# How can we prevent drunk driving deaths? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 15, 2012, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140 "2012-12-15T23:23:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/121 "2012-12-19T04:20:42Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > This is unbelievable. If gun use had anything to do with risk whatsoever, as opposed to gun ownership, then we would have people calling for laws that limited gun use, as opposed to limiting gun ownership. We actually have people arguing for both. That said, limiting ownership obviously limits the use of guns. > [@Absolute](#): > > But anyone can see that that would do jack shit for gun crime. If, instead of banning handguns for example, we simply restricted handguns to being “used” no more frequently than once per month, do you think that would have any effect on crime whatso-fucking-ever? Are you really this obtuse? Let’s try a thought experiment to help you work through this. Let’s say we magically eliminate all bullets. How dangerous would guns be? Read this very carefully. Ownership of a gun that is unlikely to be used for any purpose is far less dangerous than one that might be used or stolen. I don’t mean that each time some individual uses a gun in a innocuous way makes us all less safe. I mean that the more people have occasions to use firearms, in aggregate, the greater the likelihood something bad will happen. Mere ownership rates will influence that number, but they don’t tell the whole story. For example, basically all police officers carry guns. Yet, the guns carried by officers in violent areas will be likely be used more often, and will thus end up killing more people. This is also why the danger posed by a gun is not the same for all individuals. A gun owned by a depressed teenager, or a gang member is far more problematic than one owned by a 55-year old former cop. Why? Because the teenager/gang-member is FAR more likely to USE the gun to do something stupid. > [@Absolute](#): > > Of course not, because handgun ownership is what poses a risk, and someone who goes and “uses” their handgun at the shooting range more often than average doesn’t pose any additional risk to anyone! Geez. If everyone who owned a gun only went shooting, you would be right. The problem is that that is not what actually happens. Let’s make another simple analogy. The more people drive, the greater number of accidents we will see. The more miles you drive, the more likely it is you will be in an accident. Do you agree with these (true) statements? If so, the same applies to guns. Why? Because even though many people who drive (or go to the shooting range) will be completely law abiding and responsible, on a macro level, the correlation is strong enough to effectively quantify risk. Your complaint about shooting ranges is like arguing that if I only drive at 3 am around a cul-de-sac, the increased use of my car wouldn’t make an accident more likely. That is correct, but we are not looking at things on a micro level. > [@Absolute](#): > > When considering the risk of gun crime, how often a gun is “used” has nothing to do with anything, because legal use of guns and illegal use of guns are completely orthogonal, whereas legal and illegal use of alcohol are not! Do you think using the word orthogonal makes your point any less nonsensical? First, you are drawing a distinction that is not codified in law as it pertains to our discussion. For legal adults, there is no “illegal” use of alcohol. There is illegal operation of a car while drunk, but that is not the same thing. Second, the discussion is not how often a gun, as in one particular gun, is used. It’s about how often guns in total are used. Why is that a useful metric? Because we know that a certain percentage of those uses will be bad. Whether it’s a cop shooting an unarmed person, a wannabe neighborhood watch guy shooting a teenager, homeowner shooting their kid by accident, or a depressed kid blowing his brains out. Why is this relevant? Because it tells us how risky gun use is. The risk is deliberately absent context because it is not meant to apply to every individual or every situation. It’s like if you asked how risky is it to climb Mt. Everest. Of course that risk for me is different from that of a Sherpa. But that number is still valid as a general guideline. > [@Absolute](#): > > Well, I don’t view it as a terrible analogy… You are pretty much alone in that estimation. > [@Absolute](#): > > Oh, for fuck’s sake! Everyone in this fucking THREAD except for 1 or 2 people espouses both views! Feel free to quote any of them. > [@Absolute](#): > > Yes, and responsible gun ownership by level-headed people is also harmless and can be beneficial. Probably not because guns are easily stolen and misused. You can’t restrict guns to only responsible people, which is part of the problem. > [@Absolute](#): > > Someone did suggest a very high age limit on guns somewhere on this board using language very similar to what I used. Yeah… someone somewhere suggested it. :dubious: > [@Absolute](#): > > That’s exactly the whole goddamn point of this thread. I thought the whole point was to some dumbass gotcha that ended up blowing up in your face. > [@Absolute](#): > > Well, for the first two, actually, yes they do. Not really. Very few thieves will break into a home to steal alcohol, whereas guns are almost always [stolen](http://simplisafe.com/blog/home-security-top-10-common-stolen-items-from-a-burglar). Secondly, most people don’t actively try to kill themselves with alcohol. Even the biggest drunks are usually not drinking for that purpose. > [@Absolute](#): > > Since the only point I’m trying to make is that