Least informed people are the strongest supporters of gun control
McLaughlin & Associates was recently retained to conduct a survey related to red flag laws. They found that when asked about the red flag laws, those who supported it did so strongly. However, when those conducting the survey provided context, such as no hearings being held for the person subject to the red flag laws, and that no mental health expert reviewed the case, respondents changed their tune. Many red flag law supporters changed their minds to opposition when additional information is provided.
From Crime Prevention Research Center:
The strongest supporters of gun control laws appear to be the least well-informed
Informing people about the lack of hearings for Red Flag Laws and no mental health experts involved in the process causes the biggest shifts in support among the strongest gun control advocates. That is at least consistent with them being the least well-informed. But that isn’t the only evidence of that problem. In April, the CPRC hired McLaughlin & Associates to survey what people thought the percentage of violent crime committed using guns was. They found that those most strongly supporting gun control dramatically overestimated the percentage of violent crime committed with guns. While the average Democrat estimates that 56.9% of violent crimes involve guns and the typical Republican gave an answer of 37%, the rate was actually less than 8%.
Question 1: When considering legislation regarding gun safety, do you support or oppose “Red Flag Laws” knowing their primary purpose is to allow judges to take away a person’s gun based on a single complaint when there is a concern about that individual committing suicide
Question 2: Would you be more likely or less likely to support “Red Flag Laws” if you knew there are no hearings before an individual’s guns are taken away and there are no mental health care experts involved in the process?
Question 3: Over the last 25 years, half of the mass public shooters were seeing mental health care experts before their attacks, but in not one single case did these mental care professional identify the murderers as a danger to themselves or others. Involuntary commitment laws have people first evaluated by mental health care experts. If those experts believe that there is a concern, an emergency hearing takes place. If the person can’t afford a lawyer, one is provided. Judges have a range of options from outpatient mental health care, to taking away their weapons, to involuntary commitment. Knowing these facts, which type of regulation do you think would be more effective in reducing mass shootings?
Fox News and Crime Prevention Research Center provide additional details. You could also review the raw numbers at this link.
Category: Second Amendment
In my best Gomer Pyle voice: “Surprise, surprise, surprise, Sargent!”
Not surprising. I’ve had people who are “Life Long Democrats” tell me they are:
Against Big Government
Against Forever Wars/Starting Wars
Against Big Business
For Small Businesses
For Free Speech
For more Personal Freedom
And will talk to their blue in the face about how Democrats are for Middle Class in Middle America
Red flag laws scare the hell out of me. With somewhere around $35,000.00 plus in firearms, all it takes is for someone to make a false accusation and I can lose them all, with no financial restitution.
Part of the problem is, people with issues that shouldn’t own them, are not reported due to patient confidentiality laws.
Firearm ownership will always be front and foremost in political circles. But a lot of un-informed people is what drives these stupid policies and ideas.
The solution: become a Gray Man. Blend in. Draw no attention to yourself. Become forgettable. If no one knows who you are (or anything else about you), then no one can falsely accuse you of anything.
Say something politically-incorrect and…
Plus:
Never talk about your firearms on a public source.
Ever…
What guns, I don’t see any guns, do you ???
Great advice, if you want to be the last man standing.
Doesn’t work the same for a society of proud and independent citizens.
I’ll never claim which or how many firearms I own. I will, however, without quaver or mitigation, insist that I will defend another’s rights to bear that and more.
*I almost said “die to defend,” but that right has been trampled too many times, and I’m not standing on a hill that is already lost. I wasn’t alive in the 30s, but I cannot be the only one ashamed of this.
Question 3 is a logical fallacy of sorts. Because if someone is a threat to themself or others they are often locked up or other preventive measures are taken and therefore no shooting takes place. People get committed all the time for being a threat to themselves or others. There is no way to prove something that might have happened that didn’t.
Taking their guns away won’t stop them though. The Virginia Tech shooter and dozens of others had their guns taken away and they still found guns and killed anyway.
Part of the reason that Red Flag Laws don’t work is due to the bureaucracy that surrounds them and the DV aspect that often accompanies it.
The Highland Park shooter likely could have been prevented from obtaining his weapons legally if the family had supported keeping him from getting guns; but instead they went the other way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Park_parade_shooting
I’m not sure about the “dozens of others” who were prohibited persons, but the Virginia Tech shooter wasn’t one of them. Yes, he was adjudicated as a danger to himself or others, but the information was never passed on to the FBI for inclusion in NICS. So, while technically a prohibited person, he never had any guns taken from him and he was “legally” able to purchase the firearms he used because of the state bureaucracy. I know we have seen this happen in many instances.
His parents took his guns away. He went out and bought more.
The FBI has been called in on many of these mass shooters, all of the same stories.
The cops have been watching him for years now and have been to his house numerous times but nobody ever thought to take away their firearms and the NICS people along with the FBI are too busy chasing down abortion protestors for praying outside a baby death house…
The Contact We, the People have with government outlines what forms, prescriptions and infringements are allowed.
Violate at your peril. No one is stopping you from unassing These States United.
About that poll, out people that APPROVE of Joey Bag-o-Donuts’ job, the most people in that group think he’s doing good on taxes.
Let that sink in.
WELL GEE WHIZ, what about the dumpster loads of existing Gun Laws that are broken every time some coward carries out a mass shooting, yet the same screeching flower monkeys perpetually bawl for more Gun Control laws, liberalism is a Mental Disorder.
Because…
The reason Mao said that is obvious. Point a loaded gun at an unarmed person and you have control of him or her. Firearms in the hands of people who know how to use them win over those without firearms every time.
Leftists’ idea of “gun safety” is their victims don’t have any.
Red flag laws were already tried during the French revolution. In that case they were called a lettre de cachet. It was a “system” where an anonymous complaint was made to the authorities. Then the accused was seized and placed into the bastille. Trials were unnecessary as was legal representation of the accused.
I learned about this during social studies class / history in high School.
Lots of tragic boat accidents these days.