Gun control and the slippery slope

[Wolseley]

Proposed red flag laws in Michigan would allow family members of the person they deem a danger to themselves or others to call the police, and law enforcement would have the authority to temporarily take away that person’s gun for three days while they wait for a hearing, said Michigan Democratic Senator Rosemary Bayer. Following the hearing, a judge would have the power to order temporary removal of the gun for up to a year.

Gun control a priority for Michigan Democrats. What studies say about reforms. | Bridge Michigan

Democrats want to pass red flag, safe storage and universal background check laws when they take charge in January. Most research say the measures can reduce gun deaths, but much is inconclusive.

www.bridgemi.com

Gee, I can't see any scenario where this procedure would be abused.....say, like, in the case of a vindictive, angry, soon-to-be ex-spouse who wants revenge against hubby for whatever reason. All she'd have to do is call the cops and say, "I feel threatened; he said he'd use his gun on me," and *wham*! the guy loses his 2nd Amendment rights, even though he hasn't done anything, nor planned to.

The problem with these "red flag" laws is, they punish somebody not for what they have done, but for what they might do, or what they could do. That's a slippery slope of unparalleled magnitude, right there. If a guy wakes up with a headache, has a bad meeting ahead of him at work, burns his hand on the toaster, yells at his wife, and peels out of his driveway in a snit, is that "red flag" enough for the government to take away his driver's license until he can undergo a court hearing so a judge can decide that he's not a danger to himself or others while behind the wheel of an automobile?

How about if a guy has a tree-removal business and wants to take his kid with him for the day? Even though he might take every precaution to ensure the kid's safety, momma might not want the kid exposed to saws that can rip through oak, falling trees, crashing limbs, etc. So does that warrant the court taking away the guy's chain saw, or even worse, his kid, because of what could happen, however remote? How about if momma wants to take the kids white-water rafting, and the father thinks it's too dangerous? Is that "red flag" behavior enough on the mother's part to have her rafts and canoes taken away from her, because the kids might overturn and drown?

When you get down to the bottom line, these "red flag" laws aren't about controlling guns at all---they're not even about safety; they're about controlling behavior. "Do what Big Brother tells you to do, think what he wants you to think, say what he wants you to say, stay in line, don't make waves. Because if you do, you will be punished." Once you can get that established, you're suddenly living in a Stalinist police state, where people cower in fear of the government, and the KGB can smash into your house in the middle of the night and drag you off to a re-education camp for any reason whatsoever, real, imagined, or made up out of thin air.

 

[sandman]

Not just behavior …. but presumed behavior.
I may have to move back to AZ

 

[Wolseley]

Not just behavior …. but presumed behavior.

Or perhaps, as its ultimate goal, desired behavior....or even required behavior.

 

[prodromos]

Isn't the above kinda the premise of the movie "The Minority Report"?

 

[sandman]

Isn't the above kinda the premise of the movie "The Minority Report"?

THE FUTURE CAN BE SEEN

THE GUILTY PUNISHED

BEFORE THE CRIME IS EVEN COMMITTED....

 

[Wolseley]

Isn't the above kinda the premise of the movie "The Minority Report"?

I've never seen that movie, but I'll have to check it out!

 

[Wolseley]

Found it:

"The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; the Constitution is the paramount law of the nation, and consequently, any act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void."

Chief Justice John Marshall, Supreme Court of the United States, Marbury vs. Madson, 1803.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

My hospital has had people pull guns out on the ED staff. We also had one idiot threaten to bring his "Second Amendment buddies" to protest Covid screenings and that the "Rent-a-Cop" couldnt do &^#*^. He was arrested instantly because the "Rent-a-Cop" is actually Federal police officer and faced FEDERAL charges. Possessing or attempting to possess a firearm in a federal facility is unlawful and punishable by a fine, up to one year in prison, or both.

