To play devil’s advocate (and weather the downvotes for doing so), alcohol doesn’t drive drunk, and most people who use it do so responsibly.
If a bunch of peeps who don’t drink wanted to stop drunk driving, they would see the best solution as just banning alcohol. Its a simple solution and makes sense. Nations like saudi arabia have banned alcohol and have significantly less drunk driving incidents. It wouldnt make sense to them why so many people would resist such a simple and proven solution. If they won’t ban it all then atleast ban the liquor, etc.
Meanwhile the people who drink responsibly wouldnt want to have to give up drinking just because a few idiots drive drunk. They would see the best solution as finding ways to stop people from choosing (or being able) to drive drunk, while still allowing themselves to use it responsibly, but that is a much harder thing to do.
Maybe we should have licensing and registration requirements for guns like we do cars… nobody on the “guns aren’t the problem” side of the argument is ok with anything like that either.
Yeah i feel like most people would be down with that. Same with taking guns away from domestic abusers. John Stewart (the problem with john stewart) had a great episode on gun control.
There is no license, class, physical or psychological examination, registration, age requirement, background check, or permit required to purchase a car.
There are licences, classes, examinations, registration, age requirements and permits required to actually use the car though.
Also, cars have a viable purpose beyond being a weapon. Why are we trying to equate something whose main purpose is to transport but can be used as a weapon with something whose main purpose is to end life? If an object’s sole or main purpose is to cause physical harm, it should obviously be regulated more heavily than objects whose main purpose is not to harm, but can be used as a weapon in certain circumstances.
I am on that side of the argument and im fully in favor of registration requirements, in fact I think anyone who wants to own a gun should have to undergo regular psychological, mental, and physical health evaluations as well as required to take a gun safety course. Not that I speak for everyone of course but I also dont think Im a minority in this situation.
I have an issue with psych evals: Ableism. Just because someone is depressed, has PTSD, has ADHD, whatever, doesn’t mean they don’t deserve the right to defend themselves. Furthermore it is currently federal law that if you are IVC’d under judge’s orders (which does require proof, but it is imprisonment short term and removal of rights for life, there should be proof), you now get flagged in NICs and can’t legally buy one, so at least we do have an acceptible version of this already.
Also I’d like to add, it would be a good .2sec before republicans add trans people to the no gun list because “41% suicide yadda yadda” and the democrat party will pass it because “gun bad.” It’ll get snuck in like they always do, “oh you want psych evals, ‘no trans’ or no deal.” Then they’ll have to choose between trans rights and the right to own the thing that can defend those rights from would be right wing attackers.
It is too easily weaponized against people already too stignatized, I don’t like it personally.
The counter argument to that is that it negatively impacts lower class people who are unable to take time off work to go do those things, thus disproportionately hindering lower class and minority rights.
And the counter argument to that is that there should be enough safety nets in place to allow all people to be able to take time off work as needed.
That would have people really confused. “We have to raise minimum wage to allow everyone the right to bear arms”
Yes… but since the purpose of those laws is only to suppress turnout amongst the poor, I don’t think anyone would be trying to pass them if being poor didn’t make voting harder…the 2nd group most impacted are the elderly and they tend to vote for folks that want to suppress the poor so there’s even less reason to pass them at that point.
Suppress turnout amongst the poor [and consequently certain demographics that are disproportionately poor]. Take a look at the history of gun control and you’ll see a familiar pattern to voter suppression.
Of course, it’s illegal to buy alcohol under 21, and it’s illegal for someone to sell it to you if you’re obviously impaired. We have some restrictions about it.
It’s illegal to buy guns under 18 and illegal to buy pistols under 21. And there’s the background check with every (in store) purchase, So there’s some restrictions
In the US (which I’m assuming you’re referring to, since the meme mentions the GOP), There is absolutely not a background check performed for every firearm purchase. That’s one of many restrictions people reasonably want placed on guns. Only 17 states have a universal requirement for gun sales. The federal law “requiring” background checks only applies to federally licensed sales. Private sales, gun shows, etc. allow for sale of guns with no background check, and often bypass age restrictions as well.
What he said. Also it is illegal to private sale one to someone that you have a reasonable suspicion may be a prohibited purchaser. Even better than someone who is “obviously” a prohibited purchaser.
I like your analogy. I’m just trying to refactor based on the NotJustBikes mindset of a well-developed city that has little to no requirement for driving a powered vehicle.
“Drunk person riding their bicycle into the canal and drowning” doesn’t quite have the same impact.
That said, the Venn diagram of countries with cities designed primarily around car usage vs the countries with a serious gun abuse problem seems to intersect with just one country. So your analogy still stands.
To play devil’s advocate (and weather the downvotes for doing so), alcohol doesn’t drive drunk, and most people who use it do so responsibly.
If a bunch of peeps who don’t drink wanted to stop drunk driving, they would see the best solution as just banning alcohol. Its a simple solution and makes sense. Nations like saudi arabia have banned alcohol and have significantly less drunk driving incidents. It wouldnt make sense to them why so many people would resist such a simple and proven solution. If they won’t ban it all then atleast ban the liquor, etc.
