You didn't watch the video but I'll indulge anyway. Firearms are restricted about as much as vehicles just in different ways. Vehicles are also not a right like guns are.

@glennlab How well have those restrictions on drugs and alcohol worked out so far? I'd say not so good, the war on drugs has been kicking our ass now for decades and appears to only be getting worse, and don't think I need to go into detail on what a disaster prohibition was. I can remember my teen years quite vividly, and I personally knew a number of individuals back then who drank and partook in recreational drugs despite laws and regulations forbidding such behaviors, and regarding the latter one over the years saw good friends die from overdoses. Just last year in May lost another friend to an overdose, he was 37 years old, and I must ask what good were the laws/restrictions against drug usage? Jarrett still ended up dead.

Owning and operating an automobile is not a right but rather a privilege, unlike gun ownership in our country, so that's not the best comparison to make there. I can't speak for others on this, but personally I don't want to arm any known individuals who are mentally disturbed/suffering from any sort of mental illness, nor am I opposed to licensing and insurance requirements per se. Regarding the latter there, my concern lies in whether or not we could trust these red flag laws to be fair, and whether or not we could trust the insurance companies to also be fair. I won't go too deep on the insurance part here for the moment being I'd like to keep this as short as possible, but a case could be made that certain insurance requirements for gun owners could negatively impact minority gun owners. As for the red flag laws, I see the potential in such laws, despite having an upside, could also be used as a form of retribution on someone, if another individual would say have a personal grudge against the gun owner. We need to tread cautiously regarding laws like that, as they do have the potential to be weaponized against otherwise law-abiding citizens. That's where the tricky part lies, implementing laws that would both work and also be fair for everyone across the board.

Most states already have in place licensing and insurance requirements, and it sure wasn't a cake walk for me the first time I purchased a firearm, and Pennsylvania tends to be a bit more gun-friendly than most neighboring states are. As for the guns being the leading cause of death for kids, that's debateable, and that premise relies on what could be considered questionable statistics and age caps. If the age to define a minor is capped at age seventeen and not up to nineteen like those recent statistics have relied on, those aged seventeen and younger face a higher threat of being involved in an automobile accident, and again personally speaking I've known far more young people whose lives were ended in automobile accidents than I have with a gun (by ratio of about 17 to 1, in this case). Those statistics also don't properly account for suicides and gang-related violence, both of which need to be kept in proper context, in particular the former given the personal nature of such.

So it's not a matter of me being opposed to licensing and insurance requirements, but rather I question how effective those would be overall and how much of a difference they would make? Anyone who has been found to be mentally unsound should be institutionalized and not be free to roam about in public where they could harm others or themselves, so I certainly don't want to see such people armed, and repeat violent offenders belong in prison. It's a complex issue with no simplistic solutions, and I still contend that more laws or insurance won't do/haven't done enough to solve the problem. I know what the real problem is, and I'm positive that you do too as well Glenn, but that's another story, and this comment is already longer than what I anticipated, lol.

@SpikeTalon The arguments you make are good, but they are the same ones that were made against mandatory auto insurance. People railed against it being unfair to minority and poor people,

There are always going to be bad laws and they need to change, there are always going to be people that drink and drug illegally. Prohibition didn't work and Nixon's war on drugs, meant to jail minorities and hippies who Nixon despised damned sure isn't working.

There are thousands of gun laws on the books, and you want to add more. If someone is legally allowed to own one they can buy one. What's the problem?

Chicago is a dog whistle that Obama came from Chicago and Obama was black. Chicago is not in the top five of most violent US cities.

Every major city has a violence problem, Chicago isn't even in the top 5 for gun deaths.
St. Louis had America's highest gun homicide rate in 2022, followed by Birmingham, Ala., New Orleans, Jackson, Miss., and Baltimore.
The average gun homicide rate in blue-state cities was 7.2 per 100,000 residents from 2015 to 2022, the analysis found. In red-state cities, it was 11.1 deaths per 100,000.

It's not a red/blue problem, it is a problem with access by people that shouldn't have access. License, test, require insurance. The insurance companies will weed out the bad apples.

@glennlab I know it's not a strictly red or blue problem there, as the real issue is far more complex than that, and my comment above did not imply it was a problem one side or the other.