Extreme Risk Laws | Everytown

Extreme Risk laws allow loved ones or law enforcement to petition a court for an order to temporarily prevent someone in crisis from accessing guns.

www.everytown.org

Extreme Risk laws allow a judge to temporarily remove a person’s access to guns when there is evidence that they pose a serious risk. They also provide due process protections that meet the standards set by the Supreme Court. Judges may enter an emergency short-term order after family or law enforcement gives evidence that the person poses an immediate risk to themselves or others. After notifying the person, the judge must hold a hearing within a short period of time before entering a final order. The person asking for the order must prove that the other person poses a serious risk to themselves or others. That person can challenge any evidence and make their case as to why an order should not be issued. And even orders entered after a full hearing have a limited duration, generally up to one year, and can only be extended if the court holds another hearing. Case law shows that Extreme Risk laws have and will continue to withstand due process challenges: an appeals court in Florida recently upheld Florida’s law in the face of a constitutional due process challenge.

 

[sandman]

the Constitution is the paramount law of the nation

Boy.... is that is something that has been compromised ....

From what I was told... 46 years ago there was an attempt to to dissolve it ....it was thwarted. Apparently not much of the country knew about this. Information came from a person who was a senator at the time.
It appears we are currently on the brink once again ... if that goes ....so goes our country.

 

[Wolseley]

My hospital has had people pull guns out on the ED staff. We also had one idiot threaten to bring his "Second Amendment buddies" to protest Covid screenings and that the "Rent-a-Cop" couldnt do &^#*^. He was arrested instantly because the "Rent-a-Cop" is actually Federal police officer and faced FEDERAL charges.

Those people who pulled guns are criminals, and not the types of people I'm talking about. A law-abiding gun owner who carries for protection would not yank a gun on hospital staff, nor would they threaten to come back with a gang.

However, if a law-abiding gun owner who was armed happened to be in the e-room when the criminal pulled a gun and actually opened fire, the law-abiding gun owner could drop the guy before he did too much damage.

Extreme Risk laws allow a judge to temporarily remove a person’s access to guns when there is evidence that they pose a serious risk. They also provide due process protections that meet the standards set by the Supreme Court. Judges may enter an emergency short-term order after family or law enforcement gives evidence that the person poses an immediate risk to themselves or others.

So let me see if I have this straight: an unstable individual poses an immediate risk to himself or others, and the family has to A) call law enforcement; B) gather their evidence; C) go to court; D) locate a judge to issue the order: E) return to the unstable individual; F) serve the individual with the order; and G) confiscate his weapons.

I submit that if the guy is an immediate threat, by the time all this jazz has taken place, he will have already done his damage, don't you agree?

After notifying the person, the judge must hold a hearing within a short period of time before entering a final order.

With the speed in which our legal system moves? Come now, do you really believe that?

The person asking for the order must prove that the other person poses a serious risk to themselves or others. That person can challenge any evidence and make their case as to why an order should not be issued.

And I suspect that such orders will end up being enforced the same way custody cases are decided in divorce disputes: in such cases, the judge will invariably decide for the custody to be awarded to the mother, even if she's completely off her rocker, because men are brute thugs and children should always remain with mommy. If a woman asks for a red flag order on a male spouse, that guy is never going to get that order reversed, mark my words. Judges are supposed to be impartial, but after working in law enforcement myself for better than 20 years, I can tell you they're not. Especially if they happen to be female judges, because they always have an inbred distaste for firearms to begin with, and they usually identify with the woman. So even if the charge is trumped up and the male spouse is actually being railroaded by the female spouse, the female judge, nine times out of ten, is going to award for the woman. I've seen it happen too many times.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Those people who pulled guns are criminals, and not the types of people I'm talking about. A law-abiding gun owner who carries for protection would not yank a gun on hospital staff, nor would they threaten to come back with a gang.

However, if a law-abiding gun owner who was armed happened to be in the e-room when the criminal pulled a gun and actually opened fire, the law-abiding gun owner could drop the guy before he did too much damage.

"Too much damage"... so how many lives are too much???

My next door neighbor's son and his pregnant wife were both gunned down earlier this year. Was the unborn baby "too much"?

I live in the Hampton Roads area where we had the Virginia Beach shooting which killed 12 and most recently the Walmart shooting. How many of those lives are too much?

 

[Wolseley]

"Too much damage"... so how many lives are too much???

My next door neighbor's son and his pregnant wife were both gunned down earlier this year. Was the unborn baby "too much"?

