Democrats consistently push for stricter gun control, leading to an interesting consideration: if they succeed in banning firearms under the guise of public safety, will they next seek to prohibit alcohol? The answer, though obvious, is no. The inconsistency is stark. Alcohol, like firearms, can cause significant harm, but it is not the item itself that inflicts damage; rather, it is the misuse that leads to tragic outcomes.
A recent incident in Louisiana illustrates this point. A grandmother, under the influence of alcohol and sedatives, struck and killed her 5-year-old grandson as he waited for his school bus. This heartbreaking tragedy underscores that alcohol misuse can lead to devastating consequences. When measuring the toll of both firearms and alcohol abuse, statistics reveal a troubling disparity. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were approximately 46,700 deaths tied to firearms in 2023. In contrast, nearly 178,000 individuals die each year from alcohol-related causes, resulting in a ratio of nearly four to one. When excluding suicides and gang violence from firearm statistics, the ratio escalates to ten deaths from alcohol for every one tied to guns. This data clearly highlights that the real problem lies not in the objects themselves, but in how they are wielded by individuals.
The CDC breakdown of alcohol-related deaths is telling. Two-thirds arise from illnesses like liver disease and heart conditions, while one-third can be traced to accidents, alcohol poisoning, and overdoses. Conversely, the common response to mass shootings from Democrats often focuses on banning certain types of firearms, particularly so-called “assault weapons.” Yet, the FBI’s statistics point to a different reality: handguns are responsible for the majority of homicides, comprising 62% of the total. In 2019, rifles classified as “assault weapons” accounted for just 3.5% of weapon-related homicides. Why focus on the smaller segment of firearm deaths rather than addressing the more prevalent issue?
Continuing down this path of logic leads to further absurdities. If the purpose is to eliminate tools that lead to loss of life, should there also be calls to ban cars? A recent incident in Tampa, where a fleeing driver struck a crowded patio, illustrates the potential dangers of vehicles. Four people lost their lives, and at least 13 others sustained injuries. The frequency of such tragic events raises an important question: do we now consider vehicles to be dangerous weapons worthy of a ban?
These examples expose a core truth: objects on their own do not kill. It is ultimately people who make choices—deliberate or accidental—that result in the loss of life. Until the focus shifts from the tools themselves to the behavior of individuals, the debate surrounding gun control and substance regulation will remain flawed, failing to address the root causes of violence and neglecting the real discussions around responsibility and safety.
"*" indicates required fields
