You can't. Do the criminals go down to HPD and say "hey I need a background check so I can go steal a gun or pick one up from a guy I know for dirt cheap cause it's hot"? And the mentally ill are a whole other ball of wax that we as a society are ignoring at our peril for multitudes of reasons. Too many are ignored or thrown away. Most of the time when the mentally ill commit a crime it's our fault as today nobody wants to intervene for fear of legal repercussions. The Red Flag laws are too little too late and do nothing to truly help people. It just strips people of their rights without any true evidence, just the word of another under a secret court order. Think FISA for the people. If the gov't wants to help then pick them up and give them a 72 hour psyc hold. Oh, but you can't because it infringes on their civil rights and due process. But it's ok to strip them of their rights to own a firearm without due process.

But even 4th amendment violations make their way through a legal system and the "victim" is at least accused of a crime, not a "pre-crime". People aren't pulled over for going the speed limit, but the officer says they MIGHT be in the future.

If LEO is not going to prosecute, why are we even bothering? What purpose does it serve? Other than to impose a burden on the citizenry.

What are the effectiveness of gun laws? Ask Brazil which is it's own country with "secure" borders and stricter gun laws.
What about india?
As of present day, the gun laws in India are one of the most stringent in the world. Any ordinary citizen in India cannot just go to a shop and buy a gun. The strict draconian laws in India on arms control have made it nearly impossible for an ordinary citizen to own a gun. Nevertheless, the procedure for acquiring a gun is laid down clearly by the Arms Act, 1959 under Chapter III.
●       First and foremost, to own a gun in India, a civilian needs to be minimum 21 years of age. An application form needs to be filled by the applicant which asks about his or her past criminal behaviour. Guns are for only three purposes: crop protection, sport and self defence. For a self- defence license, a civilian has to prove imminent threat to life. Protection can also be from wild animals.
●       Other than that, certain documentation is necessarily required of the applicant- identity proof, residence proof, proof of age, proof of education, residence proof, 4 photographs, last three years’ income tax returns, character certificate after verification from eminent members in the locality, health certificates both mental and physical.
●       The next step involves the police performing applicant’s strict background check for 2 months. Interviewing the applicant and his family, his neighbours, checking his mental health history, behaviour towards others- suppressive or aggressive , domestic violence etc.
●       The recorded interviews are then sent to the Criminal Branch and National Crime Record Bureau for record keeping. It is after this that the licensing authorities interview the applicant and the reason for their approval or declining of license is also documented.
●       The applicants whose applications are approved have to observe mandatory arms handling course whereby they learn safe handling, firing and transporting a gun.
●       The license granted has to be renewed after every three years. Since owning a gun in India is only a privilege and not a right, the Government reserves the right to confiscate such weapons at any time.
●       In case a civilian intends to procure a gun from a factory, more documentation is required- residential proof, the factory must possess a transportation license to transfer a gun, and a mandatory No Objection Certificate for the factory owner and the police. This process requires a month after which it has to be produced for inspection and record keeping.
●       It is mandatory for any person carrying a gun to carry it in a holster or a rucksack in case of rifles.
/quote]

Using other countries  does make for stronger arguments about the effectiveness of gun control laws since they are closer to a closed system. There are clear examples of places with strict gun control and very low gun deaths and there are also clear examples of places with struct gun control and very high gun deaths which to me clearly indicates that there are some much more significant factors at play. However, generally speaking, places with stricter gun control laws have lower rates of gun crime than those which don't. That is something in the data and I think we have to acknowledge it even though we can point out the examples that don't fit in line with the data.

