I would say because firearms are one of the top ways that humans hurt themselves and each other, including in cases involving mental health. On top of that banning other items commonly used like knives isn't feasible which explains why firearms are the targets of extra control.

false

false

Exactly.  Stats show in some areas with red flag laws the confiscation of guns MAY have prevented some suicidal people from killing themselves with guns, yet the overall suicide rate has gone up there.  Until someone can talk to the dead to ask if they would have used a gun instead of the means they used, i don't think anyone can make the statement that fewer gun suicides means those people didn't poison, drown, suffocate, hang themselves or jump from a high building or overpass (always during rush hour!).

It's no different than trying to argue gun murders instead of all murders.  Murder rates can be going up even when the rate of murder from firearms is trending downward.  Focusing on gun deaths is not the way to a solution.  It only serves to press an anti-gun agenda.

false

You are entitled to your opinion/speculation 

Why put someone through the hassle of confiscating their firearms?  If the person is locked up, they are separated from their guns.  Having to jump through the hoops to have them returned would be additional punishment.  From what people posted here, when you ask for gun back that hpd was holding for you, you have to apply for permits and go through the same background checks and waiting period.  Then there's the real question of whether or not you being red flagged is going to slow down the process while you have to get letters from doctors before you permit is issued.  All because guns frighten people.  There's no logical reason to remove the person from the place they keep guns and also remove the guns.

Why would i say LOCK THE PERSON UP if i didn't support it?  Are you trying to start another argument?

if the laws on the books don't support a mental health evaluation and detention of someone who might be violent, then the laws need changing.  it's a lot more of a solution than leaving the person to roam fee while believing taking away his gun or guns makes us any safer.

We detain people all the time for various things: investigations, DUI holding, psychiatric episodes ...  unless you're locking them up and throwing away the key without due process, no rights are being violated.  Or didn't they teach you that in the academy?

The greater the level where the government takes away/suspends someone's rights the higher level of evidence needed to justify it. That is why a detention requires less than an arrest which requires less than charging someone and less than putting them in jail. Locking someone up is at a different level than removing some of their property.

If someone were suspected of suffering pedophilia would you let them remain in a teaching position or would you remove them from the position while they were evaluated? Obviously they could still go to a park and harm someone but they would reasonably be placed on leave from the school where they would have direct access to children.

The having to get a permit to get your own gun bad is completely ridiculous but it is not a function of the red flag laws, it is their own stupid interpretation of the permit to acquire law.

Why would you say lock the person up if you didn't support it? Because it conflicted with most of the concerns of red flag laws. If I was trying to start an argument I wouldn't have asked you a clarifying question.

i don't think anyone can make the statement that fewer gun suicides means those people didn't poison, drown, suffocate, hang themselves or jump from a high building or overpass (always during rush hour!).

There is data showing that suicide attempts are far more effective than most other methods which means we can reasonably infer that if the number of suicide attempts remained the same, taking away firearms would result in some decrease in successful attempts. Many other common methods give people a chance to change their mind whereas firearms not so much.

There is data showing that suicide attempts are far more effective than most other methods which means we can reasonably infer that if the number of suicide attempts remained the same, taking away firearms would result in some decrease in successful attempts. Many other common methods give people a chance to change their mind whereas firearms not so much.

Do you bother to read the words that are spilling out of your gourd?
"There is data showing that suicide attempts are far more effective than most other methods ..."

Suicide attempts are not going to gain you any debate points.  Those are simply people may not have truly intended to kill themselves (proverbial "shout for help"). 

Until you can predict who is going to attempt suicide and who isn't, then confiscating guns over red flag petitions would be an affront to freedom for all the people you took guns from but never attempted, nor thought about attempting, suicide.

Red flag laws are not just intended to stop suicides.  Can you cite the number of people who intended to commit violence but was 100% prevented by having their guns confiscated and then left to roam freely?  If not, then you're basically relegating red flag laws to a suicide prevention program.

There's an argument to be made as to whether we have the right to stop someone of sound mind and age of majority from committing suicide.  That's what the whole assisted suicide issue is about.  If Alan wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, there's suicide by Cop, rental guns at ranges, and now 3D printable ones. 

Yeah, when you get better stats than the ones I found from CT, let me know.  There's no causal relationship between confiscating guns under a red flag petition and the rate of suicides.

You are entitled to your opinion/speculation 

no shit

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 would I do?  Handle it in-house.  Nobody else's business.  Is it the perfect solution?

Answer:  Is and was there ever such a thing? 

There is data showing that suicide attempts are far more effective than most other methods which means we can reasonably infer that if the number of suicide attempts remained the same, taking away firearms would result in some decrease in successful attempts. Many other common methods give people a chance to change their mind whereas firearms not so much.

Where is this data you speak of?

