Opinion
Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- Doctor Garen Wintemute’s latest contribution to “the prevention of firearm violence” comes in the form of a Perspective column published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Wintemute, you may recall, is the Director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program and the UC Firearm Violence Research Center. He proposes a two-prong solution to stop mass shootings.
The solution, according to Doctor Wintemute? So-called “comprehensive background checks” and emergency protective orders, which “allow courts to have firearms removed temporarily from people who pose an imminent hazard to others or themselves but are not members of a prohibited class.”
Wintemute begins with a list of six mass shootings, the perpetrators of which all passed background checks. There were missed or ignored signs in some of these cases and evidence of systemic institutional failure in others – including opportunities to have the perpetrators involuntarily committed before their actions. Wintemute acknowledges his own research found “no evidence of an association between the repeal of comprehensive background check policies and firearm homicide and suicide rates in Indiana and Tennessee.” To be blunt, the comprehensive background check laws didn’t affect relevant homicides.
His own research doesn’t stop Wintemute from pressing forward with his agenda. “But the findings do not support a conclusion that background-check requirements are fundamentally ineffective.”
Try to reconcile that with the previously described findings. Wintemute seems to be really suggesting that we need better background checks – with more information shared to background check systems and clearer definitions of prohibited persons. This is different than “comprehensive background checks,” which generally require checks to be run even for transfers between friends or other private sales.
Wintemute is using these two ideas interchangeably, it seems. His own study referenced in this article is focused on “comprehensive background checks” that require checks on private sales. He cites the mass shooting in Sutherland Springs as evidence of the “consequences… of specific and widespread defects in design and implementation [of background check laws].” The issue in this case had nothing to do with private sales. The Sutherland Springs shooter was able to purchase a firearm because prohibiting information was not shared by the U.S. Air Force. Properly prohibiting factors should absolutely be shared with background check systems.
Later in his article, Wintemute moves the goalpost from “comprehensive background checks” to “permits to purchase,” which would require law-abiding citizens to get permission from the government before they were allowed to purchase a firearm. Wintemute claims “many studies have found permit-to-purchase laws to be effective” but the Rand Corporation determined that licensing and permitting requirements have uncertain effects on total homicides, firearms homicides, and mass shootings because the evidence is inconclusive.
Interestingly, the Rand Corporation also found that private-seller background checks have an uncertain effect on firearm homicides and that dealer background checks – which are already federal law – may decrease violent crime, total homicides, and firearm homicides.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
I’m new to this story, so I don’t know if Wintemute is a well-known name in the gungrabbing field.
All I know is that it took me five paragraphs to realize his name isn’t “WinteRmute”.
we always said, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them!! and time after time we see how easy of a target gun free zones are
PhD = Piled Higher and Deeper
Definitely NOT a sign of increased knowledge or intelligence in my experience.
Yet all that will be taken from the study is that ‘better’ background checks are needed.
Just another Liberal know it all . Like my farther -in law would say intelligent fool
so the logic goes , if we have less forks we will have less fat people , less alcohol means less drunks , less cars less car wrecks , less sun less heat , we should not b surprised coming from a generation of booger/tide pod/button battery eating condom snorting retards , this guy is a dr. of what bullshititus , wow what a genius!
correction “dr. g. w.”
“dr.” gm: blow it out of your a**, d-sucker
And the left says, ” Golly gee… see how violent these gun people are? See how unintelligent they are? This clearly proves our rational point.” Dude, use what God gave you. Resorting to cursing and ad hominem attacks just makes you look stupid, and hurts the cause of protecting our rights.
i threaten no one physically or otherwise, i do respond to threats of grievous bodily harm or death.
@M The Problem is that many don’t, and that includes people normally consigned to rational thought here at ammoland. An article from just a little over a month ago demonstrates this perfectly. The two comments that have stuck out most in my mind was from one person wishing for all in Democrat party to “Expire”, and another stating that their belief in a different opinion should subject them to shunning, banishment, and imprisonment. Clifffalling wasn’t saying you threatened anyone. He was pointing out your language and attitude as something the Progressive left will use to undermine you, hence his imitation… Read more »
@revelator
Thanks for the help. Just to clarify, I am reasonably sure none of my previous comments would diverge from the general perspective above. But I will surely admit my fault should it be brought to light. I always go by this moniker in posts. At any rate, I digress.
Thanks again.