In post-Parkland discussions, a common argument against stricter regulation of firearms is that many more people are killed in auto crashes caused by drunk drivers than in mass shootings, yet there is no movement to “ban cars.”
Yet that argument is fundamentally flawed, as I noted in a comment to a Facebook post:
| Driving and alcohol consumption are both highly regulated. You need to take both written and driving tests to get a driver’s license and you are required to have liability insurance. If you prove to be an irresponsible or unsafe driver, the state can take your license away. Your car also must pass safety inspections and be registered each year. Alcohol cannot be purchased by minors and vendors that sell alcohol to inebriated persons are liable criminally and civilly. Police routinely run sobriety checkpoints to identify drunk drivers. And actually, alcohol was banned once in the US and it is banned today in certain counties. Isn’t it possible that similar regulations regarding the purchase of firearms might help reduce gun violence? |
I suspect that many people in this country – though not many NRA member, perhaps – would support a proposal to regulate firearms in the same way that driving and drinking are regulated. Clearly, these regulations have not eliminated drunk driving crashes, but the fact that they are not 100 percent successful doesn’t mean that they are not reducing the incidence of drunk driving deaths.
February 18, 2018