According to this Sheriff, Red Flags laws are "good", because the people the people they seized firearms from are "still alive". But don't take my word for it, here's the quote:
"But their opposition is unwarranted. Red flag laws save lives. Take it from Douglas County, Colorado, Sheriff Tony Spurlock, who, according to Pew Reports, has taken “political heat from gun rights advocates who question the law’s due process protections.” But Spurlock, whom Pew describes as “an avid Second Amendment supporter” finds it significant that each of the four people who were subject of red flag petitions in his jurisdiction is still alive. “It’s our responsibility to protect our citizens from harm,” he said. “We have a tool that is very valuable and will make a difference in the community.”
I'm confused. No one has seized my firearms, and I'm not dead yet either. So I think Spurlock's logic is lacking. And how does he propose to "keep alive" those who have never owned firearms, thus cancelling the ability to "save them" by "taking their guns"? And why don't they seize trucks, for example, since:
"On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19-tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people and the injury of 434 others."
Spurlock sounds like a straight-up idiot.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...eriffs-who-won-t-enforce-gun-laws/ar-AA18IC6U
"But their opposition is unwarranted. Red flag laws save lives. Take it from Douglas County, Colorado, Sheriff Tony Spurlock, who, according to Pew Reports, has taken “political heat from gun rights advocates who question the law’s due process protections.” But Spurlock, whom Pew describes as “an avid Second Amendment supporter” finds it significant that each of the four people who were subject of red flag petitions in his jurisdiction is still alive. “It’s our responsibility to protect our citizens from harm,” he said. “We have a tool that is very valuable and will make a difference in the community.”
I'm confused. No one has seized my firearms, and I'm not dead yet either. So I think Spurlock's logic is lacking. And how does he propose to "keep alive" those who have never owned firearms, thus cancelling the ability to "save them" by "taking their guns"? And why don't they seize trucks, for example, since:
"On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19-tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people and the injury of 434 others."
Spurlock sounds like a straight-up idiot.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...eriffs-who-won-t-enforce-gun-laws/ar-AA18IC6U