Meanwhile the people who drink responsibly wouldnt want to have to give up drinking just because a few idiots drive drunk. They would see the best solution as finding ways to stop people from choosing (or being able) to drive drunk, while still allowing themselves to use it responsibly, but that is a much harder thing to do.
Maybe we should have licensing and registration requirements for guns like we do cars… nobody on the “guns aren’t the problem” side of the argument is ok with anything like that either.
Yeah i feel like most people would be down with that. Same with taking guns away from domestic abusers. John Stewart (the problem with john stewart) had a great episode on gun control.
Those convicted of domestic violence are already federally barred from firearms ownership.
*except in Vermont where they allow it for some reason, and the federal govt lets the state get away with that. Your guess is as good as mine.
“Those convicted of domestic violence are already federally barred from firearms ownership.”
But don’t cops walk around with guns all day?
HA!
Also to actually answer: “Yes but we all know laws don’t apply to them.”
Yes, we got it passed, now we just need to enforce it.
https://youtu.be/G6KZY4msgUY?si=gZhwGVTrrFQijXOk
I do agree, “eat the gun control we have at home before I buy you new cereal” I say.
Lol
There is no license, class, physical or psychological examination, registration, age requirement, background check, or permit required to purchase a car.
Only to take it out in public
There are licences, classes, examinations, registration, age requirements and permits required to actually use the car though.
Also, cars have a viable purpose beyond being a weapon. Why are we trying to equate something whose main purpose is to transport but can be used as a weapon with something whose main purpose is to end life? If an object’s sole or main purpose is to cause physical harm, it should obviously be regulated more heavily than objects whose main purpose is not to harm, but can be used as a weapon in certain circumstances.
To use the car on publicly-owned roads.
I’m just clarifying why “treat them like cars” is a terrible argument.
I am on that side of the argument and im fully in favor of registration requirements, in fact I think anyone who wants to own a gun should have to undergo regular psychological, mental, and physical health evaluations as well as required to take a gun safety course. Not that I speak for everyone of course but I also dont think Im a minority in this situation.
I have an issue with psych evals: Ableism. Just because someone is depressed, has PTSD, has ADHD, whatever, doesn’t mean they don’t deserve the right to defend themselves. Furthermore it is currently federal law that if you are IVC’d under judge’s orders (which does require proof, but it is imprisonment short term and removal of rights for life, there should be proof), you now get flagged in NICs and can’t legally buy one, so at least we do have an acceptible version of this already.
Also I’d like to add, it would be a good .2sec before republicans add trans people to the no gun list because “41% suicide yadda yadda” and the democrat party will pass it because “gun bad.” It’ll get snuck in like they always do, “oh you want psych evals, ‘no trans’ or no deal.” Then they’ll have to choose between trans rights and the right to own the thing that can defend those rights from would be right wing attackers.
It is too easily weaponized against people already too stignatized, I don’t like it personally.
The counter argument to that is that it negatively impacts lower class people who are unable to take time off work to go do those things, thus disproportionately hindering lower class and minority rights.
And the counter argument to that is that there should be enough safety nets in place to allow all people to be able to take time off work as needed.
That would have people really confused. “We have to raise minimum wage to allow everyone the right to bear arms”
So if working conditions improve, it would be appropriate to implement stricter voter ID laws?
Yes… but since the purpose of those laws is only to suppress turnout amongst the poor, I don’t think anyone would be trying to pass them if being poor didn’t make voting harder…the 2nd group most impacted are the elderly and they tend to vote for folks that want to suppress the poor so there’s even less reason to pass them at that point.
Suppress turnout amongst the poor [and consequently certain demographics that are disproportionately poor]. Take a look at the history of gun control and you’ll see a familiar pattern to voter suppression.
Of course, it’s illegal to buy alcohol under 21, and it’s illegal for someone to sell it to you if you’re obviously impaired. We have some restrictions about it.
It’s illegal to buy guns under 18 and illegal to buy pistols under 21. And there’s the background check with every (in store) purchase, So there’s some restrictions
(Corrected)
In the US (which I’m assuming you’re referring to, since the meme mentions the GOP), There is absolutely not a background check performed for every firearm purchase. That’s one of many restrictions people reasonably want placed on guns. Only 17 states have a universal requirement for gun sales. The federal law “requiring” background checks only applies to federally licensed sales. Private sales, gun shows, etc. allow for sale of guns with no background check, and often bypass age restrictions as well.
Good point.
What he said. Also it is illegal to private sale one to someone that you have a reasonable suspicion may be a prohibited purchaser. Even better than someone who is “obviously” a prohibited purchaser.
And dry counties exist. I don’t know of many gunless counties.
I like your analogy. I’m just trying to refactor based on the NotJustBikes mindset of a well-developed city that has little to no requirement for driving a powered vehicle.
“Drunk person riding their bicycle into the canal and drowning” doesn’t quite have the same impact.
That said, the Venn diagram of countries with cities designed primarily around car usage vs the countries with a serious gun abuse problem seems to intersect with just one country. So your analogy still stands.
Lol interesting take on it. Big fan of not just bikes, climate town as well.