Red flag laws to fight mass shootings? Fine for an ideal world, but we don't live in one.

September 9, 2019
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/09/red-flag-laws-mass-shootings-government-
power-grab-jim-demint-column/2220820001/

This article is saying that in an ideal world, red flag laws would always work. However, in reality,
they won’t always work as consistently as hoped. Red flag laws have the ability to violate due
process and a person’s right to know what warrants are issued for them. The author writes,
“Police arriving unannounced at a gun owner’s home demanding that he turn over his firearms
is a recipe for tragedy.” Red flag laws also set up an easily abusable system by government
officials by removing firearms from people without criminal backgrounds or mental instabilities.
Finally, the author cited research that showed a high correlation between people not showing up
to court and having their weapons seized. This study indicated that the defendants were
dangerous, when in reality they may have been less privileged and not been able to show up to
court for other reasons.

This article relates to my topic because it is talking about gun regulation and gun control directly
related to El Paso and Dayton shootings. It talks about what actions are overstepping their
bounds and what actions should be taken. It addresses the impulsive nature of the creation of
gun control legislation.

I agree with this article. I agree mainly with the point that we should not give the power to seize
firearms to the government. Trying to take someone’s firearms away can lead to something like
Waco, Texas or worse. I agree that the abuse of power with gun control can quickly become
commonplace as it did with court seizing guns after the defendant didn’t show up. These laws
violate due process and I believe that everyone is entitled to immediate disclosure of their
wrongdoing and punishment.

Poll: Americans, Including Republicans And Gun Owners, Broadly Support Red Flag Laws
August 20, 2019
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/20/752427922/poll-americans-including-republicans-and-gun-owne
rs-broadly-support-red-flag-law

This story is about a collection of data across the united states for court-ordered temporary gun
confiscation. The article talks about the demographics of who is for and who is against and that
a majority of Americans, in wake of el paso and dayton shootings, support the legislation.
Interestingly, polls show that Americans support both police and civilian recommendations for
temporary restrictions.

Red flag laws dive more narrowly into gun control. This article is directly in the wake of two
extreme mass shootings in American history. This legislation has some of the most bipartisan
support in the last four or five years. This law makes it easier for the government to seize
weapons of those who are considered a danger to themselves or others.

I disagree with red flag laws because they can be easily abused, particularly among family
members and in divorce court. For example, a recent study was done where these laws were
put into practice in Rhode Island and the results found that within divorce court, people were
highly likely to report their ex-spouse as a danger to themselves or others. Additionally, laws like
this could lead to permanent restrictions and criminal records.

"The vast majority of crime that is gun related is committed by people who illegally are
possessing that firearm."
March 12, 2018
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most
-gun-crime-rep-fa/

The Article is talking about the statistics of gun violence, and how the inmate population
procured firearms. Of the inmates convicted of gun crimes, 60 percent obtained the weapon
illegally, while 48 percent said they got the weapon by asking a family member or through a
pawn shop. The production of this article follows a statement made by republican representative
john faso, who is proven mostly correct.
This directly relates to the topic of whether or not the restriction of legal firearms will curb
gun violence. The idea is that bad people will get guns whether or not they are legal, and
whether or not they are registered, and that the banning of guns may end up like prohibition,
where the government is unable to monitor who and who doesn't have a gun, making gun crime
harder to prevent.
I think there is a lot of validity in wanting tighter gun restrictions, but whether or not this is
attainable is a harsh reality of life we have to acknowledge. There are too many ways to figure
out how to create guns and ammunition, and too many ways to get illegal firearms on the black
market.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/little-gun-history/
This article is fact check the claim that says several dictatorships during the 19th century
utilized gun control and gun confiscation to make control of the population. They make clear to
differentiate the two, defining gun control as regulation, and gun confiscation as removal. This
helps establish a differences and similarities between confiscation and control. And offers a link
between gun control and confiscation.
The article being fact checked is false, undoubtedly so, but it still begs the question, if
people like the armenians were armed during the rising tensions of the 20’s, would they have
suffered like they did, or would the government be more hesitant in the genocide and mass
arrest of minority groups.
Gun rights are a rule the founding fathers put into the constitution to prevent the federal
government from overstepping. Whether or not they meant assault weapons or not doesn't
matter, they allowed citizens to privately own cannons. If i would have to pick and choose,
1,900 people is better than what could turn into something like the holocaust, or even
holodomor.