• DanglingFury@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • DanglingFury@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • MIDItheKID@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Those convicted of domestic violence are already federally barred from firearms ownership.”

            But don’t cops walk around with guns all day?

    • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • DanglingFury@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s illegal to buy guns under 18 and illegal to buy pistols under 21. And there’s the background check with every purchase, So there’s some restrictions

        • FunctionFn@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.