Fair, i certainly couldve used better wording

In Paris and Rome most of the police don't have automatic rifles.

And I think plenty of people would tell and show you exactly why you need a gun in NYC.

Nobody in the world does that.

The Swiss do, which is where our gun laws originate from. The founding fathers were trying to emulate Swiss gun laws and culture, but they only really managed to solidify the laws not the culture. I'm not saying the founding fathers are the end all be all of legal interpretation, but I don't think they missed with trying to emulate the Swiss here.

Why do you need guns in schools?

Same reason i think we should bring back shop classes, auto classes, home economics, and stuff like that. There are practical skills that are useful to learn that kids should be given the option to explore. Acting like firearms have no purpose, use, or value is silly. And it gives a good and dedicated space to learn how to use them safely, just like other tools should and did have, and just like guns used to have. Shooting classes in schools are not a novel idea and were actually common at point. Sure, in a coty it might not be the most useful but the majority of the population doesn't live in cities.

Just make guns act like cars, if it's fine one way, it's fine the other too.

I don't actually think the way we handle cars is fine, it's actually quite fucked. But my issue is mainly with how we view and treat cars, which is a cultural issue. I have the same gripe with firearms, hence why I suggest reforms that target changing gun culture.

Putting restrictions instead of giving guns away like you're Brian from Family Guy trying to buy a carton of milk in Texas will drastically reduce the number of people who even want one.

No, changing the way we view and frame firearms as a society will. People often want guns because they either have a legitimate need or because it makes them feel strong/tough/cool/secure in their identity. Adding restrictions mainly hurts the former, while the latter will still go to obtain them but with less oversight and control. The way to actually address the second group is with cultural changes on the perception of firearms. Again, we should look to Swiss gun culture for this.

The government should just mandate that, to own a firearm, you need a license.

In most places you do. The places you don't are mainly Texas. I'm not arguing we become Texas. If you want to own a firearm in most states you need a Firearm Owner's ID. If you want to carry your firearm you usually need a Concealed Carry License. This is not what I take issue with. However if this were extended to a firearm owner's registry, I would take issue with that for the same reasons I take issue with forming registries of people who have done nothing wrong.

Then you have to renew every two years or how long it is, pass a medical exam and on you go.

This won't work for the same reason it doesn't currently work with cars.

If you get caught intoxicated while holding or near an unsafe firearm, your license is taken away from you, with all your firearms, for a period of time, or permanently for repeat offenses, like with cars.

You really, really don't see how this can go wrong do you? I understand the sentiment and agree with what you want to accomplish with this, but this is rife for abuse. And not theoretical abuse, but the exact same type of abuse that has been used to incarcerate a lot of black and brown people in the US. It also is somewhat antithetical to the point of citizens being able to possess firearms if the government can just waltz in and take them away.

If it's too much of a hassle to own one, most people will just do without.

No because like drugs and prostitution people will just find another way. Legalize all of those things because the way to address those issues is with safety regulation and cultural shifts.