MNGunTalk.com

minnesotatv wrote:You might want to forward this to others the you know -


From the Wall Street Journal, Aug 7 2019:

"A Yellow Light for Red-Flag Laws
By Alan M. Dershowitz

President Trump's proposal to "red flag" potential mass shooters is well-intentioned. If we could prevent even one mass killing by identifying and disarming the potential perpetrator beforehand, it would be worthwhile. But do we have the tools to do it, and at what cost to our constitutional rights?

I have studied, taught and written for half a century about the difficulties of predicting violence. My first scholarly article, in 1970, was titled "The Law of Dangerousness: Some Fictions About Predictions," and a subsequent book was titled "Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways" (2006). Research shows that any group of people identified as future violent criminals will contain many more who won't be violent (false positives) than who will (true positives). More true positives mean more false ones. Such groupings also fail to identify many future violent criminals (false negatives).

Be wary of denying individual rights based on predictions.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-yellow-l ... 1565132144

Grayskies wrote:

minnesotatv wrote:You might want to forward this to others the you know -


From the Wall Street Journal, Aug 7 2019:

"A Yellow Light for Red-Flag Laws
By Alan M. Dershowitz

President Trump's proposal to "red flag" potential mass shooters is well-intentioned. If we could prevent even one mass killing by identifying and disarming the potential perpetrator beforehand, it would be worthwhile. But do we have the tools to do it, and at what cost to our constitutional rights?

I have studied, taught and written for half a century about the difficulties of predicting violence. My first scholarly article, in 1970, was titled "The Law of Dangerousness: Some Fictions About Predictions," and a subsequent book was titled "Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways" (2006). Research shows that any group of people identified as future violent criminals will contain many more who won't be violent (false positives) than who will (true positives). More true positives mean more false ones. Such groupings also fail to identify many future violent criminals (false negatives).

Be wary of denying individual rights based on predictions.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-yellow-l ... 1565132144

And if more people die because of the law than are saved by it, is it still worthwhile?

Holland&Holland wrote:

Grayskies wrote:

minnesotatv wrote:You might want to forward this to others the you know -


From the Wall Street Journal, Aug 7 2019:

"A Yellow Light for Red-Flag Laws
By Alan M. Dershowitz

President Trump's proposal to "red flag" potential mass shooters is well-intentioned. If we could prevent even one mass killing by identifying and disarming the potential perpetrator beforehand, it would be worthwhile. But do we have the tools to do it, and at what cost to our constitutional rights?

I have studied, taught and written for half a century about the difficulties of predicting violence. My first scholarly article, in 1970, was titled "The Law of Dangerousness: Some Fictions About Predictions," and a subsequent book was titled "Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways" (2006). Research shows that any group of people identified as future violent criminals will contain many more who won't be violent (false positives) than who will (true positives). More true positives mean more false ones. Such groupings also fail to identify many future violent criminals (false negatives).

Be wary of denying individual rights based on predictions.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-yellow-l ... 1565132144

And if more people die because of the law than are saved by it, is it still worthwhile?

Are you asking the left that question? Cause there answer is a resounding yes. Mass shooting deaths are worse than gang related deaths because we all know the gang bangers were just turning their lives around.

Grayskies wrote:yes I am, I am not sure the left really understands that fewer guns equal more homicides.

Gov. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, said his state's new proposed gun-control measures have been crafted by Second Amendment supporters and will respect due process, during an interview on "Fox News Sunday."


Guest host Bill Hemmer asked DeWine about red-flag law skeptics, saying many of them have voiced concerns about a potential lack of due process and the possible weaponization of such a measure. It would let a judge order the confiscation of firearms from certain people who pose threats.