Gun seizure under red flag law leaves suspect dead

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Wave your hands in the air and say that it can't be done and you end up with laws like these. If you tell regular people that there is nothing we can do about insane people with guns, they will be far more likely to vote to heavily restrict all gun ownership. How about we start with suicides? Make a dent in that number and you have a HUGE impact on the number of 'gun deaths'. I don't like anyone committing suicide, least of which gun owners.

I know this is part of the bigger issue or mental health, but this is our part of the problem. Unless we come up with a solution, a solution will be made for us.

[THCDDM4]

Wave your hands in the air and say that it can't be done and you end up with laws like these. If you tell regular people that there is nothing we can do about insane people with guns, they will be far more likely to vote to heavily restrict all gun ownership. How about we start with suicides? Make a dent in that number and you have a HUGE impact on the number of 'gun deaths'. I don't like anyone committing suicide, least of which gun owners.

I know this is part of the bigger issue or mental health, but this is our part of the problem. Unless we come up with a solution, a solution will be made for us.

Okay, I'll ask again- what would YOU want to be done then? Be specific About what legislation would stop suicide by gun. Or stop crazy people from having and using firearms.

I'm all for solutions, these red flag laws are not solutions, restricting everyone's Rights for the actions of .0001% of people is not a solution.

So what would you want done and why/how would it change anything?

I'll tell you what I want- actually enforce the laws currently on the books! Novel concept. If liberal judges would levy harsh penalties for crimes where Guns are involved and stop letting career criminals out through the revolving door, that would solve a lot.

If we would ditch the failed war on drugs and spend those billions of $ on mental health support that would make another huge dent on at least 2 fronts.

Real solutions aren't wanted, just quick easy "something's" that line the pockets of politicians and criminals alike.

The problem is MUCH bigger than mentally unstable people and firearms.

[Bulletdog]

What do we do about dangerously crazy people with guns?

We arrest them, charge them with whatever crime they've committed, try them in a legitimate court of law, and put them in jail upon conviction.

Thankfully, we don't have thought crime in this country yet and we don't trample the rights of American citizens because they might commit a crime. If we did have thought crime, everyone would be in prison.

[Bulletdog]

All well and good but...is this actually how the law is practiced?

Case by case here. There are good guys enforcing the law here, and there are some bad ones too. In my first hand experience, the police here do whatever they want. They sometimes try to justify it later on, and sometimes they say: "Oops. We were wrong. Sorry about that...", and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Whether you win or lose literally depends on the officer on duty at the time and his or her mood. I don't know how it is elsewhere in the country, but here we are at their mercy and thankfully, most of them are decent people.

[MountainRaven]

High potential for abuse. Where does due process kick in?

Eventually.

[Jer]

Eventually.

But wait! Voting (R) means our guns are safe!!!!

/sarcasm

[MegademiC]

Define the goal:
Reduce “gun violence”?
Reduce violence?
Reduce mass shootings?
Mass killings?

These are all very different, but are all being used to say, take guns and it will be good.

Eliminating gun-free zones will likely reduce mass shootings, but have no impact on overall violence or even “gun violence” numbers. Frankly I couldnt care less what was used, I have a problem with people trying to kill others.

[SteyrAUG]

Yes, that is certainly going to be a consequence & abuse of this (unconstitutional) law. I would say it is extremely important to make a wise decision on who you marry. The type of woman that would do this to a man is also the kind of woman to vote straight ticket D, it is a mentality. It is the same type of woman that would also falsely accuse a man of rape. It is the same type of woman that would tell a man she is pregnant with his baby after a break up even though it is a lie. As messed up as it is, as badly as I feel for these men, they made poor life choices on who they married/dated.

Do you know the difference between Charles Manson and your ex wife? Charles Manson has the decency to act crazy when you first meet.

Seriously, young men typically aren't vetting prospective mates like the secret service looks at employment candidates. They should, but usually don't. They lack the experience and often don't have a world view that includes (even people in your family can be seriously effed up). This is the kind of thing most learn the hard way.

They fall in love, imagine the person they know remaining exactly like they are and can only envision the good possibilities. It's sad when that doesn't work out and goes horribly wrong. But just as we don't blame rape victims for how they were dressed, I don't blame men for not being able to imagine the woman in front of them as a horrible monster determined to destroy their lives. They are victims of mentally disturbed people who can present themselves as normal for a long enough time to entrap a victim.

[SteyrAUG]

We arrest them, charge them with whatever crime they've committed, try them in a legitimate court of law, and put them in jail upon conviction.

Thankfully, we don't have thought crime in this country yet and we don't trample the rights of American citizens because they might commit a crime. If we did have thought crime, everyone would be in prison.

Sure we do, that is what hate crimes are.

[Moose-Knuckle]

It's like all the good and Just stuff about our country/constitution is constantly under attack from all angles. Its sickening and tiresome.

That's the Cultural War. That is what we are up against 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Who decides what "dangerously crazy" is?

Some would call Trump voters dangerous and crazy. Some would call anyone who owns a gun dangerous and crazy, most on the left would see any of our posts on this forum as proof of being dangerous and crazy, etc.

ETA: simply taking a firearm away from a truly dangerous and crazy person motivated to hurt or kill others will not stop them from hurting or killing others, by the way. Simply makes them resort to other forms of inflicting pain or murder.

Truth bombs right here.

Wave your hands in the air and say that it can't be done and you end up with laws like these. If you tell regular people that there is nothing we can do about insane people with guns, they will be far more likely to vote to heavily restrict all gun ownership. How about we start with suicides? Make a dent in that number and you have a HUGE impact on the number of 'gun deaths'. I don't like anyone committing suicide, least of which gun owners.

I know this is part of the bigger issue or mental health, but this is our part of the problem. Unless we come up with a solution, a solution will be made for us.

Since murdering people is already banned and doesn't seem to be working I say we ban crazy people.

I'm probably the world's only advocate for self-abortion but at 7.2 billion people on this rock, I don't loose any sleep over them. In fact, I think the FDA should be like the UK .gov in Children of Men and pass out suicide kits complete with instructions, body bag, and an 800 number to call and schedule your pick-up.

Define the goal:
Reduce “gun violence”?
Reduce violence?
Reduce mass shootings?
Mass killings?

These are all very different, but are all being used to say, take guns and it will be good.

Eliminating gun-free zones will likely reduce mass shootings, but have no impact on overall violence or even “gun violence” numbers. Frankly I couldnt care less what was used, I have a problem with people trying to kill others.

Is it not telling that the proponents of such things do not push to limit the access of those deemed a danger to themselves and or others to box cutters, commercial airliners, pressure cookers, chassis cab trucks, or any other non-firearm implement that has been used in mass casualty attacks?