-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Red Flag Laws
- Thread starter wahsben
- Start date
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,378
- Likes
- 17,545
The people that think that ERPOs are good, will see no problem with what was in that article
I agree that for the many, yes they'll think it's good, but there are gun owners that lack the knowledge of what these really entail and they still foolishly believe that government has our best interest at heart. The article may bring at least some to their senses.
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,378
- Likes
- 17,545
Gotta read it, first. And the light's not that great when you head is stuffed up your....well, we'll say "in the sand."
D
Deleted member 67409
Here's an idea:
We build a colony of Sovereign Citizens. Sovereign Citizens who love doing those phony lien harassment schemes. Hundreds or thousands of them. Then we unleash them into a phone call center and have them ERPO random Democrats and RINOs across the country. Sovereign Citizens clog up the courts with ERPO cases. Being Sovereign Citizens, they won't go quietly, they'll throw a massive fit if anyone shows them a flag with gold fringe on it or something that indicates to them "THIS IS A COURT OF TRADE, A COURT OF ADMIRALTY LAW!" Prosecutors across the country have to deal with a bunch of Sovereign Citizen complainants.
Its so crazy it'll have to work![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
We build a colony of Sovereign Citizens. Sovereign Citizens who love doing those phony lien harassment schemes. Hundreds or thousands of them. Then we unleash them into a phone call center and have them ERPO random Democrats and RINOs across the country. Sovereign Citizens clog up the courts with ERPO cases. Being Sovereign Citizens, they won't go quietly, they'll throw a massive fit if anyone shows them a flag with gold fringe on it or something that indicates to them "THIS IS A COURT OF TRADE, A COURT OF ADMIRALTY LAW!" Prosecutors across the country have to deal with a bunch of Sovereign Citizen complainants.
Its so crazy it'll have to work
Nick Fury
NES Member
No. I don't believe that.
Yes I think your average mentally ill TDS afflicted liberal will see nothing but wonderfully freedom crushing outcomes from ERPO laws. But screw them they are just useful idiots.
It is the rational mainstream that don't see anything wrong with it on the surface. They think it's just temporary. They don't realize the costs, being basically guilty from the start, or even how it can affect everyone around them.
That is why it should be required reading. ERPO would go up in smoke if everyone knew what is actually means...
TayNinh_66
NES Member
And where is NRA in all this??? Too busy setting up anonymous LLC's to furnish LaPierre's 6 million dollar house.
News outlets are reporting the issues within the NRA and talking of it's possible weakness and collapse. Yet Wayne just keeps rolling along as if nothing is happening. If he gave a s+++ about the NRA's mission, instead of himself, he'd quit for the good of the cause. How do we cut the board to a reasonable number and get him out?
They back him for their own benefit, and let it go on. Real action needs to take place to put the NRA back on the course of it's stated purpose. Wayne needs to go and the board needs to shrink, replaced with people who really care.
They back him for their own benefit, and let it go on. Real action needs to take place to put the NRA back on the course of it's stated purpose. Wayne needs to go and the board needs to shrink, replaced with people who really care.
Gidge
NES Member
7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Guns Laws
By The Daily Sheeple | Jon Miltimore
The Associated Press reports Congress is seriously considering red flag gun laws.
These laws, also called “extreme risk protection orders,” allow courts to issue orders allowing law enforcement to seize firearms from people who’ve committed no crime but are believed to be a danger to themselves or others.
President Trump has signaled his backing of bipartisan Senate legislation sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
“We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do those firearms can be taken through rapid due process,” Trump said in a White House speech.
Red flag laws have garnered support from several conservative intellectuals, as well, including David French of National Review and Ben Shapiro.
Here are seven reasons red flag laws should be opposed, particularly at the federal level.
1. There’s No Evidence Red Flag Laws Reduce Gun Violence
Most people haven’t heard of red flag laws until recently—if they have at all—but they aren’t new.
Connecticut enacted the nation’s first red flag law in 1999, followed by Indiana (2005). This means social scientists have had decades to analyze the effectiveness of these laws. And what did they find?
“The evidence,” The New York Times recently reported, “for whether extreme risk protection orders work to prevent gun violence is inconclusive, according to a study by the RAND Corporation on the effectiveness of gun safety measures.”
