Pirate's Cove

These ideas by Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes at the Washington Post are not necessarily that bad. One big problem is that, in Liberal World, when you give them an inch, they will take a mile, then demand another inch. And, since the writer’s website, The Trace, is backed by gun-grabber Mike Bloomberg’s Everytown, among others, you can expect inches

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”

Their stats show that a permit system reduces gun violence. I personally have no problem with permits: I obtained one for my handgun. Of course, their version goes much, much further, as we see at the link

But the PTP system the legislation seeks to create goes further than the standard background-check procedure in place in most parts of the country: Prospective gun purchasers have to apply for their permit in person at a local law enforcement office, have their fingerprints taken, and submit a photograph along with their paperwork. Once a permit is granted, it’s good for five years. Holders who remain in good legal standing would not need to complete further background checks (as gun buyers do now) for additional gun purchases made during that period.

So, every five years one must reapply, which would surely require another expensive fee. They want out fingerprints and a photo for a Constitutional Right. And this would all be submitted to the Federal government. On the flip side, if it is a national PTP, then that would mean the permit would be good nationwide, right? Which could create concealed and open carry problems for the gun grabber states.

Let’s not forget that the system is ripe for abuse by government weasels, such as we’ve seen in states like NY and Maryland. And, many of the mass murderers have legally passed background checks.

Individual-level studies also provide support for expanding federal firearm denial criteria to include those with convictions for violent misdemeanors. A 1999 study by Wintemute and two others compared felons who were denied a firearm through a federal background check with individuals who had felony arrests records but were nevertheless able to pass a background check because their arrests had been demoted to misdemeanors. The study found that the group with misdemeanor convictions who were allowed to obtain guns were two to four times more likely to be later arrested for violent or firearm-related offenses. The authors concluded that the “denial of handgun purchase is associated with a reduction in risk for later criminal activity of approximately 20 percent to 30 percent.”

There shouldn’t be a problem with that. What’s the over/under on Democrats wanting to expand the denial criteria?

Finally, in the United States, gun manufacturers are able to design their products without regard for consumer safety. This is largely the consequence of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which gave broad immunity to gun manufacturers and dealers from liability litigation.

What of alcohol? It is one of the top drugs on the market. Do we sue Jim Beam and Coors because someone became an alcoholic or killed someone while driving drunk? These gun grabbers want to force gun makers to make “smart guns” and do things which would make the firearm virtually unusable when it’s necessary. What if a doctor prescribes the wrong medicine? Do we sue the medicine company?

But let’s assume that this is overestimation and that the combined influence of these policies could prevent only 10 percent of our nation’s more than33,000 annual gun deaths. That would still be the equivalent of preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks, every single year. We don’t need gun confiscation to save lives. We can do that through common-sense gun reform.

Of course, this is still mostly aimed at law abiding citizens, rather than those who obtain the guns illegally and use them for criminal activity. None of this would stop most of the mass murders, and would barely make a dent in the “gun crime” running rampant throughout mostly Democrat Party run cities, especially in the Black community….hey, it’s almost like the gun grabbers don’t actually care that Blacks are offing themselves. Huh.

Crossed at Right Wing News.