Just saying it exists is not a valid argument.  Where is it?  Who compiled and analyzed it?  What does it include?  When were the time periods studied?  What was the statistical method used to come to the conclusions you are posting as if they are fact?

You have your words and nothing more so far.  It's been that way in all the  previous red flag laws.  You regurgitate your talking points over and over, and to what end?  You have nothing to convince anyone else you're opinion resembles a solution.

This is what happens when you pin your hopes on government functions to keep everyone safe.

No matter how completely you try to shape an ADMINISTRATIVE process to identify and disarm individuals, it always comes back to government failures.

If a government official hands you a parachute and says it was packed by someone he doesn't know and checked by a government employee, would you then use it in your next jump?

The #1 thing about background checks, mental health organizations, red flag laws, firearm bans and so on is -- until the government gets their crap together and can guarantee the public's safety, people should be allowed to defend themselves.  When all else fails, you have a right to meet a threat with lethal force if necessary. 

Imagine if new York allowed concealed carry with minimal licensing requirements.

What are US ‘red flag’ gun laws?
Why didn’t they stop New York shooter?

Law enforcement officials said Shane Tamura, the Las Vegas man
suspected of killing four people on July 28 in a Manhattan office building,
had a documented mental health history, raising questions about why
he had access to guns.

Police said Tamura, 27, fired an M4 rifle in the building that houses the
NFL headquarters, killing four people, including a police officer working
a corporate security detail, and then himself. News reports said Tamura,
a former high school football player, had a note that said he had CTE,
or chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which is associated with head injury.

News reports, citing unnamed law enforcement sources, said Tamura had
two mental health crisis “holds”, which allow someone to be held involuntarily
for evaluation and treatment for up to 72 hours, in Nevada in 2022 and 2024.

Tisch said Tamura had a Nevada gun licence and used an AR-15 style
assault rifle. Tamura legally purchased a revolver in June using his concealed
carry permit, Tisch said. CBS and CNN published a photo of Tamura’s 2022
permit issued by Las Vegas police.

“Red flag” laws are intended to remove weapons from unstable people before
a violent act occurs. Sometimes the laws have different names, such as “extreme
risk protection orders” or, in Nevada, “high risk protection orders”.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/1/what-are-us-red-flag-gun-laws-why-didnt-they-stop-new-york-shooter

Additionally, another article says he did NOT pass the NICS background check.  it was flagged as having inconsistencies and placed in a HOLD status, but after 3 days waiting, the FFL was required to complete the transfer.  Another example of how a government-run program that supposedly keeps guns out of the wrong hands could not figure out this guy should have been denied the purchase.  Funny how we can find this out after the fact, but not when it could have done some good.

You can't rely on government agents to prevent dangerous people from getting guns when they have never met the people they run background checks on.  The results are only going to be as accurate as the information they have access to.

NICS is a broken system, which is why there has been a FIX NICS project for many years.  Piling on another program like red flag laws isn't going to improve things until they can get the existing programs working.  They are just piling more work and administrative overhead on top of the already bloated government agencies.

Even Vice President Biden once said, "Passing more laws when you can't enforce the ones we have doesn't solve anything."  One of his last lucid moments IMO.

Red flag laws …

Hate speech laws …

Hate crime laws …

Laws banning semiautomatic firearms …

Laws banning standard capacity magazines …

On and on …

All spring from the same totalitarian seed in our society, and all are put in place by one venomous body politic that has insinuated itself into the institutions of a free people to systematically make them unfree.

They are advocated for using one-sided logic ostensibly relating to the “public good.”

Their purpose in all cases is to be selectively applied by the authorities as weapons against those most in the way of the tyrant’s agenda.

As an added bonus, by their very enactment, they indict those they target as being deserving of the slander.

Here’s a tidbit from The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), U.K., which shared a video on X warning people about using social media, stating:

“Think before you post! Content that incites violence or hatred isn’t just harmful — it can be illegal. The CPS takes online violence seriously and will prosecute when the legal test is met. Remind those close to you to share responsibly or face the consequences.”

80 years after WWII, the Nazi’s are back in control of Germany, and now run the U.K.!

We are at war - seems more people are waking up to that reality.

Red flag laws …

Hate speech laws …

Hate crime laws …

Laws banning semiautomatic firearms …

Laws banning standard capacity magazines …

On and on …

All spring from the same totalitarian seed in our society, and all are put in place by one venomous body politic that has insinuated itself into the institutions of a free people to systematically make them unfree.

They are advocated for using one-sided logic ostensibly relating to the “public good.”

Their purpose in all cases is to be selectively applied by the authorities as weapons against those most in the way of the tyrant’s agenda.

As an added bonus, by their very enactment, they indict those they target as being deserving of the slander.