The Washington Post reports that California’s red flag went basically unused for two years after its passage in 2016. Washington, D.C.’s law has gone entirely unused. Other states, such as Florida and Maryland, have gone the other direction, seizing hundreds of firearms from gun-owners. Yet it’s unclear if these actions stopped a shooting.
With additional states passing red flag laws, researchers will soon have much more data to analyze. But before passing expansive federal legislation that infringes on civil liberties, lawmakers should have clear and compelling empirical evidence that red flag laws actually do what they are intended to do.
2. Congress Lacks the Authority
The Founding Fathers clearly enumerated the powers of the federal government in the Constitution. Among the powers granted in Article I, Section 8 are “the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office.”
Regulating firearms is not among the powers listed in the Constitution (though this has not always stopped lawmakers from regulating them). In fact, the document expressly forbids the federal government from doing so, stating in the Second Amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
3. We Have Federalism
Unlike the federal government, whose powers, James Madison noted, are “few and defined,” states possess powers that “are numerous and indefinite.”
Indeed, 17 states and the District of Columbia already have red flag laws, and many more states are in the process of adding them. This shows that the people and their representatives are fully capable of passing such laws if they choose. If red flag laws are deemed desirable, this is the appropriate place to pursue such laws, assuming they pass constitutional muster. But do they?
4. Red Flag Laws Violate Due Process
The Constitution mandates that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
Seizing the property of individuals who have been convicted of no crime violates this provision. Gun control advocates claim due process is not violated because people whose firearms are taken can appeal to courts to reclaim their property. However, as economist Raheem Williams has observed, “this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.”
Depriving individuals of a clearly established, constitutionally-guaranteed right in the absence of criminal charges or trial is an affront to civil liberties.
5. Red Flag Laws Could Lead to More Violence
In 2018, two Maryland police officers shot and killed 61-year-old Gary Willis in his own house after waking him at 5:17 a.m. The officers, who were not harmed during the shooting, had been ordered to remove guns from his home under the state’s red flag law, which had gone into effect one month prior to the shooting.
While red flag laws are designed to reduce violence, it’s possible they could do the opposite by creating confrontations between law enforcement and gun owners like Willis, especially as the enforcement of red flag laws expands.
6. It’s Not Just the “Mentally Ill” and Grave Threats Who Are Flagged
In theory, red flag laws are supposed to target individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others. In practice, they can work quite differently.
In a 14-page analysis, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island explained that few people understand just how expansive the state’s red flag law is.
“It is worth emphasizing that while a seeming urgent need for [the law] derives from recent egregious and deadly mass shootings, [the law’s] reach goes far beyond any efforts to address such extraordinary incidents,” the authors said. Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel.
“As written, a person could be subject to an extreme risk protective order (ERPO) without ever having committed, or even having threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm.”
Though comprehensive information is thin, and laws differ from state to state, anecdotal evidence suggests Rhode Island’s law is not unique. A University of Central Florida student, for example, was hauled into proceedings and received a year-long RPO (risk protection order) for saying “stupid” things on Reddit following a mass shooting, even though the student had no criminal history and didn’t own a firearm. (The student also was falsely portrayed as a “ticking time bomb” by police, Jacub Sullum reports.) Another man, Reason reports, was slapped with an RPO for criticizing teenage gun control activists online and sharing a picture of an AR-15 rifle he had built.
Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel, civil libertarians point out.
7. They’re Basically Pre-Crime
As I’ve previously observed, red flag laws are essentially a form of pre-crime, a theme explored in the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report, based on a 1956 Philip K. Dick novel.
I’m not the only writer to make the connection. In an article that appeared in Salon, Travis Dunn linked red flag laws “to the science fiction scenario of The Minority Report, in which precognitive police try to stop crimes before they’re committed.”
That government can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat posed to civil liberties is quite real.
If this sounds far-fetched, consider that the president recently called upon social media companies to collaborate with the Department of Justice to catch “red flags” using algorithmic technology.
The idea that governments can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat such ideas pose to civil liberties is quite real.
Compromising civil liberties and property rights to prevent acts of violence that have yet to occur are policies more suited for dystopian thrillers—and police states—than a free society.
It’s clear that laws of this magnitude should not be passed as an emotional or political response to an event, even a tragic one.
By The Daily Sheeple | Jon Miltimore
The Associated Press reports Congress is seriously considering red flag gun laws.
