Polish Hammer said:
It's hard to tell sometimes if people drawing the line between gun control and other health issues (motor vehicle safety, substance abuse, etc) is stemming from a genuine concern, deflecting, or some other tactic. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are genuinely concerned about the health and well-being of all humans. So let's break down what is currently in place:
As for alcohol - and as
@NCCommish showed above, there are restrictions. There are age limitations. In some places there are quantity limitations. In some places full restriction. If you have been consuming too much and are potentially a harm to yourself or others there are restrictions.
Over time we've seen similar things with tobacco. The health warnings weren't always there, and depending on where you live there are restrictions on where you may smoke in public places.
With motor vehicles we see legislation around its hazardous intersection with alcohol and other intoxicating substances. We see limitations based on past behaviors both through legislative means and insurance abilities. There are certain safety aspects that are required to make vehicles street legal. When you bring up issues with cars and their effects on the environment, again this is something that has been (at least attempted) to be legislated. There are restrictions as to emissions, and some that were put in place for the industry overall to work towards more efficiency to help reduce negative environmental results.
Heck, we even see legislation around food. Sometimes you are required to post nutritional content in restaurants. Some cities tax high-sugar beverages. The FDA regulates certain aspects. We see legislation all around us that is aimed to keep us safe that we totally take for granted.
Being that all of that has been shown, now what? Does every single person that espouses any suggestions about gun control have to personally demonstrate to you their lifelong credo and works to better the world in every area that could affect a human? To what end? Why don't you employ a little "benefit of the doubt" on the issue? Start by assuming the people you are having these discussions with are also in favor of helping humans in the other areas of concerns. Then, instead of creating some odd litmus test about what else they must care about, just listen to their POV and suggestions, and
have a conversation about those ideas on their own merits. When someone keeps pointing off in another direction during these back-and-forths, it doesn't really help create the impression that you want to find a solution. Instead people come away feeling as if you have some other motive at play.
Before I respond, I want to make sure we are on the same page. First off, this thread is a discussion about the confiscation of firearms. Not additional regulations. I've mentioned a dozen times that I'm for background checks for all gun purchases. Even those between two private parties. I suggest that the gun transfer be made through a licensed firearms dealer for a minimal fee (the fee is important, because without regulations, some dealers will charge more than is required). I've also suggested that magazine capacities be limited to 6 rounds (the same as a revolver). This would force mass shooters to reload more frequently which buys time to subdue them, have the police arrive, have victims escape or possibly have the weapon jam. I also suggested that assault rifles be limited to 22 caliber only. This would reduce the killing power of the weapon, while also allowing gun owners to legally own the weapons. (conversion kits could be supplied instead of buybacks or confiscation) I'm also okay with some of the proposed training and storage proposals. But those, along with the proposed insurance requirements are less about prevention and more about making victims and their families whole.
With that out of the way, we can concentrate on the proposed confiscation or criminality of gun owners, should certain bans be passed into law. And how there is no proposal to ban any of them.
Alcohol vs Guns - If I want to buy alcohol, regardless of my past criminal history, I am able to do so. In order to purchase a gun, there are some states that require paperwork and possible background checks to do so. There is no state that I am aware of that requires a background check to buy alcohol. If you're buying a handgun, then the process is even more stringent (at least in my city). Thinking about the possible ways that an underage person could get access to alcohol vs guns, you see a clear difference. In addition to friends or even strangers that may buy a six pack for a teenager, there's the ability to steal alcohol from a parents home. There are a half a dozen grocery stores within a 5 mile radius where alcohol is unlocked and accessible to shoppers. I've caught hundreds of people stealing in my lifetime. To think that an underage drinker couldn't possibly steal alcohol is ignoring the issue. By comparison, every gun store I've been to keeps the guns locked either in a case, or in a cabled rack. At present time, if a 16 year old kid brought a gun to school, it would be treated much worse than if he brought a bottle of Jack Daniels. The way we market and protect each from falling into the wrong hands is obvious.