Here’s a tidbit from The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), U.K., which shared a video on X warning people about using social media, stating:

“Think before you post! Content that incites violence or hatred isn’t just harmful — it can be illegal. The CPS takes online violence seriously and will prosecute when the legal test is met. Remind those close to you to share responsibly or face the consequences.”

80 years after WWII, the Nazi’s are back in control of Germany, and now run the U.K.!

We are at war - seems more people are waking up to that reality.

It's not just Nazis.  Listen to the hatred being spewed from the so-called tolerant Left against Jews and the state of Israel. 

If anybody needs to be compared to Hitler or a Nazi, it's not Trump or his supporters.

I watched a video of some on-the-spot interviews with DNC attendees.  They were approached and asked if the Democrat Party was the party of tolerance, love and inclusion.  The respondents all said, "Of course we are. We welcome everyone whether you are Gay, Lesbian, Trans, Black, or whatever else."  Then they were asked, "What about MAGA Republicans?  Would you welcome them into the party?"  They all said things like, "No, certainly not!  We don't need people like them in our party."  It took many moments of the interviewer coaxing them to realize the hypocrisy in their statements.

Leftists/Democrats/Socialists have not changed.  They can't see the irrational contradiction between what they are and what they accuse others of being.

It's another reason we don't need government deciding who gets to have guns when they get to decide the criteria and sit on the bench deciding the cases for red flagged citizens.  Trump supporter?  No guns for YOU!!  You'll just start another insurrection!!

Yes, they are characterized by an implacable craving to assert control over others - purely for its own sake - from the most weak, twisted, Quasimodo among them, to their so-called elites.  All are the same.  You can just smell it coming off them.

This is why no reasoned debate, no phalanx of indisputable facts, no appeal to the repeated lessons of human history - nothing you can ever point out, ever “clicks,” and opens the lock of reason, understanding, and the value of human liberty, in their minds.

These things stand in the way of their pursuit of raw power, and can never be allowed, ever, and so they do not stop - until they are stopped.

They truly are the de-evolution branch of our species, and man does it show!

There is no coexistence with us, in their world, which is why no quarter can be given them, ever.

Yes, they are characterized by an implacable craving to assert control over others - purely for its own sake - from the most weak, twisted, Quasimodo among them, to their so-called elites.  All are the same.  You can just smell it coming off them.

This is why no reasoned debate, no phalanx of indisputable facts, no appeal to the repeated lessons of human history - nothing you can ever point out, ever “clicks,” and opens the lock of reason, understanding, and the value of human liberty, in their minds.

These things stand in the way of their pursuit of raw power, and can never be allowed, ever, and so they do not stop - until they are stopped.

They truly are the de-evolution branch of our species, and man does it show!

There is no coexistence with us, in their world, which is why no quarter can be given them, ever.

When people say they only want to keep guns out of the hands of those who will use them for illegal purposes, I accept their objective.

What i reject is the fantasy that such a thing is possible to any significant degree.  We already have laws on top of laws to do the same thing.  why are they not working as promised?  Why add more laws that don't actually solve the problems?  The test would be whether or not the proposed law would have stopped any specific crime that was committed using a gun.  I've never seen one that would have.

Our system does a so-so job in identifying dangerous people,  What's the percentage of success?  There's no way to know -- BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY ARE DANGEROUS.

Do you bother to read the words that are spilling out of your gourd?
"There is data showing that suicide attempts are far more effective than most other methods ..."

Suicide attempts are not going to gain you any debate points.  Those are simply people may not have truly intended to kill themselves (proverbial "shout for help"). 

Until you can predict who is going to attempt suicide and who isn't, then confiscating guns over red flag petitions would be an affront to freedom for all the people you took guns from but never attempted, nor thought about attempting, suicide.

Red flag laws are not just intended to stop suicides.  Can you cite the number of people who intended to commit violence but was 100% prevented by having their guns confiscated and then left to roam freely?  If not, then you're basically relegating red flag laws to a suicide prevention program.

There's an argument to be made as to whether we have the right to stop someone of sound mind and age of majority from committing suicide.  That's what the whole assisted suicide issue is about.  If Alan wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, there's suicide by Cop, rental guns at ranges, and now 3D printable ones. 

Yeah, when you get better stats than the ones I found from CT, let me know.  There's no causal relationship between confiscating guns under a red flag petition and the rate of suicides.

But but but maybe they were just pretend committing suicide. Go ahead and find data to support that theory.

You set an impossible bar then act like it is proof of your argument. You ask for violence which was 100% preventing because they no longer had their firearm but if I gave you an example you would claim that this meant they didn't really have it in them. I gave you an example previously of a person who planned to commit a mass shooting and you said that doesn't count because if he were really going to murder a bunch of people he would have actually done it. You aren't looking for evidence to answer a question here, you are looking to confirm your conclusion. We have had this discussion before, I have posted the data before, I don't see the point of doing it again. If a red flag reporting system were proven to reduce suicides by firearm owners by 25% would you change your mind? What about 50%?