These laws, also called “extreme risk protection orders,” allow courts to issue orders allowing law enforcement to seize firearms from people who’ve committed no crime but are believed to be a danger to themselves or others.
President Trump has signaled his backing of bipartisan Senate legislation sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
“We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do those firearms can be taken through rapid due process,” Trump said in a White House speech.
Red flag laws have garnered support from several conservative intellectuals, as well, including David French of National Review and Ben Shapiro.
Here are seven reasons red flag laws should be opposed, particularly at the federal level.
1. There’s No Evidence Red Flag Laws Reduce Gun Violence
Most people haven’t heard of red flag laws until recently—if they have at all—but they aren’t new.
Connecticut enacted the nation’s first red flag law in 1999, followed by Indiana (2005). This means social scientists have had decades to analyze the effectiveness of these laws. And what did they find?
“The evidence,” The New York Times recently reported, “for whether extreme risk protection orders work to prevent gun violence is inconclusive, according to a study by the RAND Corporation on the effectiveness of gun safety measures.”
The Washington Post reports that California’s red flag went basically unused for two years after its passage in 2016. Washington, D.C.’s law has gone entirely unused. Other states, such as Florida and Maryland, have gone the other direction, seizing hundreds of firearms from gun-owners. Yet it’s unclear if these actions stopped a shooting.
With additional states passing red flag laws, researchers will soon have much more data to analyze. But before passing expansive federal legislation that infringes on civil liberties, lawmakers should have clear and compelling empirical evidence that red flag laws actually do what they are intended to do.
2. Congress Lacks the Authority
The Founding Fathers clearly enumerated the powers of the federal government in the Constitution. Among the powers granted in Article I, Section 8 are “the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office.”
Regulating firearms is not among the powers listed in the Constitution (though this has not always stopped lawmakers from regulating them). In fact, the document expressly forbids the federal government from doing so, stating in the Second Amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
3. We Have Federalism
Unlike the federal government, whose powers, James Madison noted, are “few and defined,” states possess powers that “are numerous and indefinite.”
Indeed, 17 states and the District of Columbia already have red flag laws, and many more states are in the process of adding them. This shows that the people and their representatives are fully capable of passing such laws if they choose. If red flag laws are deemed desirable, this is the appropriate place to pursue such laws, assuming they pass constitutional muster. But do they?
4. Red Flag Laws Violate Due Process
The Constitution mandates that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
Seizing the property of individuals who have been convicted of no crime violates this provision. Gun control advocates claim due process is not violated because people whose firearms are taken can appeal to courts to reclaim their property. However, as economist Raheem Williams has observed, “this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.”
Depriving individuals of a clearly established, constitutionally-guaranteed right in the absence of criminal charges or trial is an affront to civil liberties.
5. Red Flag Laws Could Lead to More Violence
In 2018, two Maryland police officers shot and killed 61-year-old Gary Willis in his own house after waking him at 5:17 a.m. The officers, who were not harmed during the shooting, had been ordered to remove guns from his home under the state’s red flag law, which had gone into effect one month prior to the shooting.
While red flag laws are designed to reduce violence, it’s possible they could do the opposite by creating confrontations between law enforcement and gun owners like Willis, especially as the enforcement of red flag laws expands.
6. It’s Not Just the “Mentally Ill” and Grave Threats Who Are Flagged
In theory, red flag laws are supposed to target individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others. In practice, they can work quite differently.
In a 14-page analysis, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island explained that few people understand just how expansive the state’s red flag law is.
“It is worth emphasizing that while a seeming urgent need for [the law] derives from recent egregious and deadly mass shootings, [the law’s] reach goes far beyond any efforts to address such extraordinary incidents,” the authors said. Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel.
“As written, a person could be subject to an extreme risk protective order (ERPO) without ever having committed, or even having threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm.”
Though comprehensive information is thin, and laws differ from state to state, anecdotal evidence suggests Rhode Island’s law is not unique. A University of Central Florida student, for example, was hauled into proceedings and received a year-long RPO (risk protection order) for saying “stupid” things on Reddit following a mass shooting, even though the student had no criminal history and didn’t own a firearm. (The student also was falsely portrayed as a “ticking time bomb” by police, Jacub Sullum reports.) Another man, Reason reports, was slapped with an RPO for criticizing teenage gun control activists online and sharing a picture of an AR-15 rifle he had built.
Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel, civil libertarians point out.
7. They’re Basically Pre-Crime
As I’ve previously observed, red flag laws are essentially a form of pre-crime, a theme explored in the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report, based on a 1956 Philip K. Dick novel.
I’m not the only writer to make the connection. In an article that appeared in Salon, Travis Dunn linked red flag laws “to the science fiction scenario of The Minority Report, in which precognitive police try to stop crimes before they’re committed.”
That government can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat posed to civil liberties is quite real.
If this sounds far-fetched, consider that the president recently called upon social media companies to collaborate with the Department of Justice to catch “red flags” using algorithmic technology.
The idea that governments can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat such ideas pose to civil liberties is quite real.
Compromising civil liberties and property rights to prevent acts of violence that have yet to occur are policies more suited for dystopian thrillers—and police states—than a free society.
It’s clear that laws of this magnitude should not be passed as an emotional or political response to an event, even a tragic one.
Mass. Board of Medicine Revokes License of Doctor Arrested with Cache of Weapons
Dr. Matthew J. Bonnano was given the green light to practice medicine in Massachusetts just this last March, but after police in New York discovered an arsenal of illegal assault weapons and firearms accessories in the doctor’s home and car, the Massachusetts Board of Medicine held an emergency meeting Tuesday and suspended his license.
Bonnano was arrested at a New York bar earlier this month, according to the board’s statement of allegations. A tipster reportedly called the police after he overheard the plastic surgeon saying that he was going to kill his estranged wife and her family, and when the police arrived, Bonnano was found to be in illegal possession of a loaded semi-automatic firearm. A search of his vehicle—which was parked outside his estranged wife’s home—uncovered five loaded assault rifles, three handguns, 29 high capacity loaded magazines, a stun gun, over 1,600 rounds of ammunition, heavy ballistic body armor and a helmet, handcuffs, face masks, military-style knives, brass knuckles, pepper spray, and scopes and binoculars.
Searches of Bonnano’s other known residences, in Mount Pleasant and Great Neck, New York, uncovered even more weapons, including assault rifles and unlicensed handguns.
He was arraigned in Tuckahoe Village Court on several counts of criminal possession of weapons charges.
Bonnano’s estranged wife, Marianna Soropolous, unexpectedly appeared in court to show support for her former husband. “She reached out to me and she said, ‘We spent the whole day together. There were no problems. Afterwards, we went out to dinner with my daughter. No problems,’” Paul Gentile, Bonnano’s defense attorney, told CBS New York. However, the Westchester district attorney’s office alleges that Bonnano has a history of making threats toward Soropolous, including threatening to snap her neck.
Bonanno was licensed to practice medicine in Florida, New York, and Massachusetts. He submitted his license application to the Massachusetts Board in October (and, despite the application’s requirement that applicants disclose any criminal offenses, failed to mention that he had previously been arrested for driving while intoxicated). His application was approved March 13.
The Massachusetts Board of Medicine can discipline a physician if a majority of the board agrees that the doctor in question “lacks good moral character” and has behaved in a way that “undermines the public confidence in the integrity of the medical profession,” according to the statement of allegations.
“Based on his recent criminal charges, the Board determined that Dr. Bonanno represents a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare,” the Board said in a statement.
Dr. Matthew J. Bonnano was given the green light to practice medicine in Massachusetts just this last March, but after police in New York discovered an arsenal of illegal assault weapons and firearms accessories in the doctor’s home and car, the Massachusetts Board of Medicine held an emergency meeting Tuesday and suspended his license.
Bonnano was arrested at a New York bar earlier this month, according to the board’s statement of allegations. A tipster reportedly called the police after he overheard the plastic surgeon saying that he was going to kill his estranged wife and her family, and when the police arrived, Bonnano was found to be in illegal possession of a loaded semi-automatic firearm. A search of his vehicle—which was parked outside his estranged wife’s home—uncovered five loaded assault rifles, three handguns, 29 high capacity loaded magazines, a stun gun, over 1,600 rounds of ammunition, heavy ballistic body armor and a helmet, handcuffs, face masks, military-style knives, brass knuckles, pepper spray, and scopes and binoculars.
Searches of Bonnano’s other known residences, in Mount Pleasant and Great Neck, New York, uncovered even more weapons, including assault rifles and unlicensed handguns.