Well evidently some criminals are applying for background checks despite a criminal history precluding them from purchasing a firearm, or they are lying on the forms (a criminal act)(Nobody said criminals were smart). I don't think the red flag type laws are too little too late. Take the mental health evaluation law Hawaii has (This is not something to say that works well. Case in point: I have a friend whose 11 year old son needed some counseling and the counselor said the whole family should be part of it to help the child. Well, during the background check for his LG permit, the record came up and he received a notice to surrender his firearms. The adult did nothing wrong except try to help his son. It took a couple of thousand dollars and a lawyer to fix the problem. And I'm sure this is not the only time it's happened, but not everyone has the resources to fight it.) . Cops observe behavior or hear report by witness, they call a psychologist, and the psychologist can authorize the police to take the person into custody against their will and take them to a mental health institution (Really? They just send a notice to surrender the firearms or send the HPD to confiscate. I'm yet to hear where they just take the person in and leave the firearms. The State could give a crap about people mental health and personal well-being. Just look at the homeless situation. Also look at the way Red Flag laws can be abused: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/09/democrat-send-police-in-tactical-gear-to-mans-house-over-a-meme/#axzz6184UqJTH with this being the most recent. Don't forget the Maryland man who was killed over a Red Flag incident.). They are taking away a constitutional right for a period of time. Sometimes it saves a life and sometimes the person is released and hurts themselves or someone else. It isn't a guarantee by any means but I don't think it can be said that it does nothing to help people.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is in essence a pre-crime yet it is an arrest able offense. Say police find out an individual has a plan to blow up a building and the person has bought all the parts and they have diagrams and photos of the target, etc. Police can say the person was going to commit a crime and arrest them and obtain a conviction. Not in all cases but in some of the active shooter incidents there were a lot of red flags and they were never acted upon. (I agree that conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. But the result should be arrest, not firearm confiscation and leave the person. That's about the same as towing the car but leaving the drunk driver in the road. And yes in some cases, an active shooter had lots of red flags going up and nobody did anything to intervene. Some of that attitude has been helped by government saying only they can fix the problem and by lawsuits from the accused.)

Imagine this scenario: You have a brother who has serious schizophrenia but has never been officially diagnosed. This brother also shows signs of paranoia and anger issues. This brother just got fired from his job and has been making comments about how life isn't worth living. This brother just went out and bought firearms and large amounts of ammo. He has made comments to you that his pain will soon be over and the people who were mean to him at work will soon feel his pain. In this scenario, this man is clearly exhibiting multiple serious red flags but so far he hasn't made any specific threat to meet a criminal act. Now absent a red flag type law, what avenue would you as a regular citizen have to intervene before something goes wrong? Should anyone intervene at all? (Actually this almost exact scenario has happened to me. Just not my brother. My friend was allegedly acting suspiciously, depressed and angry and his girlfriend called LEO because she was worried he would hurt himself. LEO showed up and took him in for a 3-day psych hold. The LEO asked him if he had firearms and he said yes. What happened, LEO contacted me to take possession of the firearms, which I did {a non-prohibited person} and I held them until I was contacted by LEO and mental health to return them.)

Are you asking why not all denials are investigated and prosecuted? If I understand it, not all denials indicate an actual crime. If a convicted crazy person applies for a background check and is denied but told the truth on the form then there is probably no crime to charge them with.
Reviews by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in fiscal 2017 led to 112,000 gun-purchase denials because people were in forbidden categories, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) investigated 12,700 of those cases.
How many of the investigated cases resulted in prosecutions? Twelve. That’s 0.09 percent of the cases ATF investigated.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf
At the state level, officials from 10 of 13 selected states said they did not investigate or prosecute firearm denials, some citing competing resource demands and the lack of statutes with which states prosecute as reasons. The remaining 3 states (Hawaii IS NOT one of them?) investigated a high proportion of firearms denials. One of the 3 states reported about 1,900 referrals for prosecution in 2017 and about 470 convictions

