2. Have a voluntary registry of gun owners who are willing to take extensive background checks, register their firearms, take extended safety classes. These gun owners are allowed to have national concealed carry permit capability, and only they are allowed to carry firearms in most places in the US without legal hassle or worry. 99.99% of these gun owners will most likely be one of the good guys, who will be able to stop an evil person from doing harm or defend themselves if need be. For everyone else, they will still be subject to the existing patchwork of laws in each jurisdiction, for good or bad.
7. Look at how well prohibition of alcohol and drugs have worked. Banning guns or severely restricting them may not lead to the panacea many people are so attracted to. There needs to be better ways to manage gun ownership than just banning evil features or guns. A gun is merely a tool, that can be used for good or evil. 99.99% of people are good. Give them the chance to use the tools for good, against the 0.01% that is evil.
#2. Why do we need a national concealed carry permit? What's the point of that? Why not just make federal gun laws/background check database to apply across the land. Kinda stupid that you have to check laws when taking firearms across state boarders as it is now. However, I am down with an in depth weapons course every firearms owner should have to complete. While we're at it, why have "voluntary" registration? Should be mandatory along with that firearms course. Once you take the course and pass the federal background check, then you can register the firearm of your choice.
#7. I think alcohol vs weapons is a pretty faulty comparison.
Edit to add...I don't really see that 99% good stopping the 1% evil with all the weapons we already have. One large subset of killers in the US is....toddlers.
First of all, long time reader but my first post. No intention of posting my first post just to stir things up. I’m only posting because I’ve had significant discussions with a friend of mine who has an interesting perspective that I’ve never heard fully fleshed out before. For clarification, he does not drink or own firearms, and I drink, in small amounts and am a supporter of firearms.
Your comment lead to me posting this, because you commented that the alcohol/firearms comparison is not a good one. I wanted to respond, because as I’ve mulled over my friend’s perspective, I’ve actually not been able to think of a better analogy out there (not saying there aren’t any, just that this seems immensely applicable and has shed light on things for me).
The point of view is that alcohol and firearms have a great deal in common but aren't treated remotely similarly.
Alcohol and firearms – Both have ties to significant loss of life, physical harm not directly leading to death, and emotional scarring (fear aspect). The CDC estimates 88,000 alcohol related deaths per year -
https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/Default/Report.aspx?T=AAM&P=f6d7eda7-036e-4553-9968-9b17ffad620e&R=d7a9b303-48e9-4440-bf47-070a4827e1fd&M=8E1C5233-5640-4EE8-9247-1ECA7DA325B9&F=&D, and the number is around 33,000 per year for gun related deaths -
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/. Both of these include many “self-inflicted” deaths – alcohol consumption hurting the person doing it and suicides via guns, so that part should be remotely comparable. As you can see, alcohol has a greater impact on roughly the order of 2.5 times as many deaths. There are also numerous intangibles (which admittedly, there are with guns as well). These intangibles for alcohol tie into huge issues, such as generational poverty.
The problems if were to ban them. Here, the analogy is slightly different, because we’ve seen how attempting to ban alcohol did not work well but have yet to see how challenging it would be if we were to ban guns (all or a significant subset of guns or guns for a significant subset of people) in America. It would certainly be a tremendous challenge to effectively ban all firearms, as well, so it seems an applicable analogy.
Regulations. This is also a great link between the two to begin to highlight the differences in the ways they are treated. The discussion around guns (with the exception of background checks to see if felonies have been committed and the like) is very much tied into this. People with guns are saying (and rightly so), that they have done nothing wrong and yet restrictions are being placed on them for their guns “for the general good” even though they haven’t done anything in their past to merit being singled out and just because the same generic restrictions will impact some people who do end up using them for ill. This perspective isn’t even remotely taken in regards to alcohol. The only regulations that we have for alcohol are underage, driving, and public intoxication (where they’ve already, to an extent, “abused” it). There are certainly no restrictions on people drinking before they’ve done anything wrong. Even after they have been caught at something (say drunk driving or public intoxication), there are no regulations where they are required not to drink. If they drink and drive, their license to drive may be revoked, but that would not affect the vast majority of the deaths caused by alcohol (roughly 10k out of the 88k). The ability to drink alcohol with the associated death toll tied to it is never curtailed.
The: “I’m a good guy; I don’t hurt anyone.” This is another aspect of both. I can attest that to the best of my knowledge, my drinking has never hurt anyone. I’ve never been intoxicated, never woken up hung over in the morning and thus have not had any of the accompanying problems that are tied to alcohol (drinking and driving, abuse tied to intoxication, etc.). Tons of people drink and never or very rarely hurt others as a result of it (maybe the same can’t be said for themselves). The parallels to guns are obvious. I have never hurt anyone with a firearm as have the vast, vast, number of people who have ever shot a gun much less owned it.
The purpose of each. Firearms are often singled out when compared to other things because “their purpose is to kill.” While this could be debated, the purpose is certainly to cause harm to the thing that you’re shooting at. In “better” circumstances, it’s a deer to eat, a paper target, or someone who breaks into your house intending on harming your family, and of course, it kills innocent people in worse circumstances. Alcohol also has a purpose. The purpose is to be mind altering, as are all drugs. In “better” circumstances, it relaxes you after a hard day with a beer and you enjoy yourself, and of course, it is slow suicide or inhibiting control leading to abuse on the other end. Neither's purpose is really a great thing. Both can and are used in the vast majority of times in a “better” circumstance. Neither is essential for life or happiness.
What are the differences between firearms and alcohol? Well, the percentage of people who use alcohol is substantial higher than those that have firearms. That certainly has an impact, as it's easier to decry something you are not a part of. Additionally, firearm atrocities are given much more attention in the news, which of course is at least in part because it can affect a larger number of people at once (with the possible exception of drunk drivers). Are these reasons why people don’t take a similar approach to the two? If I were guessing, I’d say the first one plays a very large part in it, but that, of course, is purely speculation.
In summary, I saw a Facebook post saying something like “are you not willing to sacrifice your right to have guns if it saved the life of one child.” Although I did not respond to it, I had quite a few thoughts about such an intentionally emotionally charged question in light of the perspective taken by almost everyone on other issues, and the alcohol issue provided a great focal point for the difference in perspective people take. Of course this perspective, even if wholly accepted, does not mean that there should be no gun regulation. The goal is just to compare two things that, from my perspective are treated totally different despite numerous similarities. It is hard to not see this as a very inconsistent perspective.