I live in the Hampton Roads area where we had the Virginia Beach shooting which killed 12 and most recently the Walmart shooting. How many of those lives are too much?

Would you rather have five times the number of people killed because the intended victims have no way to defend themselves against the criminal gunman?

There are two ways to try to protect yourself from a gunman: you can cower in fear and pray that he doesn't get you, or you can be prepared and drop him before he kills a dozen people.

Which would you choose?

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Would you rather have five times the number of people killed because the intended victims have no way to defend themselves against the criminal gunman?

There are two ways to try to protect yourself from a gunman: you can cower in fear and pray that he doesn't get you, or you can be prepared and drop him before he kills a dozen people.

Which would you choose?

So give everyone guns. "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

So you'd rather live by your own fear of death and be surrounded by the bodies of the dead rather than follow our Lord.

Come to a trauma ED and watch people die from their wounds. Maybe then you'll understand but I doubt it

 

[Wolseley]

So give everyone guns. "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

'Jesus said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“It’s enough!” he replied.'
(Luke 22:36-38)

So you'd rather live by your own fear of death and be surrounded by the bodies of the dead rather than follow our Lord.

I have no fear of death; I've been close to it too many times. If I die in the next five minutes, it's more of a blessing than something to be feared. And if you're trained well enough, you can prevent bodies from piling up.

Come to a trauma ED and watch people die from their wounds. Maybe then you'll understand but I doubt it

Don't go there. I spent eight years in the military and a further 20 working in law enforcement. I've seen plenty of death. My best friend and roommate was killed when I was overseas. My unit had to deal with a perimeter breach where the interloper took out 35 feet of electrified chain-link fence with his body; the effect was similar to what you'd get by ramming a soft stick of butter through a screen door. I had a deployment which required me to dig dozens of bodies out of a collapsed building with a front-end loader. It was a hot climate. Have any idea what that smells like? Last night I woke myself up yelling because I was having another nightmare, something I have dealt with for decades because of the PTSD. Don't patronize me. I have seen things, smelled things, waded through things that were not things anybody would want to experience. I am sure you have as well.

I think we're done here. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

 

[d taylor]

Not sure what your city did for New Years, but the city (14,000) i live in, became a war zone.
This is what happens when idiots own guns and it is not going to get better.

The video is from a person who had their outdoor security camera footage from this 2022-2023 New Years.
He said in the news paper there is actually 8 hours of this, he just post a few minutes.
These people do this because they know there is nothing law enforcement can do about it.

 

[tz620q]

"Too much damage"... so how many lives are too much???

My next door neighbor's son and his pregnant wife were both gunned down earlier this year. Was the unborn baby "too much"?

I live in the Hampton Roads area where we had the Virginia Beach shooting which killed 12 and most recently the Walmart shooting. How many of those lives are too much?

I think we can all agree with you in some measure that there is too much gun violence. I think the debate here is whether red flag laws work and if not how to improve them so that guns can be removed from people intending to do criminal violence without impinging on law abiding citizen's 2nd amendment.

I live near Indianapolis, Indiana and there were two recent events that illustrate this point well. In April of 2021 a 19 year old opened fire in the parking lot of the large Fed Ex depot killing 8. In March of 2020, his mother had reported him to law enforcement and using the red flag laws, his shotgun was removed. He simply bought a gun from a private individual to get around the background check and used that rifle in the shootings. So the red flag law did not stop the violence.

In July of 2022, a man opened fire in the Greenwood mall. In less than a minute, a courageous armed young man had fatally shot the shooter, stopping the killings.

The problem I see with our current media and many in our government is that they concentrate on the gun and not on the person behind the gun. I have done enough failure analysis to know that if you try to fix the wrong root cause, you will fail at fixing the problem. This obsession with guns as the ultimate cause of mass shootings is ideological hogwash. The mentality behind it is not about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals but about banning guns for all.

 

[Wolseley]

Here's an article I read just this morning on my news feed. As usual, they point at the evil ol' gun as the scourge, and, as usual, they declare that more government control will result in fewer deaths:

The piece then invited readers to imagine a society where establishing gun control wasn’t hard. It provided the example of Canada as the embodiment of this ideal place [adding] "They have no Second Amendment, no constitutional right to gun ownership. Guns are treated the same as any other consumer good that the government can regulate."

