Thursday, May 20, 2010

New Wintemute Study

The Ethiopian Review is the first place I've seen reference to this study, which should attract a bit of attention.

A new UC Davis Health System study finds that handgun buyers, if they have any prior criminal record, go on to commit felonies and violent misdemeanor crimes at much higher rates than law-abiding gun owners do. Identifying individuals who legally purchased guns and likely still own them after being convicted of subsequent crimes that prohibit gun ownership could be a valuable violence prevention measure, according to the study.

“The United States works hard to prevent felons, domestic violence offenders and other people with serious criminal convictions from buying guns,” said Garen Wintemute, an emergency medicine physician and director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program. “We looked at how often people who have purchased guns legally, then became prohibited from owning them. It was a surprise to find such a significant correlation between minor criminal records among legal handgun purchasers and their subsequent convictions for more serious crimes.”

I think the good doctor was being a bit sarcastic when he said that last sentence. I don't find that surprising at all. In fact this is one of the common sense conclusions that reasonable people could easily agree upon, the very type that gun rights advocates insist on denying unless proof is supplied. Well, here it is.

Of course, when surveys and polls prove what any unbiased person would already agree to, the gun folks attack the survey and say it was all a trick. I'm sure they'll have no trouble disproving any study Prof. Wintemute comes up with. He is the enemy, after all.

What's your opinion? Do you think people with minor criminal records are more likely to commit felonies than people with clean records? If that's the case, do you think some or all of them should be disqualified from buying guns?

Please leave a comment.

12 comments:

  1. This study is pretty obvious; it's a well-established fact that the vast majority of felons didn't begin their criminal careers as felons. They started out with smaller crimes.

    Compounding this is the fact many felonies are often plea-bargained down to misdemeanors.

    The "law-abiding gunowner" myth explodes yet again.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sigh, more Joyce-Funded bought and paid for astroturf from Wintemute....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jadegold: “The "law-abiding gunowner" myth explodes yet again.”

    Um, no. Even Wintermute’s study says the law-abiding tend to stay law-abiding.

    MikeB: “Do you think people with minor criminal records are more likely to commit felonies than people with clean records?”

    Yep.

    MikeB: “If that's the case, do you think some or all of them should be disqualified from buying guns?”

    Nope. You are still going by the premises that we should deny people because they *might* commit a serious violent felony which means you are constrained by that damn “free country” thing again. This goes back to the incremental gun control agenda. We can all agree that violent felons should not have guns, but then they want white collar felons too, then domestic violence misdemeanors, then all misdemeanors (because they are more likely to do something worse down the road)…

    ReplyDelete
  4. TS: The flaw in your "thinking" is that gunloon "law-abiding" doesn't really mean "law-abiding."

    It means non-felony at the time a gun is purchased.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  5. JadeGold said it well: "It means non-felony at the time a gun is purchased."

    TS said it poorly, "You are still going by the premises that we should deny people because they *might* commit a serious violent felony which means you are constrained by that damn “free country” thing again."

    What I'm suggesting is perhaps we should disqualify people for less serious offenses in their past if we agree that thofe offenses are an indicator of future behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  6. MikeB: “What I'm suggesting is perhaps we should disqualify people for less serious offenses in their past if we agree that thofe offenses are an indicator of future behaviour.”

    And I am saying we disqualify them for their ACTUAL behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  7. TS, What I said is this:

    "What I'm suggesting is perhaps we should disqualify people for less serious offenses in their past if we agree that those offenses are an indicator of future behavior."

    The point is "less serious offenses in their past." Those would be ACTUAL behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ah, then what you want to do it lower the bar for denying gun ownership (not surprising). But don’t say it is because of what someone *might* do in the future- that doesn’t fly in a free society.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Right you are, TS. Lower the bar. Lower it enough to disqualify about 20% or 30% of those who qualify now, and you'll see the improvement we all want.

    ReplyDelete
  10. MikeB: “Lower it enough to disqualify about 20% or 30% of those who qualify now…”

    What ever happened to your 10%? Incrementalism?

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's more like prudence than incrementalism. I figure in order to capture most of the 10%, you'd have to go up to 20% or 30%. You know how those famous 10%ers can easily hide among you normal guys.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I highly doubt 30% of gun buyers have been convicted of a misdemeanor. How do you lower the bar enough to get it to 30%?

    ReplyDelete