He was arraigned in Tuckahoe Village Court on several counts of criminal possession of weapons charges.
Bonnano’s estranged wife, Marianna Soropolous, unexpectedly appeared in court to show support for her former husband. “She reached out to me and she said, ‘We spent the whole day together. There were no problems. Afterwards, we went out to dinner with my daughter. No problems,’” Paul Gentile, Bonnano’s defense attorney, told CBS New York. However, the Westchester district attorney’s office alleges that Bonnano has a history of making threats toward Soropolous, including threatening to snap her neck.
Bonanno was licensed to practice medicine in Florida, New York, and Massachusetts. He submitted his license application to the Massachusetts Board in October (and, despite the application’s requirement that applicants disclose any criminal offenses, failed to mention that he had previously been arrested for driving while intoxicated). His application was approved March 13.
The Massachusetts Board of Medicine can discipline a physician if a majority of the board agrees that the doctor in question “lacks good moral character” and has behaved in a way that “undermines the public confidence in the integrity of the medical profession,” according to the statement of allegations.
“Based on his recent criminal charges, the Board determined that Dr. Bonanno represents a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare,” the Board said in a statement.
View: https://twitter.com/StephenGutowski/status/1167493148400082944
What happened to an old man in Philadelphia today is horrifying.
View: https://twitter.com/StephenGutowski/status/1167479603893587974
View: https://twitter.com/StephenGutowski/status/1167473523020972035
SpaceCritter
NES Member
...and as the uncle in Vermont demonstrates it doesn't even have to be a crazy gun-hating relative, just a teenage nephew running his mouth.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Gun Owners are in the minority. I’m told this as a justification, or at least an explanation, as to why the media is so biased against gun owners. Hunting may be down, homes with guns may be down, individual gun ownership may be down - but ~30% of Americans own a gun and 40%+ of homes have a gun in them. Gun ownership isn’t “rare” in any way.
The LGBT population averages in at 5%, topping out in Seattle at 10%, yet the majority (56-81% by State) supports LGBT rights of a small minority. So Majority/Minority excuses about guns are just so much BS.
The liberal left first convinced themselves that gun ownership is *not* a right, and then knew they were not depriving gun owners of any right by taking their guns away. But what property that you can legally own can be taken from you without Due Process other than guns in Red Flag Law states?
The reality, is the liberal left have convinced themselves that they are morally, ethically and legally justified in seizing our property and taxing our income for their own purposes. We are mere serfs in their world - poor, dumb beasts to be worked and beaten as needed to suit their ends. Not animal enough to protect or human enough to value.
The LGBT population averages in at 5%, topping out in Seattle at 10%, yet the majority (56-81% by State) supports LGBT rights of a small minority. So Majority/Minority excuses about guns are just so much BS.
The liberal left first convinced themselves that gun ownership is *not* a right, and then knew they were not depriving gun owners of any right by taking their guns away. But what property that you can legally own can be taken from you without Due Process other than guns in Red Flag Law states?
The reality, is the liberal left have convinced themselves that they are morally, ethically and legally justified in seizing our property and taxing our income for their own purposes. We are mere serfs in their world - poor, dumb beasts to be worked and beaten as needed to suit their ends. Not animal enough to protect or human enough to value.
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,378
- Likes
- 17,545
When you go to fix your car, do you have only one tool in the tool box? No.
When you go to fix society.....
When you go to fix society.....
Mission accomplished - a waitress at the diner dimes out 84-yr. old vet and retired cop for complaining that the Tisbury school resource officer takes too many coffee breaks..
Crossing guard relieved of duty, guns seized
Crossing guard relieved of duty, guns seized
Bravo , that's some damn fine police work there.
The community should be proud of the fine work they are doing.
That will show the old guy never to question the king's men.
D
Deleted member 67409
More fun and games on the loony island -
Fire lieutenant faces felony weapons charges
"An Edgartown fire lieutenant and former Oak Bluffs building inspector faces two counts of unlawful possession of high capacity feeding device after Edgartown Police allegedly discovered 30 round AR-15 magazines in a safe at an Edgartown residence...the magazines were discovered based on allegations Magri was considered a danger to himself."
Fire lieutenant faces felony weapons charges
"An Edgartown fire lieutenant and former Oak Bluffs building inspector faces two counts of unlawful possession of high capacity feeding device after Edgartown Police allegedly discovered 30 round AR-15 magazines in a safe at an Edgartown residence...the magazines were discovered based on allegations Magri was considered a danger to himself."
