Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1573594268 t1_j7xpob0 wrote

Reply to comment by Imaginary-Voice1902 in Indiana Senate passes bill to legalize throwing stars by Phlegmbrandt

Yeah, I think I mostly agree.

I'm not really trying to defend Red Flag laws so much as trying to point out how ridiculous the original banning of throwing stars was.

I mean, from my understanding it was basically anti-asian racism from the start.

If anything these types of regulations help to further abuse minorities, so I'm not really a fan of them.

Thanks for your reply. You've made several good points.

I don't want to take a defeatist attitude towards potential legislative solutions, but simultaneously must admit that I have yet to see any proposed solution that couldn't just as easily be used to strip away the rights of minorities.

1

Imaginary-Voice1902 t1_j7xwsth wrote

I think that is a really good point too. These laws often don’t come with a right to legal council because they occur in civil courts. Who exactly do people think will be harmed as a result of depriving someone of an appointed attorney? People of low socioeconomic status of course. Ultimately we had ways to deprive truly dangerous people of their lawful ability to purchase firearms through a court with real due process standards but some people decided they needed an express lane with no real due process. Red flag laws are just not a good solution unless the goal is to just enable swatting.

2

1573594268 t1_j82tuh3 wrote

This conversation has provided me with an opportunity for personal introspection for which I'm grateful.

When I wrote my original comment a day or two ago I had very recently read a news article. Nothing rare - someone was shot and killed.

The shooter had a history of violence. There was talk about how if existing Red Flag laws had been followed this individual would not have had access to the firearm used in the murder.

At the time that did make sense to me - after all, if it's known this individual may be a threat to others - a specific, known threat with a history of violence towards who would eventually become the victim in this case ...

Doesn't a law preventing that individual from purchasing a firearm make sense?

That was my original line of thinking. And, in fact, I don't think it's illogical.

However, the Red Flag laws that applied weren't followed. This individual did obtain a firearm.

So does that imply this tragedy wouldn't have occurred had the laws been followed?

I don't believe so. I think, considering this individuals history of violence towards the victim the tragedy would have occurred regardless of how little effort was necessary for them to obtain an efficient weapon.

No, what needed to happen from the start should've been a proactive approach to addressing the mental health issues related to the shooter.

Preventative maintenance, so to speak.

The Red Flag Laws in place were ineffective not only because they weren't utilized (which was my original, surface level take) but because they're reactive.

Furthermore, as you've mentioned, they are far too easily open to abuse.

In this specific case Red Flag Laws could have prevented someone with a known history of violence from arming themselves against their future victim, but no one even bothered enacting them.

I am willing to bet that if the perpetrator had been a minority that these same laws would've been enforced heavily.

1