How Distracted Driving Laws Are Related to Gun Control

Lately, there have been countless discussions regarding gun control. Obviously this has become a highly divisive issue with hardly any moderation. First, full disclosure - I AM a Second Amendment advocate. However, I am both a realist and a moderate on the topic. I do agree with several proposals being presented; closing the gun show loopholes, requiring background checks on EVERYONE purchasing a firearm, eliminating ridiculous high-capacity magazines (over 30 rounds), requiring training and certification prior to purchasing a firearm and re-certification every 5 to 10 years - but that is about all I can get behind. I just wanted you all to understand where my head is as I propose an analogy on how gun control is like the recently implemented bans on texting and driving.

First, we can all agree that car accidents kill far more innocent civilians than guns do - in fact, a HUGE number more! Hence the creation of DUI laws and Distracted Driving laws as these compromise a majority of automotive related deaths. Let's take a look at some data from the Census Bureau to better understand the issue at hand.

From this data from the Census Bureau we see that TOTAL UNINTENTIONAL injury deaths for 2012 was statistically estimated to be 118,021, or 38.4 per 100,000 people. Interesting to note here that FALLING deaths equaled 24,792, or 8.1 deaths per 100,000 people and that MOTOR VEHICLE deaths were 34,485, or 11.2 per 100,000 people. Also interesting to note is that UNINTENTIONAL POISONING deaths were 31,758, or 10.3 per 100,000 people. More on all of this later.

On to the homicide data... As we can see from this data from the Census Bureau, 2012 was statistically estimated at 16,799 deaths, or 5.5 per 100,000 people, ranking the HOMICIDE as the 15 leading cause of the death in the US - more on that later. Drilling deeper into the data, the previous link also lists 11,493 gun-related HOMICIDES, or 3.7 per 100,000 of the population.

Now, to be fair, I want to point out that the above data does NOT include suicides as suicides are likely to occur regardless of the available mechanisms and is a mental health issue, not a modal-control issue. BUT... for purposes of open disclosure, there is some interesting information from the Census Bureau on suicides here. By the way, SUICIDE is the NUMBER 1 cause of death in the US. Article here. I'd like to point out some anomalies... First gun-related suicides are HIGHER than gun-related homicides; 18,735 (6.1 per 100K) versus 11,493 (3.7 per 100K)! In fact, suicide ranked number 10 in cause of death. Further research will demonstrate that suicide by firearm is an access issue, not a possession issue - I'll address that as well. The issues surrounding suicide are much too complex to address here - but I wanted full disclosure. Please start a different thread if you are interested in debating this topic - thanks in advance for not cluttering this thread.

Ok, to tie this all together... according to NTSB data for 2010 (latest available), Distracted Driving was the leading cause of automobile accidents and the second cause of automobile related fatalities. "Distracted driving" is a broad area of measure and difficult to nail down posthumously, but estimates are over 80% of Distracted Driving fatalities are cell-phone related - texting in particular. Again, this why we are seeing a HUGE increase in laws restricting the use of these devices while driving. BUT... we are NOT seeing a call for banning smart phones, why? Automobile deaths are THREE TIMES HIGHER than gun homicides. In other words, cell phone use while driving causes well over TWICE the number of deaths as gun-related homicides! Let that sink in for a moment...

So, as I'm travelling with my family over the holidays, during a 35 mile trip to visit family I pass not 1 or 2 but SIX people looking down at their cells phones (texting or dialing), deviating from their lanes and putting everyone on the road in danger. I bring this to light because I actually witnessed and accident/fatality due to a young woman who I passed while she was texting - all over the road - she sideswiped the vehicle behind me and ran the car into a retaining wall, killing the driver!

Summary... Distracted Driving causes more than TWICE the number of deaths as gun-related homicides with cell phone use being tops on the list. The government has passed laws to prevent this, but as we can see, the law hasn't prevented anyone from engaging in the illegal activity. To follow the logic of anti-gun proponents, cell phones should be better regulated than firearms! In fact, Diane Feinstein should be advocating for a complete and total ban of cell phones altogether - "Americans - turn them in!" But they're not - why!?!? This should be a very thought-provoking question to every American. If we are to believe that this entire gun-ban initiative is to save lives, why are we not looking at the more obvious causes of death? I surmise it is because saving lives is the excuse, not the premise.

