Studies show that a gun owner with one misdemeanor conviction — such as a DUI — is five times more likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm than a gunner with no prior arrest record, according to Garen Wintemute, director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program.
I’m sure it would show a correlation between other lesser traffic offenses and violent crime as well. Does it translate that we should consider lesser traffic offenses as prohibiting? At what point do you just admit you’re trying to deny Second Amendment rights to as many people as humanly possible?
“I was just stunned,” Wintemute says. “He was just wrong on the facts. There is persuasive evidence out there. There are dozens of studies associating acute alcohol intoxication and a history of DUIs with the risk of committing future gun violence. That’s established beyond doubt.”
Instead of restricting their gun rights, why not just ban alcohol? It also raises the question as to why we only suspend their drivers license for 30-10 months for a first offense, and only 3 years for a third offense. And driving, according to the courts, is a privilege rather than a right. I would think the correlation between earning a DUI and eventually killing someone in an alcohol related traffic accident is much much higher than the correlation to future gun violence, and yet we don’t even deny them the “privilege” to drive for 5 years, let alone a lifetime prohibition.
If Garen Wintemute is unhappy with Jerry Brown, maybe I shouldn’t be so harsh on the guy. There’s points to be earned for disappointing the right people, and Wintemute is the kind of busybody who needs to learn to keep his nose out of other people’s lives and choices. It’s also pretty clear, by focusing on the gun issue, Wintemute’s motivation is hating on guns and gun owners, rather than concern for life. In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic accidents in the United States. In that same year, 8,874 people were killed in gun-related homicides. I am not suggesting this means California needs to “get tough on crime” in terms or DUI, but it’s worth considering where some people’s priorities lie, and it’s not in saving lives.
Your first sentence is a bit misleading… So the prohibition changes for DUI offenses were included in the bill that was vetoed. Therefore, they were not passed.
By a quick google search, other groups who are claimed in at least one study to be “five times more likely to commit violent crime”:
Children of prisoners (vs other citizens)
Children of Perry Twp, who did not attend preschool (vs. those who did)
Juveniles in a gang
Immigrants to Australia from Muslim-majority countries (vs. people born in Australia)
Indigenous Australian females vs non-indigenous males
Intellectually handicapped men in Sweden (vs. general population of Sweden).
If the statistics are compelling enough to restrict an enumerated right on the basis of unrelated non-violent offenses, aren’t they also compelling enough to restrict enumerated rights on the basis of attending the right school, I.Q., who you choose to associate/assemble with, religion, national origin, and parentage?
If not, why not?
Yeah, you’re missing a “not” in the first sentence of the post.
There is no downside to Brown’s veto. What happened when Christie did his veto? Nothing.
“…There are dozens of studies associating acute alcohol intoxication and a history of DUIs with the risk of committing future gun violence. That’s established beyond doubt.â€
First I’ve heard of one. So, we don’t even need commission of an actual crime anymore to presume guilt until proof of innocence? Yeah, this might pick up a couple of people here and there that would ultimately prove “improper” by way of the 4473, but given the statistically tiny crime rate you get with carry permit/license holders, 5 times it is still as good as nothing.
Wintemute just needs to get so freaked out by something that he has a stroke over it. Maybe that would slow him down some.
The bill is a variation of the Alynskite approach of holding your opponent to the absolute highest standards possible as no one can be perfect. The “plaster saints or nothing” approach. It’s in his “rules for radicals” .