When did you use your gun defensively?

So red flag laws are useless because they can't be enacted until after the person's adjudicated and if they've already been adjudicated any red flag law would be superfluous.

 

Nope, they can be adjudicated up to 48 hours after the gun seizure and gramps gets the help he needs.

 

Red flag laws don't get people the help they need, if they need help. All they do is take away the guns and the right to bear arms for 180 days, typically. There's no requirement that the subject of said red flag law be taken away for evaluation, offered any mental health help or for the responding officers to remove any other item that could be used for homicide or suicide.

 

Illogical, there is no reason to seize a gun when the owner has been placed into a treatment program, at that point the present threat no longer exists and the matter can be moved into the courts to be resolved at trial using due process.

 

Red flag orders are a anti-gunners dream, they bypass due process and trample on the rights of the law abiding while solving nothing, just like everything else the anti-gunners come up with.

 

But they DO take guns from the law abiding, and force those law abiding to go to court to get them back.
The anti-gun left LOVES this idea.

 

Sounds like Republicans love it too since they create red flag laws, like the one in Florida.

Nice to be able to shift the blame to "the left" though, isn't it?

 

A Red Flag law can be issued without any professional mental health knowledge of the subject. Testimony from someone with zero medical or mental health credentials is sufficient to remove the rights of the subject, and all this can happen without the knowledge of the subject who is given no opportunity to defend him or herself before their rights are removed.

 

The red flag ones are about violating someone's rights without due process it's one or the other it can't be both.

 

Part of the law is a decision needs to be made whether to refer the individual for a commitment proceeding. The police don't do that, they are on the front lines and need to decide if it is an emergency situation, as I said earlier, they will put the person in emergency detention and take the person to the ER where a doctor and usually a social worker decide if a three day admission is necessary (involuntary commitment). Commitment proceedings go from there if necessary.

 

Red Flag confiscations and loss of rights happens well before any of this occurs. A witness and a judge, who never interviews the subject, are all that is necessary to invoke a Red Flag proceeding. Nothing in a Red Flag law requires or enable the police to offer mental health services.

 

Part of the law is a decision needs to be made whether to refer the individual for a commitment proceeding. Under emergency detention the person can be held 24 hours for a psych eval.
The "witness" is generally the police report and hospital records the judge sees.

 

Red Flags don't ebable commitment, nor does commitment require a Red Flag.

Red Flags have one purpose: to allow a judge to allow the police to take guns -and only guns - away from someone that the judge has never met, or has ever had any mental health problems at all.

 

Here is a good interview with a reasonable gun advocate. I suggest you read the whole thing, but this portion....

".....Carrying a concealed gun is one thing, but this guy wanted everyone to see it. To me that’s inviting aggression or it’s just dumb posturing. I don’t buy that he’s seriously scared of being assaulted in the produce aisle.

What am I missing here?

Stephen Gutowski
Well, first, I would say there’s obviously disagreements inside of the gun-rights community about things like open carry and how some people choose to go about it in confrontational ways. I think a lot of people don’t understand the mentality of it because they look at it like, “Why do you think the grocery store is some kind of super dangerous place?” And I can only speak for myself, but that’s not how I think about it, carrying a gun. I don’t carry my gun specifically to the grocery store because I think the grocery store is going to be a place that I’m vulnerable to attack.

It’s more of a mindset of preparedness that anything could happen. Certainly, you’ve seen attacks go down anywhere in broad daylight — you can find plenty of examples. It’s not that I think it’s likely to happen to me or that I’m likely to be attacked while I’m buying eggs at the market.

It’s just the mentality of wanting to be prepared for whatever happens when I’m out in public. It’s similar to the idea of having a fire extinguisher in your home. You’re not expecting to have a fire. You have it in case that happens because you want to be prepared for it."

My thought is this person needs a gun because he feels vulnerable. Why does he feel that way? Having access to a firearm lessons his fear because he's aware others have guns.
It's the same logic behind the nuclear arms race.

 

Because every day, the anti-gun left tells gun-related violence is SO bad, we need to place even MORE restriction on the law abiding in their exercise of their right to keep and bear arms.
If gun-related violence is indeed THAT bad, it's not just logical and reasonable, but perfectly rational for someone to want to carry a gun for self-defense.

 

And very irrational to an anti-gunner living in a bubble.

 

"Anti gunner" and "irrational" have a necessary relationship.

 

People have felt vulnerable to violent attack and rightly so since Caine killed Abel. Why do we feel that way? I would say because we have a brain and are born with an instinct for sell preservation.

 

The need for lethal self defense is psychological separate from reality. It comes from a fear of the other and that "other" is a certain demographic that is most often violent to itself with occasional collateral victims. If the "other" was unarmed there would be no need of lethal self defense.

We currently are in an arms race and as in the Prisoner's dilemma with each player playing the "dominate strategy". A zero some proposition. We have legal vs illegal gun holders. The only answer is de-escalation. That would involve compromise most are unwilling to make. Not rational.

 

How many counter examples do you need?

The "other" is simply someone who is attacking with the implied intent of causing death or serious bodily harm. There is no way to ensure that any dangerous attacker won't be armed with a potentially lethal weapon; they will ignore any laws to the contrary, and given tgat the US sees 1,600 blunt instrument homicides each year, 1,500 knife homicides eachvyear and 500vhomicides just grom hands and feet, there is no reason to that any attack upon one's person isn't potentially lethal.

And interesting take on the racial element. Data shows that interracial homicides are far less common than intraracial attacks.

Does this "de-escalation" require lawful citizens giving up their right to self defense, or their right to own firearms at all? Have you gotten this same agreement from the orher side?

In the 60s. 70s and 80s, very few citizens legally carried firearms in public. What were the homicide rates during those decades?

 

Virtually no Red Flag laws include any provision for this.

 

Just read about a 19 year old being sentenced to up to 100 years in prison after beating a 64-year-old retiree to death in a church parking lot in what was called a road rage incident. Smashed the old mans face in, killed and stomped him breaking bones in his face and smashing his ribs, then returned to the comatose man and continued to strike, kick and stomp him. The 64 year old died a few days later. So the point is that because an attacker is not armed with a gun, does not mean a victim does not need to be armed with a gun. With respect to fights involving hands and feet there is a concept called a disparity of force. For an example an old man is not expected to fist fight with a youth. A gun levels the playing field with regard to a disparity of force. As in the case I mentioned the man should have defended himself with a firearm. BTW, the youth in the above case was a heavyweight boxer.

You have a lot of academic theories but violent attacks are not seen as academic exercises when one is the object of the exercise.

 

Yes lots of academic theories, none of which are based on reality.

 

Except, of course, for the innumerable examples of same.

 

In my job, I have a CCW and never had to use it. I have been involved in training exercises for mass casualties events at my work. Sometimes I play the bad guy and sometimes I play the fighting guy who has the only firearm in the group.