Okay, so you want to regulate guns like ANY OTHER CONSUMER PRODUCT, and THAT will save lives, eh? Okay, let's look at that:

Gun deaths in the United States, being homicides, suicides, and accidents, total up to about 48,000+ every year. However, deaths by automobile are nearly that high, running on average between 33,000+ and 42,000+ every year, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Commission. Motor vehicles are heavily regulated by the government, but that doesn't seem to have stopped the carnage. Why not?

Far, far outstripping both automobile deaths and gun deaths, however, are the number of people killed because of medical errors in hospitals: misdiagnoses in treatment, drug mix-ups, mistakes made by doctors and treatment teams total more than 250,000 every year, according to Johns Hopkins, the CDC, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Hospitals, apparently, are unrestrained slaughterhouses compared to gun deaths, but nobody seems to be screaming for "medical care control" or banning doctors from practicing.

The conclusion is that the New Jersey Star-Ledger is basing its editorial on selective information that suits their agenda, while ignoring everything else that it can be compared to for a more balanced viewpoint. They want more gun control and they think Canada is heaven on earth? My suggestion is that they go to Canada, and stay there.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[tz620q]

Here's an article I read just this morning on my news feed. As usual, they point at the evil ol' gun as the scourge, and, as usual, they declare that more government control will result in fewer deaths:



Okay, so you want to regulate guns like ANY OTHER CONSUMER PRODUCT, and THAT will save lives, eh? Okay, let's look at that:

Gun deaths in the United States, being homicides, suicides, and accidents, total up to about 48,000+ every year. However, deaths by automobile are nearly that high, running on average between 33,000+ and 42,000+ every year, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Commission. Motor vehicles are heavily regulated by the government, but that doesn't seem to have stopped the carnage. Why not?

Far, far outstripping both automobile deaths and gun deaths, however, are the number of people killed because of medical errors in hospitals: misdiagnoses in treatment, drug mix-ups, mistakes made by doctors and treatment teams total more than 250,000 every year, according to Johns Hopkins, the CDC, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Hospitals, apparently, are unrestrained slaughterhouses compared to gun deaths, but nobody seems to be screaming for "medical care control" or banning doctors from practicing.

The conclusion is that the New Jersey Star-Ledger is basing its editorial on selective information that suits their agenda, while ignoring everything else that it can be compared to for a more balanced viewpoint. They want more gun control and they think Canada is heaven on earth? My suggestion is that they go to Canada, and stay there.

MSN

www.msn.com

I think this is making false equivalencies in many ways. Let's start with the statistic about gun deaths. According to CDC data, in 2020 there were 45222 gun deaths in the U.S. Of that number 54% were suicide. I would make the case that if the individual could not get their hands on a gun, they would have simply found other means to do it. So it is very weak trying to make the gun the culprit in these instances. 43% were murder. Murder is intentional and does not contain accidental deaths. This is different from Car deaths or Medical deaths where a majority of the deaths are accidental. In my opinion, this makes an even stronger case for bringing the murderer before a court and convicting the person wielding the gun, not the gun. So if one wants to cut down on the number of gun deaths that are murder, you should look at stopping murderers from getting guns, which is why most convicted felons have their right to have a firearm revoked.

Finally, here is a chart on motor vehicle fatalities in the U.S. over time.

If you follow the red line, you will see that the number of deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled has dropped drastically over time. This is because of the many things done to make cars safer. In this timeframe of 1900 to today, guns have become more lethal, not less. So I don't think we can say that we have made any effort to stop gun deaths by making the guns safer. All of this, though is based on the false premise driven by the main stream media that the gun is at fault for the gun deaths. We do not blame the vehicle for a vehicle fatality. Darrell E. Brooks was convicted for the parade deaths in Waukesha, WI, not his SUV. On medical deaths, the presumption is always that the death was accidental and murderous intent has to be proven. Even then, it is not the scalpel that is at fault.

We have to stop talking about this using the framework that the left uses. We should make the point that while studies show there is correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates that correlation does not imply causation.