MaverickNH
NES Member
Plenty of circumstantial tidbits there that suggest this wasn’t Jake Average - looks like Red Flagging him may get him denied ownership of firearms and fines/jail. His official status might get him a plea reduction. Presumably charging him on the magazines makes this a criminal proceeding subject to due process going forward. How they separate the civil ERPO and criminal Hi-cap mags will be very interesting to follow. I’ll bet there’s some cops vs jakes history here that muddies the waters. If he was indeed “troubled” this won’t help at all. I’d say 50/50 suicide without the guns they seized.
All of the great academic studies being published confirmed gunowners are quite different than non-gunowners, in psyche, beliefs, politics, habits, etc. After all, there can’t be a firearms-related death or injury without a gun and gunowner. Red Flagging us is a way for the liberal/left to use government force to repress others. Red Flagging can be and will be used to “Profilie” conservative/right Citizens, like cops doing a Stop ‘n Frisk on Blacks in NYC, to get our guns.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Extreme Risk Protection Orders Intended to Prevent Mass Shootings: A Case Series
Extreme Risk Protection Orders Intended to Prevent Mass Shootings | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians
I posted a comment on the journal’s web site but expect it will not be published. They already got their message out with an Altmetric score in the top 5% of news outlet and social media uptake for monitored research. They know they are pumping junk science to the liberal press and gun advocates. They know we know. And they know they will not be accused of academic dishonesty. They will, in fact, get more funding from Joyce Foundation and other such fronts that funnel Blooberg’s And Soros’ money into anti-gun and pro-socialist efforts. Shameful but they remain shameless.
“With the link between mental illness and gun violence being hotly debated, mental health care professionals maintain they have little or no ability to predict who will become lethally violent. “...45 percent of the mass public shooters from January 1998 through June 2019 were seeing mental health care professionals within six months of their attacks.” (What type of gun control will actually make us safer? John R. Lott, Jr. President, Crime Prevention Research Center, Before the Pennsylvania State Senate Judiciary Committee September 24, 2019) While patients under direct treatment of mental health care experts cannot be accurately identified as potential killers, the authors do so by retrospective document review, counting “saves” attributable to Red Flag orders. With 38% of ERPO cases reviewed, 13% of those were counted as “saves” in prevention of mass murder. While the authors heavily caveat their ongoing work, the media and gun control advocates promote this work as proof that Red Flag laws work. While authors cannot held responsible for misinterpretation of preliminary results by partisan advocates, academic press offices rarely emphasize caveats in press packages provided under embargo until date of publication. Scrutiny of publications usually happens well after the news and social media have made such scrutiny a moot point.”
Extreme Risk Protection Orders Intended to Prevent Mass Shootings | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians
I posted a comment on the journal’s web site but expect it will not be published. They already got their message out with an Altmetric score in the top 5% of news outlet and social media uptake for monitored research. They know they are pumping junk science to the liberal press and gun advocates. They know we know. And they know they will not be accused of academic dishonesty. They will, in fact, get more funding from Joyce Foundation and other such fronts that funnel Blooberg’s And Soros’ money into anti-gun and pro-socialist efforts. Shameful but they remain shameless.
“With the link between mental illness and gun violence being hotly debated, mental health care professionals maintain they have little or no ability to predict who will become lethally violent. “...45 percent of the mass public shooters from January 1998 through June 2019 were seeing mental health care professionals within six months of their attacks.” (What type of gun control will actually make us safer? John R. Lott, Jr. President, Crime Prevention Research Center, Before the Pennsylvania State Senate Judiciary Committee September 24, 2019) While patients under direct treatment of mental health care experts cannot be accurately identified as potential killers, the authors do so by retrospective document review, counting “saves” attributable to Red Flag orders. With 38% of ERPO cases reviewed, 13% of those were counted as “saves” in prevention of mass murder. While the authors heavily caveat their ongoing work, the media and gun control advocates promote this work as proof that Red Flag laws work. While authors cannot held responsible for misinterpretation of preliminary results by partisan advocates, academic press offices rarely emphasize caveats in press packages provided under embargo until date of publication. Scrutiny of publications usually happens well after the news and social media have made such scrutiny a moot point.”
