a psych, spend time in a court, agree to law enforcement confiscating my firearm and those 10k bullets.

And why? Because someone who doesn't like my lifestyle flags me as a possible danger?

Sorry friends, but in America you are not required as a citizen to carry "papers"

I get there were/are shootings. But no where in the founding law in this country is it written your innocent unless CNN broadcasts a shooting.

Takes 3 months for Utah to decide if I drew a deer tag. Sorry I don't trust them to quickly decide I'm not a danger and return my property quickly.

Last. We all know way to many bad divorces in which one side uses the courts to financially punish the other. This just expands that.

 

[Rzrbck918]

I think it was Oliver Wendell Holmes that said hard cases make bad law. There is certainly a risk of the law being written too broadly and inordinate numbers of innocent people being temporarily deprived of rights. But that is what the legislature is easily capable of fixing after the fact. I thinks it’s unlikely we will get it right the first time. I would like to see something put in place and adjusted as we see it in action. I know those of us in more conservative states are probably more comfortable trusting our legislators to make adjustments to gun laws than others. Many of the fears expressed concerning RF laws can be allayed with a carefully crafted bill written by cautious, principled legislators.

 

[Rzrbck918]

Of course gun owners don't want a part in writing legislation leading to gun seizure. How is that bad.

Same as non Obama care supporters didn't want to attach their names to a failure insurance scam.

The premise of red flag rules is that YOU ARE GUILTY WITHOUT HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME.

My mom about died once when she asked how much ammo I owned during the Clinton, Michigan militia vs.

Over 10, 000 rounds apparently sounded real hard core to even my own mom. Now let's not forget all the buildings listening to calls in Utah. Microsoft admitting today they lusten to Skype. Etc, and so on.

My definition of what's normal, a guy, and 2 kids who shoot a lot owning 10k in ammo, vs someone anti gun to start with, suddenly I'm a flag.

To not be i have to shut down my business, hire a lawyer, hire a psych, spend time in a court, agree to law enforcement confiscating my firearm and those 10k bullets.

And why? Because someone who doesn't like my lifestyle flags me as a possible danger?

Sorry friends, but in America you are not required as a citizen to carry "papers"

I get there were/are shootings. But no where in the founding law in this country is it written your innocent unless CNN broadcasts a shooting.

Takes 3 months for Utah to decide if I drew a deer tag. Sorry I don't trust them to quickly decide I'm not a danger and return my property quickly.

Last. We all know way to many bad divorces in which one side uses the courts to financially punish the other. This just expands that.

Hoss, I understand the sentiment completely and to a degree it is compelling but all the comparisons to other laws that have been passed fail to contend with the extraordinary reality that others may be deprived of the most basic of rights to live in order to walk circumspectly around the right of an individual to bear arms.

With respect and not trying to be a jackass, what should we do with people who are clearly dangerous and possess both the intent and ability to do harm to others?

 

[LWC55]

Hoss, I understand the sentiment completely and to a degree it is compelling but all the comparisons to other laws that have been passed fail to contend with the extraordinary reality that others may be deprived of the most basic of rights to live in order to walk circumspectly around the right of an individual to bear arms.

With respect and not trying to be a jackass, what should we do with people who are clearly dangerous and possess both the intent and ability to do harm to others?

Make a law that people who are clearly dangerous and possess both the intent and ability to do harm to others can be arrested for said law.....and evaluated. If a person is that dangerous, don't just take away their gun. Do you also take away their car, their father's guns, their friends' guns? If they are seriously that dangerous, get them out of society. Gun rights don't be taken away from law abiding citizens in order to accomplish this.

 

[MO Betta]

There is certainly a risk of the law being written too broadly and inordinate numbers of innocent people being temporarily deprived of rights. But that is what the legislature is easily capable of fixing after the fact. I thinks it’s unlikely we will get it right the first time.

You give the legislature entirely too much credit.

 

[bushman13]

5150 laws are already in place

Hoss, I understand the sentiment completely and to a degree it is compelling but all the comparisons to other laws that have been passed fail to contend with the extraordinary reality that others may be deprived of the most basic of rights to live in order to walk circumspectly around the right of an individual to bear arms.

With respect and not trying to be a jackass, what should we do with people who are clearly dangerous and possess both the intent and ability to do harm to others?

 

[Losing_Sanity]

I think it was Oliver Wendell Holmes that said hard cases make bad law. There is certainly a risk of the law being written too broadly and inordinate numbers of innocent people being temporarily deprived of rights. But that is what the legislature is easily capable of fixing after the fact. I thinks it’s unlikely we will get it right the first time. I would like to see something put in place and adjusted as we see it in action. I know those of us in more conservative states are probably more comfortable trusting our legislators to make adjustments to gun laws than others. Many of the fears expressed concerning RF laws can be allayed with a carefully crafted bill written by cautious, principled legislators.

Its harder to change, repeal, or stop something that is already in place. Best to not put something in that may need changes. One reason it is important to be vary careful what gets "given up."

There are already laws that need to be utilized first anyway.