Not for gangs?
From iGeek
75-80% of gun violence is gang related, so Democrats have blocked Republicans efforts to get Red Flag laws applied to Gangs: seriously. Democrats don't want to fix the problem (that would take away their excuses to attack legal gun owners), they want to punish the innocent and make the problem worse. Their excuse was that gang databases have been found to be inaccurate at times. That's not wrong, but it's not as bad as the No-fly lists, or the error rates of red flag laws in general. So they're protecting gang members in ways that they won't protect non-gang members. That's either stupid, hypocritical, or dishonest. Pick one (or more).
Red Flag Laws |
---|
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). |