Further, as evidenced above, creating laws banning things does nothing to actually solve the problem. In fact, here is good scientific overview of the effect of gun control laws. Whipping up fervor among the emotionally drunk is a ploy - one whose motives should be closely examined before allowing the "Solution" to proceed. As I have just demonstrated, there are a great deal of areas that would have a greater effect on "Saving lives" than implementing a gun ban.

What say you all?

Hi.
You are a very old member and your view on this thread is very thought provoking to say the least.

Banning guns is not the answer.
Tighter regulations is the answer.

Similarly in the case of cars,
Tighter regulations for acquiring licence is the answer.

And none of this reality changes a thing.

The futility of distracted driving laws is present in every state that has implemented them. They start with texting and the numbers stay high so they add talking and the numbers stay high then they add eating and drinking and looking down etc....

Meanwhile every state has always had a blanket "distracted driving" law that wasnt doing anything to reduce these numbers long before the new wave of redundant laws became such a fad.

Not only will those who would ignore the law(s) go on ignoring the laws but the laws themselves are essentially unenforceable. Just as magazine and AWB laws have been, are currently and will continue to be.

Lack of compliance, inherit inability to enforce and failure to produce positive results plague every single prohibition law on the books.

The moment any politician or interest group proposes any sort of prohibition that should be the end of any and all credibility they ever had.

Unfortunately the public is just as stupid as these politicians and interest groups are.

"It doesnt matter if the targets will continue to offend, the act is unenforceable, the deaths continue unabated, the costs to governments and municipalities increase year over year.......we have to do something!"

The road to hell is not paved with good intentions. It's paved with gross stupidity.

reply to post by kozmo


Very well thought out thread. (S and F.)

I agree with you when you say, and I quote:
"I surmise it is because saving lives is the excuse, not the premise."

If I understand you correctly, you make a clear differentiation between the actual item (firearm / cellphone), and the associated action (using the firearm / driving while texting).

If "driving while texting" (the action) is banned,
then "using firearms irresponsibly" (the action) should be banned.

In both cases, the actual items (cellphones / firearms) should not be banned.

Is my understanding correct?

reply to post by kozmo


I also want to add, that I OFTEN see people using their cellphones while driving (talking and texting).
As an external observer in this case, I can clearly see how this impair their driving skills.
The above actions are just outright dangerous, and it makes me furious.

Nowadays, I also see people struggling with their GPS's ("global positioning systems") while driving.
This is yet another device that is distracting drivers while driving their motor vehicles.

People need to be more responsible.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I couldn't agree more! That was precisely the purpose of this thread - an attempt to illustrate this futility and highlight the progressive creep of banning this or that. I am merely hopeful to illustrate this point more clearly to some ATS members who have not fully divested themselves of the ignorance surrounding this great debate.

As always, thanks for your input!

Originally posted by QMask
reply to post by kozmo

 

Very well thought out thread.

(S and F.)

I agree with you when you say, and I quote:
"I surmise it is because saving lives is the excuse, not the premise."

If I understand you correctly, you make a clear differentiation between the actual item (firearm / cellphone), and the associated action (using the firearm / driving while texting).

If "driving while texting" (the action) is banned,
then "using firearms irresponsibly" (the action) should be banned.

In both cases, the actual items (cellphones / firearms) should not be banned.

Is my understanding correct?

BINGO!!! Wish I could S&F this post... so I starred it!

Yes, precisely my point. Banning the action isn't effective. Those who desire to willfully disobey laws designed to prevent an activity can and will do so. Banning the item does nothing to limit the underlying cause of desire to engage in the activity in the first place. Those whose desire perseveres will most certainly find a way to engage.

Enacting mans on items creates unintentional consequences; black markets, increased crime etc...

The focus here to find CONSTRUCTIVE ways to IMPEDE an undesirable act. Example - if I really want to eliminate disctracted driving, require that every car be outfitted with a cell phone scrambler that prevents the phone from being operated while driving. Do not ban cell phones, or even cell phones with fancy gemstone studded cases that can text (metaphor for banning guns versus assault guns).

