>I have no idea tbh and haven’t given it any thought whatsoever.

Clearly.

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.

Yeah, I think I mostly agree.

I'm not really trying to defend Red Flag laws so much as trying to point out how ridiculous the original banning of throwing stars was.

I mean, from my understanding it was basically anti-asian racism from the start.

If anything these types of regulations help to further abuse minorities, so I'm not really a fan of them.

Thanks for your reply. You've made several good points.

I don't want to take a defeatist attitude towards potential legislative solutions, but simultaneously must admit that I have yet to see any proposed solution that couldn't just as easily be used to strip away the rights of minorities.

Red flag laws are fine.

They boil down to "If you have a verifiable history of violence then you should be monitored".

If someone says "I'm going to kill all the people I hate" then red flag laws allow for prevention of that person in obtaining efficient means to kill.

That's fine and to the benefit of the overall safety of society.

That individual still deserves mental Healthcare.

Quirky things like ninja stars aren't capable of the degree of harm that is discussed when talking about Red Flag laws. To my knowledge no mass murders have been committed by individuals utilizing shurikens.

They are unequivocal, and to equate red flag laws used to protect society from individuals in need of mental health assistance armed with modern weapons with individuals interested in historic weaponry for entertainment purposes is absurd.

I would easily argue that semiautomatic firearms should be banned before throwing stars despite believing both should be legal.

TLDR; Red Flag Laws help to prevent known threats to society from committing large scale harm. It's difficult at best to go on a murder spree with throwing knives.

Eh, that's a stretch. They have plenty of Marijuana on hand to use already.

Hell, they don't even need to use up their personal stash.

"I smelled it" is all they need to violate the rights of minorities.

Playing devil's advocate; I would say that it's fair to admit that the current legal system is pretty convoluted. I doubt the average person has more than a surface level understanding of it.

Yeah, I've had people quit without notice.

I'm just like "Okay, that didn't work out. Moving on ..."

If someone doesn't want to work for me then it's better for both of us to just move on.

Only once did another business call me about a former employee that I had a negative experience with. Said employee was fired for theft.

No idea why they listed us as a reference or how the new employer found out about the work history, but I just confirmed "Yes, XYZ worked for us."

AFAIK as an employer I can actually risk trouble if I say too much about a former employee, so I just follow the "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything" rule.

The other employers get it. "No comment" means "don't hire". No specifics necessary...

No good business is petty enough to bother with such nonsense.

I'm sure some businesses are petty enough to go out of their way to harass former employees, but workers should endeavor to refrain from applying to said businesses whenever possible.

(Easier said than done, I know)

Sucks that you can't always tell at first if it's a shifty business or not when applying.

You are proving OP's point.