I am pretty sure I have mentioned this before but I wouldn't support any sort of red flag law merely to reduce suicides. We have discussed before evidence that shows higher suicide rates in places with higher firearm ownership.

But but but maybe they were just pretend committing suicide. Go ahead and find data to support that theory.

You set an impossible bar then act like it is proof of your argument. You ask for violence which was 100% preventing because they no longer had their firearm but if I gave you an example you would claim that this meant they didn't really have it in them. I gave you an example previously of a person who planned to commit a mass shooting and you said that doesn't count because if he were really going to murder a bunch of people he would have actually done it. You aren't looking for evidence to answer a question here, you are looking to confirm your conclusion. We have had this discussion before, I have posted the data before, I don't see the point of doing it again. If a red flag reporting system were proven to reduce suicides by firearm owners by 25% would you change your mind? What about 50%?

I am pretty sure I have mentioned this before but I wouldn't support any sort of red flag law merely to reduce suicides. We have discussed before evidence that shows higher suicide rates in places with higher firearm ownership.

It's only impossible because reality dictates that it is impossible.  it's not my bar.  The laws are sold to us as ways to make us safer.  They do not.

You keep tryhing to focus exclusively on suicides.  Fewer "successful suicides" does not make the public safer.  Suicides by definition have one victim ... the perpetrator.  If my neighbor kills himself, how is that making me less safe?  Unless he uses explosives near others or a mass shooting followed by suicide (just examples), he's causing no violence to others.

I don't know how many ways to explain it to you.  it's not government's job to protect people FROM THEMSELVES.  If it was, Prohibition would not have been repealed and sugary sodas would require quantity limits and age restrictions.

The whole reason people are asking for red flag laws is because the people who are closest to the subject are not taking steps to make sure they are unable to cause violence under current law.  We would not need new laws if government wan't viewed as the answer to every problem.  It only takes the people whom red flag laws allow to petition for gun removal to actually take steps to solve the real problem -- what makes them unsafe to have guns?

it's another case of demanding government solve a problem that can only be solved by the people closest to the problem individual.  Guns are NOT THE PROBLEM.   The problem is we need better laws for having people who appear mentally unhealthy detained for evaluation and treatment.  I don't have anything more to add, since you can't seem to find anything of value in the 50 times I've said it.  All you want to do is argue and play like there's a solution if we only let government confiscate more guns before due process is applied.

DONE.

 

The end state of “red flag laws” is the Gestapo, is the Stasi.

On the way there, they sweep up dissidents, critics, and people who informers point out, for whatever reason, etc.

It is all very legal.

The end state of “red flag laws” is the Gestapo, is the Stasi.

On the way there, they sweep up dissidents, critics, and people who informers point out, for whatever reason, etc.

It is all very legal.

There are people today who hide their very real mental health issues even though they may want to seek treatment. They don't want to risk their 2A rights, so they talk themselves into thinking they can handle whatever the problem is -- or they self-medicate with illegal drugs and/or alcohol.

Imagine how much more carefully one might try to hide their problems under red flag laws -- to prevent even their closest friends and relatives from finding out.  The more power you give the state to take away individual rights, the more people will refuse to seek professional help.

There are people today who hide their very real mental health issues even though they may want to seek treatment. They don't want to risk their 2A rights, so they talk themselves into thinking they can handle whatever the problem is -- or they self-medicate with illegal drugs and/or alcohol.

Imagine how much more carefully one might try to hide their problems under red flag laws -- to prevent even their closest friends and relatives from finding out.  The more power you give the state to take away individual rights, the more people will refuse to seek professional help.

I just always begin with the hard-earned knowledge that literally everything they propose is designed to open a wormhole to hell.

Everything.

So people allow the passage of such a law, carefully spelling out mental / social / association criteria for triggering the law to void the 2A rights of the individual.

Then along comes an apparatchik who labels traditional Catholics (those say, fighting to keep the Latin Mass alive, etc.) as an extremist group (actually happened already), and interestingly, it seems that association with extremist groups is a criteria for triggering said red flag law against any so-designated individual.

Boom traditional Catholics are targeted for firearm confiscation.

That’s how it ALL works, for everything they do, in one way or another.

Example

Step 1. They scream for years that Marriage is discriminatory.  The system (preposterously) capitulates to them.

Step X. Now trannies in full drag are demanding to read stories at the public library to tiny children.  Biological males labeling themselves as “female” are beating the shit out of your daughters figuratively AND literally.  Those who speak out are called “haters.”

So I repeat, as it can’t be said enough:

Literally everything they propose is designed to open a wormhole to hell. EVERYTHING.