UC Davis
Restricting access to firearms for people who
misuse alcohol could prevent firearm violence, but policies that more
clearly define alcohol misuse should be developed to facilitate
enforcement, according to a review of existing research and public
policies by the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program.
The analysis, published online April 30 in the peer-reviewed journal Preventive Medicine, summarizes
studies on binge drinking and other forms of alcohol misuse in
association with firearm access and use, including firearm violence. It
also describes the shortcomings of existing policies designed to
restrict access to firearms among those who are at high risk for
violence due to alcohol misuse—particularly people with multiple prior
convictions for alcohol-related offenses such as driving while under the
influence (DUI).
“Both acute alcohol intoxication and chronic
alcohol misuse are strongly associated with risk for committing firearm
violence, whether that violence is directed at others or at oneself,”
said Garen J. Wintemute, professor of emergency medicine, founding
director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program and expert
on gun violence as a public health problem.
“In any given month,
an estimated 8.9 million to 11.7 million firearm owners binge drink.
Both binge drinking and heavy chronic drinking are more common among
firearm owners than in the general population. For men, there are as
many alcohol-associated deaths from firearm violence as from motor
vehicle crashes,” he said.
And we know that Mike and others on his side think that ANY use of alcohol should disqualify one from owning firearms. But sure, we'll just let that camel stick its nose in the tent with a nice limited definition of "misuse". No way Wintemute will cook up more stats to support expanding that, and no way it'll grow until drinking a beer disqualifies you from ownership.
ReplyDeleteI believe my position has been that you simply cannot call yourself a responsible gun owner unless you're totally abstemeous. Of course, having no restrictions on the bullshit you make up, you changed that to "drinking a beer disqualifies you from ownership."
DeleteYou've said that those who drink any alcohol are irresponsible owners, and you've constantly published your "famous 50%" post that talks about how to disqualify and disarm half of gun owners. Part of that post talks about substance abuse, and it was in the discussion of that line item that I first remember you making your declaration about total abstinence.
DeleteMaybe you should be more clear about just which irresponsible gun owners you want to disarm and which you don't rather than hurling false accusations of making things up.
I've been very clear. Maybe you should reread what your referencing.
DeleteHere's a thought. Since the problem with these people originates with alcohol, why not restrict their access to alcohol? Then you don't have to worry about the guns- plus you get the added bonus of not having to worry about what harm they might do with their cars, knives, fists, etc. Problem solved. Easy peasy, right?
ReplyDeleteSarcastic silliness. We don't suggest that about driving in order to combat drunk driving. In the same way, we should not do that to combat drunk gun handling.
DeleteActually, TS makes a good point that bears consideration. I see all kinds of people in court for DUI on suspended or revoked licenses because of their history of multiple DUI's. The system isn't working. Most people use their DL or other state ID to buy booze--the court could remove their right to drink as easily as any other right, and order that it be noted on their license.
DeleteOf course it wouldn't be foolproof, but it actually bears some consideration.
Simon J
DeleteI see a right in the Constitution to own a gun, but not a right to drink anything including alcohol.
It's still the U.S.A. What's next, the thought police? This is a real issue of freedom. You're treading in extremely frightening territory.
ReplyDeleteJust minimize gun ownership. Tax bullets. Maximize penalties for mistakes. Provide universal health care with free mental health check-ups without stigma. We don't need to invade people's personal lives.
Liberal totalitarianism is just as bad as the Stasi was. God forbid that it ever invade our fair shores.
"Provide universal health care with free mental health check-ups without stigma. We don't need to invade people's personal lives."
DeleteFJ, currently the government's solutions for gun violence is trending to more intrusive as evidenced by a recent discussion we had of a retired police officer having his guns confiscated due to what is claimed to be a clerical error when he sought treatment for insomnia.
Last I heard, there was a lawsuit in the works to recover his guns. Especially since no one in the government exercised any common sense and just gave his guns back after the error was verified.
I believe there is also some legislation in the works to remedy this issue and to inform citizens when their names end up on the roster.
How about convictions for drinking offenses disqualifies people for gun ownership. We don't need the thought police for that? How about a breathalyzer test for those with carry permits - fail and you lose the guns?
ReplyDelete"How about convictions for drinking offenses disqualifies people for gun ownership."
DeleteIt doesn't even work that way with cars Mike. It is illegal to carry while intoxicated in Minnesota. You can not only be criminally charged, but also have your permit suspended or revoked. DUIs can also be used as justification to deny permits under the danger to self and others portion of the law, though the burden is on the Sheriff to convince a judge of the need of the applicant appeals.
MikeB: "How about convictions for drinking offenses disqualifies people for gun ownership."
DeleteHow about convictions for drinking offenses disqualifies people from being allowed to drink again? How well do you think that would work out?
More sarcastic bullshit from TS. How about if we take responsible gun ownership more seriously. We should punish drunk while carrying very seriously. We should consider cronic drunken behavior of gun owners very seriously.
DeleteObviously you feel that applying your same “proper gun control” regulations to alcohol wouldn’t work. Why do you think it would work so well for guns and ammo but be so useless for alcohol that you call it “sarcastic bullshit”?
DeleteMike: “How about if we take responsible gun ownership more seriously. We should punish drunk while carrying very seriously.”
You’re talking about physically confiscating people’s guns for the offense of abusing alcohol while driving a car. They get to keep their alcohol and their access to alcohol in the future. They get to keep their car too- though with a short partial suspension of their driving privileges. But the guns… those you are going to take away- for an offense that had nothing to do with them. Yeah, you are the one not taking the issue very seriously as you are just trying to use drunk driving as a platform for more confiscations. Your position would be more respectable if guns were your tertiary restriction interest for drunk drivers.
Handguns are lethal weapons whose purpose is to kill people. You're damned right I say take the guns away from people with drinking problems. Why would you want it otherwise?
DeleteThree things. Of course, mental health care without stigma is an impossibility. A fantasy, if you will.
ReplyDeleteA successful drinker will not subject himself or herself to arrest and prosecution. Just drink legally.
That's interesting that gun owners are more likely to be alcoholics.
Both binge drinking and heavy chronic drinking are more common among firearm owners than in the general population.
Is that really provable? Seems a little bit doubtful to me.
I think that research on gun violence has been in a thirty-year hiatus. It may be too soon for even a reputable campus such as UC Davis to really produce trustworthy information on a topic that is this subjective and anecdotal.
However, I welcome the return of publicly funded research into this problem. There is much to establish. Public health and safety are primary concerns in this type of research.
Mike if an devout leftist like FJ can smell the unprovable BS in this BS..Then it is most certainly BS
ReplyDeleteSo what's your position? It's all right to binge drink and own guns?
DeleteIt's all right to binge drink and own guns?
DeleteYep, and alright to binge drink and own cars, binge drink and own chainsaws, binge drink and own pitbulls, etc.
And I'll drink to anyone who kills a would-be disarmer.