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.