Quote

What are the effectiveness of gun laws? Ask Brazil which is it's own country with "secure" borders and stricter gun laws.
What about india?
As of present day, the gun laws in India are one of the most stringent in the world. Any ordinary citizen in India cannot just go to a shop and buy a gun. The strict draconian laws in India on arms control have made it nearly impossible for an ordinary citizen to own a gun. Nevertheless, the procedure for acquiring a gun is laid down clearly by the Arms Act, 1959 under Chapter III.
●       First and foremost, to own a gun in India, a civilian needs to be minimum 21 years of age. An application form needs to be filled by the applicant which asks about his or her past criminal behaviour. Guns are for only three purposes: crop protection, sport and self defence. For a self- defence license, a civilian has to prove imminent threat to life. Protection can also be from wild animals.
●       Other than that, certain documentation is necessarily required of the applicant- identity proof, residence proof, proof of age, proof of education, residence proof, 4 photographs, last three years’ income tax returns, character certificate after verification from eminent members in the locality, health certificates both mental and physical.
●       The next step involves the police performing applicant’s strict background check for 2 months. Interviewing the applicant and his family, his neighbours, checking his mental health history, behaviour towards others- suppressive or aggressive , domestic violence etc.
●       The recorded interviews are then sent to the Criminal Branch and National Crime Record Bureau for record keeping. It is after this that the licensing authorities interview the applicant and the reason for their approval or declining of license is also documented.
●       The applicants whose applications are approved have to observe mandatory arms handling course whereby they learn safe handling, firing and transporting a gun.
●       The license granted has to be renewed after every three years. Since owning a gun in India is only a privilege and not a right, the Government reserves the right to confiscate such weapons at any time.
●       In case a civilian intends to procure a gun from a factory, more documentation is required- residential proof, the factory must possess a transportation license to transfer a gun, and a mandatory No Objection Certificate for the factory owner and the police. This process requires a month after which it has to be produced for inspection and record keeping.
●       It is mandatory for any person carrying a gun to carry it in a holster or a rucksack in case of rifles.
/quote]

Using other countries  does make for stronger arguments about the effectiveness of gun control laws since they are closer to a closed system. There are clear examples of places with strict gun control and very low gun deaths and there are also clear examples of places with struct gun control and very high gun deaths which to me clearly indicates that there are some much more significant factors at play. However, generally speaking, places with stricter gun control laws have lower rates of gun crime than those which don't. That is something in the data and I think we have to acknowledge it even though we can point out the examples that don't fit in line with the data.

Interesting firearms statistics just at the 30,000 foot level

Denials were going up about by about 1500 per year but NICS checks were going up by the millions. 200% increase in denial between 2013 & 2017. In 2013 there were roughly 3000 denials to 6,169,832 NICS checks, a 0.048% denial rate. Compare that to 2017 with 9000 denials but had 9,941,684 NICS checks, a 0.09% denial rate. Which is a significant increase. Funny though, 2016 had 11,134,651 NICS checks run (I wonder if the election year had any influence here  ) but only around 7500 denials.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_year_by_state_type.pdf/view

Interesting firearms statistics just at the 30,000 foot level

Denials were going up about by about 1500 per year but NICS checks were going up by the millions. 200% increase in denial between 2013 & 2017. In 2013 there were roughly 3000 denials to 6,169,832 NICS checks, a 0.048% denial rate. Compare that to 2017 with 9000 denials but had 9,941,684 NICS checks, a 0.09% denial rate. Which is a significant increase. Funny though, 2016 had 11,134,651 NICS checks run (I wonder if the election year had any influence here  ) but only around 7500 denials.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_year_by_state_type.pdf/view

“Overall, the experience left me with the impression that buying a gun at Walmart is more complicated than I expected,
and that Walmart takes gun sales and security pretty seriously,” Peterson concluded after leaving the store a second
time without a gun.

A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background
check that uncovered his "admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."
:
Steinberg explained he tried to buy an AR-15 rifle this month following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla.,
which claimed the lives of 49 victims, so that he could give a firsthand account of how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the
United States.
:
"Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because
he is a journalist. 'Journalist' is not a protected class, [by the way]," the store said in an explanation made available to the
Washington Examiner's media desk.

  Yeah, I bought just before the election.   

Still a prudent decision.   Filling samdbags and not needing them is far better than the alternative.

(Really? They just send a notice to surrender the firearms or send the HPD to confiscate. I'm yet to hear where they just take the person in and leave the firearms. The State could give a crap about people mental health and personal well-being. Just look at the homeless situation. Also look at the way Red Flag laws can be abused: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/09/democrat-send-police-in-tactical-gear-to-mans-house-over-a-meme/#axzz6184UqJTH with this being the most recent. Don't forget the Maryland man who was killed over a Red Flag incident.).

(I agree that conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. But the result should be arrest, not firearm confiscation and leave the person. That's about the same as towing the car but leaving the drunk driver in the road. And yes in some cases, an active shooter had lots of red flags going up and nobody did anything to intervene. Some of that attitude has been helped by government saying only they can fix the problem and by lawsuits from the accused.)

