For an 84 year old crossing guard, Korean War Veteran and 60 year police veteran (Stephen Nichols), had his guns seized and his license to carry revoked over someone mishearing something they overheard in a diner (he was criticizing a school resource officer in a conversation with a friend). Basically, he was complaining that a School resources/safety officer leaving his post to get coffee while school was loading would allow someone to “shoot up the school”. It was a warning about bad security processes and dereliction of duty, not a threat. No criminal charges were filed, no due process followed, but his guns and job were taken away anyways. Red Flag laws turn us into 1984, with people reporting other people over things they think they heard and thought crimes, while due process is crushed under the jack boot of leftist "good ideas" and tolerance.
There's this idea that Red Flag laws might help -- that people could flag people who are at risk and get their guns taken away from them. It sounds good, as long as you don't think about it. However if you think it through: (a) most mass shooters most don't give warnings = all false positives (b) if you lower the bar enough that the red-flag laws apply, then everyone is guilty = all false negatives (c) it only forces shooters to wait (d) they just get/steal other guns or they can go to more deadly methods (e) it's already been abused where tried (f) Think SWATting someone (g) there's never been a study that shows that they help prevent gun violence (and they've tried to find justification in the past, many times). So while I'm not against the theory, there's no practical way to implement it, that wouldn't be a cluster-fuck and worse than doing nothing. On top of that, 75-80% of gun violence is gang related, so Democrats have blocked Republicans efforts to get Red Flag laws applied to Gangs: seriously. (They don't want to fix the problem, they want to punish the innocent).