“It’s not surprising that risky behaviors go together,” said Garen J. Wintemute, author of the study and director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program.
What an idiotic statement - assuming that carry a concealed weapon is a “risky behavior”. I pull reserve duty in the NCR and NOT being able to carry my weapon is “risky behavior”.
Colonel, USAFR
“What an idiotic statement - assuming that carry a concealed weapon is a “risky behavior”.”
Hopefully, the author was referencing this study finding:
“But alcohol abuse was most common among firearm owners who participated in gun-related behaviors that carry a risk of violence, which also included having a loaded, unlocked firearm in the home and driving or riding in a vehicle with a loaded firearm.”
Let’s concede that alcohol abuse impairs judgment (witness: drinking and driving deaths). This study is the equivalent of finding that drivers who drink alcohol are more likely to be involved in automobile accidents. Given the disproportionate share of carnage caused by drunk drivers, this wouldn’t be at all surprising. But the solution to this problem isn’t to ban either alcohol use or cars: it is to impose heavy penalties on those who drive their cars recklessly—a standard that inevitably will snare more drunk drivers than average drivers.
Likewise with guns. No one can defend the carnage caused by guns. And to the degree it arises from irresponsible behavior, it should be punished just as severely as drunk driving deaths. But the solution isn’t to inhibit the freedom of everyone else to drink or own guns.
If this solution is acceptable for cars (drunk driving causes 10,8000 deaths a year
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html while gun-related homicides and accidents account for about 13,500 http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html), there’s no reason (except for ideological bias) it can’t work for guns.