RED FLAG LAWS, NO MORE SAFETY

Another Futile Attempt

What are ‘Red Flag Laws?

Part of the new gun bill that is apparently gaining approval in the Senate is the idea of ‘red flag laws.’  These laws would allow virtually anyone to report someone as being at high risk so that their guns could be taken away.  Very much like the IRS, the person identified is considered guilty until proven innocent.  The bill includes funding for the states to implement these laws, with some wanting it as a “carrot” (funding to encourage these laws) and others mandating a “stick” (reduced law enforcement funding if you don’t implement the laws).

This idea sounds reasonable on the surface.  We know that many of the shooters, especially in schools, had mental illnesses and anger issues.  What if someone had reported them before they could attack?  Wouldn’t that be better?

Why They Won’t Work?

In nearly every case of mass shootings, after the incident, people come forward with tales of their concerns about the murderer.  But rarely did any of them voice these concerns to anyone who could do anything about it.  Even the shooter in the gay bar incident in Florida was on watch lists.  But no one followed up.  So even if we could correctly identify people who should have their weapons seized, who would actually do this?  It’s always so much easier to Monday-morning-quarterback a situation.  “I knew he was dangerous, but…”

The second problem is far more serious.  The red flag laws will be abused.  A nasty neighbor, disgruntled relative or friend, an ex all could lie and cause you to be put on a list and your guns seized.  Doubt it could happen?    History tells us that people can and will abuse laws like this. Just look at what happened during WWII right here in the US. Neighbors reported neighbors as Nazi sympathizers when the majority of those cases were unfounded and more likely the sharp end of a personal vendetta.

We’ve had a No-Fly list since 9/11.  You can’t find out if you are on it, you can’t challenge it and it’s not clear how your name gets there.  How good do you feel about this kind of law?  And it might not stop there.  Once you start seizing possessions, what would stop the government from going farther.

“If you can seize people’s guns without proving that they committed a crime, why can’t you imprison them without proving that they committed a crime? If you can take their guns, why can’t you take their homes? Why can’t you empty their bank accounts?” Tucker Carlson said.

We have some of these laws on the books in California, and even JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) admits that they don’t protect us.  In studies done by Dr. Veronica A. Pear, she found no reduction in the period studied – 2016-2019.  There are probably similar studies in other places.

The problem is always proper identification and determination of the duration of the threat.  As we don’t have “pre-cogs” as in the film “Minority Report,” it’s hard to tell who might become a threat.

A big risk is having people put on the list punitively, not because they deserve to lose their rights.  And the reverse is true.  With the laxity of the DAs in blue states, many criminals are being let go with only a slap on the wrist which wouldn’t trigger a red flag listing.

Finally, in places where criminals can’t get guns, they find other ways to kill people.  A quick search of the Internet produces lots of information on how to build bombs.  Others can do a lot of damage with knives or swords.  And most criminals do not own “registered guns,” so it is likely that no one knows who they are so they could be reported.

The crazy DAs who won’t charge criminals will be only too happy to disarm victims.  It will only get worse as those who push for more stringent laws (mostly aimed at lawful gun owners, not crooks) happily engaged armed guards to protect themselves.  That leaves us as victims.  For those living in poverty, they are far more likely to be victimized.

The Third Rail

Oddly, though the mental health and stability of nearly all the perpetrators of mass killing is called out as a problem, almost no one in the media or politics seems to feel that the solution is to focus on detecting and treating this core problem.

When you have to solve a problem, you need to be sure you are aiming at a root cause.  Otherwise, you might be putting a bandage on a problem or even doing absolutely nothing positive.

Until we ask the question “why do people killing others, particularly in the mass shooting area,” we have no chance of stopping it.  After all, killing doesn’t require a gun, just the drive to do it.