By extension, if I really want to limit gun-related homicides, require legal gun owners to keep their weapons under lock and key and ensure that they are only accessible by the owner. By extension, make sure the firearms owner has the proper training to won the firearm and ensure its safety.

Law-abiding citizens respond to threat of prosecution much more effectively than criminals - obviously. Ergo, create a need for personal responsibility around exercising these rights via threat of severe prosecution AND impede the ability to engage in the act to make such a breaking of the law willful.

Make sense?

Originally posted by shivaX
Hi.
You are a very old member and your view on this thread is very thought provoking to say the least.

Banning guns is not the answer.
Tighter regulations is the answer.

Similarly in the case of cars,
Tighter regulations for acquiring licence is the answer.

Not just tighter regulations of obtaining a Driver's License, but an impediment to distracted driving that makes the commission of the act a willful defiance of the law - as I outlined previously - by requiring a cell phone scrambler in vehicles.

I would never advocate for banning cell phones. I would, however, advocate for stronger impediments to misusing them to endanger someone's life.

reply to post by kozmo


OK, I understand your point.

You say, and I quote:
"The focus here to find CONSTRUCTIVE ways to IMPEDE an undesirable act. Example - if I really want to eliminate distracted driving, require that every car be outfitted with a cell phone scrambler that prevents the phone from being operated while driving. Do not ban cell phones"

Your thinking is focused on a real attempt to solve the problem of people engaging in the improper action.

I like this line of thinking.
It reminds me of one of my all-time heroes: Jacque Fresco

Jacque Fresco on Wikipedia

The Venus Project

I have watched many interviews with this great man, and he also does not believe in punitive laws.
The right approach is to tackle the improper behaviour, by using technology to solve the actual problem.

kozmo, when you have the time, check out the work and philosophy of this great man.

reply to post by QMask


Thanks Q, I most certainly will!

Thanks for your input on the subject. I'll be curious to see if others weigh in on this. I fear that perhaps there have been too many extremist threads on the gun issue and most members have fatigue over the issue. I cannot state strongly enough that MODERATION is the key to this country moving forward.

If we continue to allow the media and the politicians to drive agendas by getting the masses drunk on emotion, we are going to end up looking like a third-world hell-hole run by a tin-pot dictator.

reply to post by kozmo


The difference between phones and guns is actually pretty large.

Phones are necessary for everyone. Can't get a job without a phone.

Guns are not necessary for everyone. Can get a job without a gun.

Phones call people.

Guns shoot projectiles.

With that said, I do not support a ban on guns, but the logic herein is faulty. We can't ban phones and unfortunately there is no way to stop people from abusing them.

The same can be said with guns.

Laws don't stop people from abusing items. Laws are in place to punish those that get caught.

If there are only 8k deaths a year from guns, why are we doing anything about it?

There are 350,000,000 people in America, and out of that -- 8,000 are subject to die from firearms.

This is but a drop in the bucket, no? The only reason people feel it's out of control is the media plays it up.

For those that keep saying "America has more gun deaths than anywhere else in the world" yeah -- you're right, but guess what else....

America has a bigger population than all the places it's being compared to.

This is called proportion, which should not be neglected.





All in all, there is no problem. Crazy people will be crazy, when you have three hundred and fifty million people, you're bound to have your crazies... and despite the laws, nothing will stop the crazies.

The best we can do, is live life carefully and care about the effects our actions have on others.

For some reason people feel entitled to safety, but don't feel entitled to not rape and pillage and pillage and rape.

Basically what I'm saying is, people wish to feel safe, no matter their actions.... this is an entitlement issue. We are not entitled to safety regardless of our actions. Safety is a luxury, and one you must actively take part in securing.

The only way to bring down murder, is to band together and help each other. We need to get America off of the crazy pharmaceuticals that cloud their judgment. We need to take care of those who are struggling despite their effort to survive.

We need to care about each other first.

Once we all care about each other, then we can realize that the murder/accident rates are directionally proportional to our attitudes toward each other.

No law is going to make this better.