the rates are roughly equivalent, not exactly the same, I’ve already proved it. No, you haven’t. That’s particularly funny since you started by implying alcohol is more dangerous by a factor of 3 to 1. Then you found some new numbers to glom on to, deciding it was roughly equal. Either way, you have not proved either claim. > [@Absolute](#): > > Similarly, how can ANYONE know what would happen under some counter-factual where was no alcohol? The statistics I used are the best available. Dude, do you actually read the links? It’s not a counter factual. The people who compile the numbers are not claiming alcohol was causative (as you suggested). They ADMIT it was\* not a causative factor\* in many cases. For example, if you are a DD driving a car full of drunk friends, and then you are t-boned by a old (sober) lady, the accident can be classified as [alcohol related](http://www.prweb.com/releases/dui_process/dui_help/prweb436346.htm). > [@](#): > > The definition of an “alcohol related incident” by the National Highway Safety Administration includes any traceable amount of alcohol within any person involved in a traffic incident regardless of fault or whether or not the individual was a passenger or a driver. This definition has been applied so broadly as to even include pedestrians who have been drinking being hit by a sober vehicle who was in the wrong. The reality is that number is grossly inflated, and anyone really trying to have a substantive discussion would admit that point instead of trying to pick nits. > [@Absolute](#): > > This is the best data there is to work with. We don’t need “data to work with” as the two things are not really related. How we regulate alcohol is not really relevant in a discussion regarding how we should regulate guns. Do you think our laws regarding heroin or oxycodone are relevant here? What about the the laws regarding workplace safety At some point the difference between the two things being compared makes the connections we could draw too tenuous. > [@Absolute](#): > > Are you saying it is impossible to draw any conclusions for this reason? I am saying you do not have the data to make a do an accurate quantitative analysis wrt risk, and the differences between the two things make qualitative regulatory comparisons meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/122 "2012-12-19T04:47:59Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Do you think using the word orthogonal makes your point any less nonsensical? First, you are drawing a distinction that is not codified in law as it pertains to our discussion. For legal adults, there is no “illegal” use of alcohol. There is illegal operation of a car while drunk, but that is not the same thing. Second, the discussion is not how often a gun, as in one particular gun, is used. **It’s about how often guns in total are used. Why is that a useful metric? Because we know that a certain percentage of those uses will be bad.** Whether it’s a cop shooting an unarmed person, a wannabe neighborhood watch guy shooting a teenager, homeowner shooting their kid by accident, or a depressed kid blowing his brains out. Why is this relevant? Because it tells us how risky gun use is. The risk is deliberately absent context because it is not meant to apply to every individual or every situation. It’s like if you asked how risky is it to climb Mt. Everest. Of course that risk for me is different from that of a Sherpa. But that number is still valid as a general guideline. Okay, well this is really the key point we are hung up on. I am assuming that the total number of legal firings of guns and total number of illegal firings are uncorrelated. You are assuming that the total number of illegal firings is correlated with the total number of legal firings. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/123 "2012-12-19T04:49:01Z")
I’d like to see a cite that premiums increase with firearms ownership. The MSN cite says no such thing, and only implies that it is an issue in case of actual use of a firearm. When I got State Farm Condo owner’s insurance, their only interest was the value of my firearm. Granted, this was before I owned an “arsenal.” I pay like 17 bucks a month so if it affected premiums, not by much. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/124 "2012-12-19T04:53:23Z")
Ok, upon further review of your post, I am done arguing this with you. You are being as obtuse as you accuse me of being. I feel like I am arguing with a chatbot that is decently good at English and can compare two numbers but incapable of any logic or abstract understanding whatsoever. And you are cherry-picking quotes from my posts to repeat the same objections over and over again, while neglecting to quote the immediate next sentence which addresses them. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/125 "2012-12-19T05:51:40Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Okay, well this is really the key point we are hung up on. I am assuming that the total number of legal firings of guns and total number of illegal firings are uncorrelated. You are assuming that the total number of illegal firings is correlated with the total number of legal firings. Again, the legal/illegal distinction is meaningless. It’s not really illegal to kill yourself is it? It’s not always illegal to “stand your ground”. It’s also may not be strictly illegal to accidentally shoot someone. A cop shooting a suspect may not be illegal either. Yet, all of those things would be less than desirous in the eyes of most. Secondly, I think you meant to say you assumed the were _causally related_, not correlated. Of course they are correlated, as “mistakes” will almost certain rise as the number of trials