Let’s ban alcoholics and people convicted of violent misdemeanors from owning guns too
ALCOHOL ABUSE Federal law prohibits the purchase and possession of guns by anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” But the statute ignores alcohol abuse. That is also a mistake. The evidence linking alcohol abuse and gun-related violence is compelling. One study found that subjects who had ever been in trouble at work for drinking or were ever hospitalized for alcohol abuse were at increased risk of committing homicide and suicide.
Other studies also suggest that alcohol abuse is a factor in the association between gun ownership and the criminal justice system. The difficulty in policing alcohol abuse for purposes of gun control is that there is no precise definition of abuse. Pennsylvania, however, provides a useful example. It bars gun purchases by those who have been convicted of three or more drunken driving offenses within a five-year period. That criterion identifies drinkers with demonstrated tendencies toward recklessness and lawbreaking.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Of course, the NYT would never dream of banning these same people from voting-after all, their Democrat Party needs all the votes it can steal!
Del Dolemonte on February 24, 2013 at 1:30 PM
And hiring them…we don’t want to hire any of those people either. And we don’t want them to be in line to be new American Citizens.
Fleuries on February 24, 2013 at 1:33 PM
Man, this slope is slippereeeeeeeeeyyyyyy… !
John the Libertarian on February 24, 2013 at 1:33 PM
How about we ban alcoholics and people convicted of violent misdemeanors from holding public office or a government job? They’re a much bigger risk to me in those positions than owning a firearm.
Socratease on February 24, 2013 at 1:36 PM
Cough medicine abusers next in line.
VegasRick on February 24, 2013 at 1:37 PM
First they came for the alcoholics…
RadClown on February 24, 2013 at 1:40 PM
On the issue of guns, have you seen this letter from a citizen in Wyoming to a state rep and HIS anwser? Gosh I love this guy! More like him please!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/24/by-all-means-leave-the-amazingly-blunt-response-one-state-rep-gave-a-citizen-who-wrote-him-opposing-concealed-carry-in-schools/
L
letget on February 24, 2013 at 1:43 PM
How does that work? Is there a crime one can be convicted of, so that their gun rights are removed through the due process of law?
Count to 10 on February 24, 2013 at 1:44 PM
So basically the Kennedy clan..
Caper29 on February 24, 2013 at 1:44 PM
^answer
L
letget on February 24, 2013 at 1:44 PM
This would have disqualified 80% of the male population c. 1830. Just saying.
Seth Halpern on February 24, 2013 at 1:49 PM
Pretty soon, it’ll be:
Old and busted:
New and Hotness:
Colbyjack on February 24, 2013 at 1:49 PM
I’m screwed then. I’ve been to impatient alcohol treatment in the last 20 years.
They keep wanting to treat it as a privilege, not a right. Yet they wring their hands over sex-crime notification, saying “they’ve paid their price, leave them alone”.
Jeff Weimer on February 24, 2013 at 1:50 PM
All the more reason to repeal a lot of the laws controlling substances. They’re pretty much useless anyway as they just burden law-abiding users in an effort to regulate the use of substances at a standard some Nanny-state SOB capriciously decides on.
Dusty on February 24, 2013 at 1:52 PM
Let’s shutdown the NYT and put every NYT employee in the stocks to be pelted with rotten vegetables.
Punchenko on February 24, 2013 at 1:56 PM
Which would include, but not be limited to: College frat members, Philadelphia Eagles fans, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen…
RadClown on February 24, 2013 at 1:57 PM
Still looks like the gun grabber Demonrat party is looking for their ultimate prize – Registration.
[i.e. needing the government’s permission to have a basic God-given & Constitutional affirmed human right]
Colbyjack on February 24, 2013 at 1:58 PM
Current federal law prohibits anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing firearms or ammunition. I guess that means Obama is prohibited from having a gun, right?
Socratease on February 24, 2013 at 2:01 PM
Now, now. This is a nation of laws and not men. First we need to pass a law allowing the placement of NYT employees in stocks and pelting them with rotten vegetables.
But we do need a law like that because without it many, many children will grow up being severely annoyed by them and may become violent as a result.
If a law like this could save just one children from being violent, the law will be worth it.
Dusty on February 24, 2013 at 2:02 PM
Let’s ban the NYT from printing stories contrary to governmental positions…OH WAIT!
ProfShadow on February 24, 2013 at 2:02 PM
Second thought:
Aren’t most reporters and editors alcoholics? Seems I heard that once…must be true…
ProfShadow on February 24, 2013 at 2:04 PM
When someone takes their loony of a son to the shooting range and leaves loaded weapons in the house available, no law will fix that.
You just can’t fix stupid.
Moesart on February 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM
“…shall not be infringed.”
It’s obvious now why the first step had to be liberalizing all the English teachers….because eventually they had to make words mean the exact opposite of their original meaning.
cthulhu on February 24, 2013 at 2:12 PM
It’s amazing how many American citizens believe their rights come from the Government.
Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 2:24 PM
[i.e. needing the government’s permission to have a basic God-given & Constitutional affirmed human right]
Colbyjack on February 24, 2013 at 1:58 PM
It’s amazing how many American citizens believe their rights come from the Government.
Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 2:24 PM
Yes I know, not only is it entirely correct to have that in there, but it pisses off the Proggies to no end, and that’s always fun.
Colbyjack on February 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM
Check out her blog. She’s a left Wong occupy sympathizer. So sick of these leftists moving from their broken states to red states then demanding we change. They did it to Colorado, God willing they fail to do it to WY.
jawkneemusic on February 24, 2013 at 2:33 PM
Let’s ban all Leftists and those who vote for them fro owing, possessing or operating any type of firearm, including a gunshaped-lighter.
Resist We Much on February 24, 2013 at 2:51 PM
Gun Control? Surprise! Europeans, Like Americans, Resist Any Gun Ban
Resist We Much on February 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM
Ok, the why not require drug/alcohol testing for people receiving welfare and unemployment benefits?
If you ask that you’re raaaaacist.
nazo311 on February 24, 2013 at 3:20 PM
I just went through this process about an hour ago. Those questions were covered. And that was for a shotgun.
Old Country Boy on February 24, 2013 at 3:28 PM