Cigarettes (or chewing tobacco) vs Guns - This is one that is used by gun owners to counter the argument of "what's the purpose". If someone can apply the theory to guns, and that guns serve no purpose, then why haven't cigarettes been banned? There was a lot of stats and conversation in the other thread about suicide. So, I guess, as long as someone is not hurting anyone else by smoking, then society is okay with the loss of life and the impacts on the insurance industry. But, when it comes to guns, it's assumed that all gun owners are on the verge of hurting someone. It's the stigma that keeps the anti gun crowd riled up. The anti gun crowd likes to counter this argument with "nobody ever killed a bunch of school kids with a carton of cigarettes". But that isn't the point of "what's the purpose".
Cars vs Guns - This is the one that people like to think is the solution. I've heard more than once "Yes, let's regulate guns like cars". The problem with that solution is that most of the regulations with cars is reactionary. I've pointed out numerous times that I could go buy a car in a matter of a few minutes. Private party sales are not handled through city, county or federal authorities until 2 weeks - 1 month after the purchase has been made. I don't need to have insurance until I go to license the vehicle with the county. There are stats on the number of uninsured drivers on the roads. But, we want to monitor gun owners and make sure they carry insurance if they own a firearm? Would anyone suggest that we allow someone to buy a gun and then go register it a month later? So, if I was a person without a license or a multiple dui offender, I could buy a car without anyone checking as to whether or not I'm a threat. I could drive that car to any number of stores and buy as much alcohol as I want. Again, without any proactive restrictions. By contrast, if I was a convicted felon and I tried to purchase a firearm, I would be denied. Are we seeing the difference? And I haven't even touched on the proposal of banning guns or alcohol. As to regulation around alcohol, there are zero preventive measures that prevent a dui. Even if you want to site over consumption and bartenders cutting a person off. That usually only happens in the extreme cases. Anyone that has been to a bar for more than a few hours will see multiple patrons that have been drinking the whole time. Bartenders don't put people on a drink count. They only cut someone off once they become belligerent. The proof of this is the number of people that are arrested for DUI's every year. I would be curious to know how many of them were served at a public establishment. Even if they started a drink count, a person could just go from one bar to the other to start the count over. Again, nothing is preventing someone from driving drunk.
More Cars vs Guns - You mentioned regulations around cars being street legal. We don't do anything to limit or ban cars from being modified in a way to make their speeds dangerous. There are some states that have inspections to make them safer in general. Headlights/taillights working, etc. But, a Ferrari that goes from 0-60 in 4 seconds can pass that inspection. It doesn't mean that the driver will be restricted from driving 200 miles an hour when he leaves the DMV. There are tons of hot rods on the road that are street legal. They're able to achieve speeds well in excess of the limits, and they don't have proper restraints or air bags. Many of those cars are exempt from inspection rules because they are grandfathered in. So, not only do they pose a risk due to speed, they also harm the environment due to their lack of emissions compliance. But, nobody wants to ban those.
Food vs Guns - You didn't mention anything about banning foods. You mentioned regulations and taxing. I did a quick search to see what foods are banned in the U.S. Some of them are banned because of political view, not necessarily health risks. (horse meat?) One that was on the list was sassafras oil because it is a major carcinogen that can cause liver and kidney damage. (but we won't ban cigarettes, which also has carcinogens). Could I kill someone with a bottle of sassafras oil? Probably not very quickly, but it's banned.
With all that, we're back to the concerns I have about banning (and more importantly, confiscating) guns. Where have we done that in any of the comparisons I listed above? Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting we ban alcohol, cars, or even cigarettes (maybe). I'm also suggesting that we don't ban guns. I'm pointing out the emotional over compensation to a problem that needs to be addressed. If the main stream media covered every DUI death for 24 hours after they happened, maybe society would have the same emotional response. I'd compare it to the recent fire at Notre Dame Cathedral. They were having trouble getting people to donate prior to the fire. Due to a tragic incident, people are now racing to make a difference. This is the same thing that is happening with each mass shooting. While sad, let's make decisions void of emotion.