BIAS

it is sometimes difficult to see our own blindness. there is much acceptance in most of the industrialized world that guns have potential for much harm and should be highly regulated. in canada it is safe to say that much harm has been done by alcohol, not only but particularly among first-nations communities, but there is not much acceptance for the idea of highly regulating this behavior. is there some reason to ignore the possibility that regulating alcohol more highly might improve the lives of many? 

most canadians have never considered the idea that more information and education about the dangers of guns might be all that is needed. they assume regulation is necessary regardless of any information program. but they do not feel the same way about alcohol. i wonder why that is.

in assessing my own bias, i notice that i do not think most activity humans engage in should be regulated by prohibition. making illegal certain substances like alcohol and even all drugs has always seemed to me the wrong way to go. so why do i feel it is right and proper to limit public access to firearms by prohibition?

i don't know. the argument is advanced that alcohol over-consumption mainly injures oneself, whereas guns represent a threat to others. but first, others are greatly impacted and often injured by one's alcohol consumption and, second, most gun deaths are from suicide, a self-inflicted injury. 

there is more overlap between guns and alcohol (or all drugs) than is comfortable to admit.
i wonder why that is.

could it be that alcohol injury usually takes place over a protracted time and presents many opportunities for self-regulation and improvement, whereas gun injury can be sudden and instantaneous and often impossible to redress, that the sudden finality of gun injury makes it much more difficult to address with programs of education to improve awareness?