I have never owned a gun, nor been a member or any gun lobby, but I can read, write, and do elementary math and Google searches. That’s all it takes to see that there are much better and easier ways to save lives than enacting restrictive gun control laws. Here are three such ways. All would be much more effective than gun control laws, and much easier to pass.
Teenage drivers
A recent report by the National Institute for Mental Health states that the teenage brain does not begin to resemble that of an adult until the early twenties. The part of the brain regulating impulse control and planning ahead is the last to develop. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, in 2014, the last year for which we have statistics, teenage drivers caused 2643 traffic fatalities, accounting for ten percent of all traffic deaths that year. Unlike gun ownership, there is no nationally recognized right to drive a car. Over two thousand deaths could be prevented just by restricting the driving privilege to those over the age of twenty-one. With one vote, Congress could eliminate over two thousand needless deaths per year. Unlike gun control legislation, which can take decades to reduce the number of existing firearms, (if it works at all) the effects of national driver licencing restrictions would begin immediately.
Distracted drivers
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 3154 people were killed by distracted drivers in 2014. A simple way to reduce this number would be to make cell-phone use while driving a Federal offense, punishable by forfeiture of cell phone and vehicle, and loss of driving privilege anywhere in the United States for ten years, for the first offense, and by permanent loss of driving privilege, and/or fines, or even imprisonment, for further offenses. Enforcement costs could be offset by fines, and by auctioning off confiscated cars and phones.
Chronic DWI s
DOT estimates that a fourth of all DWI arrests are repeat offenders. Since drunk driving accounts for nearly 10,000 deaths per year, getting repeat offenders off the streets could save 2500 lives per year. Studies have shown that harsh penalties alone have little or no effect on chronic DWI offenders. The only way to prevent them from repeating is to physically get them off the streets. Making chronic DWI a Federal offense would go a long way toward accomplishing this, as there is no parole for Federal offenses. Costs of enforcement would not be negligible, but no higher than for enforcing gun control laws.
Saving 8200 lives per year forever
Combining all three approaches could save 8200 lives per year, coincidentally equal to the total number of all firearm murders. Implementing these laws would cost less than prosecuting firearms violations, would have immediate results, would avoid Constitutional issues, and would not incite objections from super-powerful gun lobbying organizations.
The life-saving potential is even greater than appears from these numbers, compared to gun control laws. No matter how restrictive gun control laws might be, murderers could get around them by using existing guns, or by using some other weapon. Taking drunks, distracted drivers, and teenagers off the road would have no such limits, but could eliminate ALL such deaths, year after year, forever. Are you listening, Congress?
I think most, if not all, risky behaviours should not be legal until at least 21. This includes drinking alcohol, smoking, using/owning guns, etc. Voting and above used to be at age 21. But due to being recruited into armed forces at age 18, it was decided to lower drinking/smoking age, voting age, etc to 18. The difference in being in the armed forces is, there is little to no decision making by recruits. They just follow instructions.
ReplyDeleteStudies have shown that those who do NOT start drinking or smoking before age 21 rarely start later. Because by age 21 impulse control is much better. Obviously brain science has shown us that age 25 would be even better. That is why car insurance goes down at age 25.