But the results are not a clear overall win in Connecticut,
While there were fewer gun suicides than might be expected,
people may have turned to other ways to kill themselves.
Kivisto estimated that law prevented 128 firearms suicides
and might be "attributed" to 140 non-gun suicides.

I wouldn't really look at this news as negative. We have 10 applications against 6 people and only 2 of them had their firearms taken away which means that they aren't being all granted upon any type of request. One more of them might have been granted because the cop didn't show to court but that means in at least half the cases, the courts must not have found enough cause to justify the order.  However the small sample size may mean we can't use this to understand what kind of results we may have going forward.

The scary thing is the description of the case that wasn't granted because the cop didn't show up for court. That guy sounded like it was a justifiable use of this law.

Red flag laws can be abused.  If a family member, or anybody for that matter doesn't like you for any reason, they can mess you up big time if they know you own firearms.

That's why I don't advertise.  And I tell my immediate family the same thing.

Too many karens running around with too much time on their hands.  There should be a karen red flag law.

...so why pin a petition to the subjective and untrained opinion of a person who just happens to make contact?

Red flag laws can be abused.  If a family member, or anybody for that matter doesn't like you for any reason, they can mess you up big time if they know you own firearms.

That's why I don't advertise.  And I tell my immediate family the same thing.

Too many karens running around with too much time on their hands.  There should be a karen red flag law.

Any law can be abused though. Using that Karen example, I have seen many videos where a Karen claimed, while being filmed  , that the person assaulted them.

I understand the fear of red flag laws being abused but let me ask you this question, if you had a close family member who had firearms and you saw clear signs of a dangerous mental health problem which made you fear that this person was going to hurt themselves or someone else, what would your recourse be if there were no red flag type law? Imagine this person is paranoid, thinks his family has been replaced by assassins trying to kill him, believes he needs to assassinate someone to save the world, etc. You have no legal power to take away his firearm, he can't be arrested by the police since he has not threatened anyone, he refuses to see a psychologist. What do you do?

Any law can be abused though. Using that Karen example, I have seen many videos where a Karen claimed, while being filmed  , that the person assaulted them.

I understand the fear of red flag laws being abused but let me ask you this question, if you had a close family member who had firearms and you saw clear signs of a dangerous mental health problem which made you fear that this person was going to hurt themselves or someone else, what would your recourse be if there were no red flag type law? Imagine this person is paranoid, thinks his family has been replaced by assassins trying to kill him, believes he needs to assassinate someone to save the world, etc. You have no legal power to take away his firearm, he can't be arrested by the police since he has not threatened anyone, he refuses to see a psychologist. What do you do?

What if there really were assassins trying to kill him?  What if he did have to assassinate someone to save the world?  Like say someone wanted to assassinate Hitler, but instead had their guns taken away? 

See, "what ifs" can be plaid from both sides.

Lets go down this "what if" hole.
What if said person didnt own any firearms but a vehicle. A knife? a gallon of gas?

What if there really were assassins trying to kill him?  What if he did have to assassinate someone to save the world?  Like say someone wanted to assassinate Hitler, but instead had their guns taken away? 

See, "what ifs" can be plaid from both sides.

We've answered this question a million times, but he still doesn't get it.

If someone displays signs they are a danger to themselves or others, don't confiscate their firearms leaving them free to experience their mental health crisis around others.  LOCK THE PERSON UP.  Do as many mental evaluations as needed and keep them there until they are no longer a threat to anyone.

Letting the person stay in their home is ridiculous.  And if you just put then on a new prescription to see iff it helps, again ... letting them return to their home is ridiculous.

Either the person is a threat of they or not.  If they are, why let them remain free?  Taking their guns doesn't make them safe.  It only put them through a process to confiscate their property before they've done anything to be locked up for.  That alone can piss someone off to where they do violence.

And if you think someone who had their guns taken is suddenly rendered not dangerous, then you don't understand the actual problem.  They don't need a gun to do violence.

The same problem exists, what recourse is there for a person in such a medical condition? For police to grab someone and take them to the hospital for a psych eval they need evidence of an immediate danger.

Why do red flag laws target gun owners?

Wrong, I have told you numerous times I agreed with your belief that such a person should not only have their firearm taken but should also be mandated into a mental health oriented detention so don't spread lies. Problem is we don't have that type of system in place. Obviously taking only their firearm doesn't make them no longer dangerous but it makes them less dangerous all things equal. Is it not better to have a program that doesn't go far enough than one that doesn't do anything at all?

Do you really even support such a red flag law involving detention though? All the concerns you raise about red flag laws involving firearms would still be relevant if this type of reporting were put in place to have someone detained.

Not only that, it is a greater restriction of rights as taking a possession from you is lesser than taking your freedom.