Originally posted by Laykilla
reply to post by kozmo

 

The difference between phones and guns is actually pretty large.

Phones are necessary for everyone. Can't get a job without a phone.

Guns are not necessary for everyone. Can get a job without a gun.

Phones call people.

Guns shoot projectiles.

With that said, I do not support a ban on guns, but the logic herein is faulty. We can't ban phones and unfortunately there is no way to stop people from abusing them.

The same can be said with guns.

Laws don't stop people from abusing items. Laws are in place to punish those that get caught.

If there are only 8k deaths a year from guns, why are we doing anything about it?

There are 350,000,000 people in America, and out of that -- 8,000 are subject to die from firearms.

This is but a drop in the bucket, no? The only reason people feel it's out of control is the media plays it up.

For those that keep saying "America has more gun deaths than anywhere else in the world" yeah -- you're right, but guess what else....

America has a bigger population than all the places it's being compared to.

This is called proportion, which should not be neglected.





All in all, there is no problem. Crazy people will be crazy, when you have three hundred and fifty million people, you're bound to have your crazies... and despite the laws, nothing will stop the crazies.

The best we can do, is live life carefully and care about the effects our actions have on others.

For some reason people feel entitled to safety, but don't feel entitled to not rape and pillage and pillage and rape.

Basically what I'm saying is, people wish to feel safe, no matter their actions.... this is an entitlement issue. We are not entitled to safety regardless of our actions. Safety is a luxury, and one you must actively take part in securing.

The only way to bring down murder, is to band together and help each other. We need to get America off of the crazy pharmaceuticals that cloud their judgment. We need to take care of those who are struggling despite their effort to survive.

We need to care about each other first.

Once we all care about each other, then we can realize that the murder/accident rates are directionally proportional to our attitudes toward each other.

No law is going to make this better.

edit on 3-1-2013 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)

What a load of dissembling! I'm not comparing a gun to a phone. I'm comparing legislative actions to save lives.

Phones aren't necessary behind the wheel of a car!
People don't get jobs on their phones behind the wheel of a car!

You've failed to comprehend what I'm stating here. Go back and read it again. The metaphor is logically accurate at every turn. This has nothing to do with comparing items, it has everything to do with comparing cause and effect legislation.

I just though of something I have heard, that may fit into this thread:

"If you are unable to solve a problem, just make a new law."

Cheers
QMask

Maybe it is just me but common sense is lacking in many things . leaving guns around for kids to find probably isn't the smartest thing to do especially if there is an unstable teenager . these items should be locked and hidden . shotgun hand guns hunting rifles are needed for the obvious reasons hunting and protection . collecting gun like some people do in the usa come across to me as a penis envy ( mine is bigger than yours )

With cell phones and driving very few people can multi task and drive . Law are in place for a reason but to many people they just don't give a crap they are only traffic laws , just a simple fine . I work in road construction numerous times I have watched people in their car run over pylons , almost hitting workers , speeding with no regard to for anyone but themselves texting not paying attention . It is a problem cell phones and driving , a few months ago some kids were crossing the street at the cross walk some idiot was speeding and texting if it wasn't for the guy waiting to come out of the parking lot to the road who noticed the idiot was texting and was about to hit a group of kids he drove his truck out in front of the guy texting saving these kids .

Makes me wonder why people feel the need to always be connected so some sort of social media or communication . Also makes me laugh how people have little regard for this law and constantly break it , while looking down on people who break the law in other ways . If people cannot be responsible when they drive revoke their license . but that will never happen as it would probably hurt the economy in some way . they keep letting chronic drunk drivers back on the road just to do it over and over again .

What did people do before cell phones , how did the human race ever survive with us taking pictures of ourselves when driving to put it up on facebook is beyond me .

reply to post by freedomSlave


I thank you kindly for making my point. There are already laws requiring guns to be secured. Just like laws to ban distracted driving. These laws do not work. Common sense and personal responsibility do.

We cannot ban freedoms granted to the law-abiding amongst us to protect us from stupidity - that also does not work.

As many want to believe my analogy is a non sequitur, it is not. Regardless the method of death, it is unavoidable. This slippery slope could result in banning "death", but would that put an end to it?