(Actually this almost exact scenario has happened to me. Just not my brother. My friend was allegedly acting suspiciously, depressed and angry and his girlfriend called LEO because she was worried he would hurt himself. LEO showed up and took him in for a 3-day psych hold. The LEO asked him if he had firearms and he said yes. What happened, LEO contacted me to take possession of the firearms, which I did {a non-prohibited person} and I held them until I was contacted by LEO and mental health to return them.)

Reviews by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in fiscal 2017 led to 112,000 gun-purchase denials because people were in forbidden categories, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) investigated 12,700 of those cases.
How many of the investigated cases resulted in prosecutions? Twelve. That’s 0.09 percent of the cases ATF investigated.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf
At the state level, officials from 10 of 13 selected states said they did not investigate or prosecute firearm denials, some citing competing resource demands and the lack of statutes with which states prosecute as reasons. The remaining 3 states (Hawaii IS NOT one of them?) investigated a high proportion of firearms denials. One of the 3 states reported about 1,900 referrals for prosecution in 2017 and about 470 convictions

I don't know how exactly a mandatory mental health exam translates into someone losing their firearms though. If I understand it correctly the court does have to intervene.
No different than forcing someone to a mandatory mental health check to vote. It's a presumption of a crime or incompetence prior to exercise of a right. In my example, someone lost their gun rights through the mental health exam requirements... There was no follow up by HPD to determine the reasons behind his seeing a mental health professional. Seeing a marriage counselor can end up with the same results. If you seek professional help, more often than not, people are denied a right. This is not just a Hawaii problem, it's a nationwide problem. Seeking mental health professionals is not done because of the fear of losing ones rights.

Separate discussion but why do we require mental health check to exercise a right but we freely give drivers licenses (privilege) to anyone without any training requirement (except minors). Cars kill more people daily through sheer stupidity and ignorance than all types of gun crime. At least the FAA requires minimum training requirements, physical exams and crazy ass check rides before you can get your pilots license.

I agree, if there is enough reason to take away a firearm then why isn't there enough reason to detain them? I did pose this question to a lawyer and I had to admit he had a pretty good response. He told me that seizure of a person is more serious than seizure of an item. So while they both involve constitutional rights, one is more intrusive than the other.
They actually don't both involve constitutional rights. Only the firearms is a constitutional right.
If someone is picked up and held for observation under the "Red Flag Law", if they are deemed to not have any problems or issues, they are released and there is (other than being mad about it) no problem to fix. When you take away the firearms (in Hawaii), you now have to reapply for a permit for every handgun that was seized, and a LG permit to recover those. Also, if you had any grandfathered firearms, they are now gone forever. And now you can be denied your permits, because your guns have been seized under a "Red Flag"
\

I think a red flag type law (not necessarily the one we currently have) does/can help in these types of situations. Absent a red flag law I think it is harder for a member of the public to take some sort of action to start the ball rolling.
I think the firearm seizure is the wrong way to go about it. It still doesn't solve the problem of someone with a true mental health problem. If someone really want to hurt someone, they will. Ask every woman who's been killed or raped and held up the TRO to say you can't do that.


Yup, some issues there. But it still does prove that background checks do end up catching criminals and other prohibited peoples and disproves the argument that criminals never apply for background checks.
My statement holds true. Nobody said criminals were smart

They actually don't both involve constitutional rights. Only the firearms is a constitutional right.
If someone is picked up and held for observation under the "Red Flag Law", if they are deemed to not have any problems or issues, they are released and there is (other than being mad about it) no problem to fix. When you take away the firearms (in Hawaii), you now have to reapply for a permit for every handgun that was seized, and a LG permit to recover those. Also, if you had any grandfathered firearms, they are now gone forever. And now you can be denied your permits, because your guns have been seized under a "Red Flag"

I think the firearm seizure is the wrong way to go about it. It still doesn't solve the problem of someone with a true mental health problem. If someone really want to hurt someone, they will. Ask every woman who's been killed or raped and held up the TRO to say you can't do that.

As Florida says "hold my beer"

UPDATED: Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody: Government needs no proof or evidence to prohibit a firearm purchase