grows absent mitigating influences . To your point, it doesn’t really matter if they are causally related since we are theoretically trying to find the risk, on average, of using a gun, which is just a more sophisticated model of bad outcomes/total outcomes. Could the denominator grow without increasing the numerator? Sure, but it’s just as unlikely as increasing the number of cars on the road without increasing the number of accidents. > [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > I’d like to see a cite that premiums increase with firearms ownership. The MSN cite says no such thing, and only implies that it is an issue in case of actual use of a firearm. When I got State Farm Condo owner’s insurance, their only interest was the value of my firearm. Granted, this was before I owned an “arsenal.” I pay like 17 bucks a month so if it affected premiums, not by much. The title of the article is “11 things that make home-insurance rates soar”. It also says: > [@](#): > > Whether you have used a weapon in self-defense, with criminal intent or by accident will obviously play a big role in how much liability an insurer will assume. Insurers want to know that guns are properly secured, have safety locks and are kept out of reach of children. Failure to disclose that you have a firearm could lead to an insurer trying to deny your claims in the event of an accident. The point was that IF you want to be covered for the likely outcomes that arise from owning a gun, your insurance will go up, often by a lot. Sometimes, they will even drop you [completely](http://blogs.courant.com/connecticut_insurance/2011/02/travelers-explains-gun-policy.html). Obviously if you do not want the insurance company to assume that risk, you might not have to pay more. It’s like getting health insurance with diabetes. It doesn’t have to be expensive if it’s not gonna cover your treatment for that disease. > [@Absolute](#): > > Ok, upon further review of your post, I am done arguing this with you. You are being as obtuse as you accuse me of being. I feel like I am arguing with a chatbot that is decently good at English and can compare two numbers but incapable of any logic or abstract understanding whatsoever. Ah… so now the guy who tried to jerk everyone’s chain with a deliberately inflammatory riddled with half-truths, strawmen, and unsupported assumptions now wants to take his ball and go home. Fair enough. It was pretty clear you didn’t want to have an actual discussion about either issue given you were too lazy to do a basic google search on the relevant statistics, or bother to understand what they numbers mean. But you are right, I am being obtuse :dubious:. ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/126 "2012-12-19T06:22:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > They’re generically known as ignition interlocks here. Thanks! [Wiki says](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device) > [@](#): > > **USA** > As of 2012, all 50 states have laws permitting the imposition of ignition-interlock devices as sentencing alternatives for drunken drivers.[3] > > **Arizona** Arizona mandates at least six months for all DUI offenses, even those not involving alcohol. > > **California** If driving on a suspended license due to a DUI conviction, legally the court must impose an ignition interlock device requirement for up to a maximum of three years from the date of conviction. As of July 1, 2010 interlocks are required upon a DUI conviction in four counties; Los Angeles, Alameda, Sacramento and Tulare. -AB 91 creates a pilot program for select counties, such as Los Angeles County, that will require all drivers convicted of a DUI offense to install IIDs in their vehicles as a condition to receive restricted driving privileges. -SB 598 shortens the amount of time certain repeat DUI offenders will have to wait before becoming eligible to apply for restricted California driving privileges. To receive the restricted license though, these drivers will be required to meet certain criteria, such as the installation of an IID in their vehicles.[5] > \*\* > Georgia\*\* Upon conviction of a second DUI, the violator’s license is suspended for no less than 18 months. During the final six months of this suspension the driver in question is required to have a working ignition interlock device installed in any vehicle that he or she intends to operate. > > **Massachusetts** > Starting January 1, 2006, drivers that had a second or subsequent operating under the influence offense and are eligible for a hardship license or for license reinstatement, are required to have an ignition interlock device attached to their motor vehicle, at their own expense. > > **New Mexico** > Ignition interlocks are required for at least one year for all first-time DWI offenders; subsequent offenses require longer periods of installation. > > **New York** As of August 15, 2010, New York state requires a person sentenced for Driving While Intoxicated have an ignition interlock device installed for at least 6 months on any vehicle they own or operate, and the driver have an “ignition interlock” restriction added to their driver license. > > **North Carolina** A conviction of Driving While Impaired with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more or another conviction within the past seven years will require an ignition interlock device to be installed on the vehicle. > > **Utah** Effective July 2, 2009, anyone convicted of a DUI, whether it be a first offense or a subsequent offense, will be required to have an ignition interlock device placed on their car — for 18 months for first time offense. > > Virginia > Effective July 1, 2012, anyone who is convicted of DUI may drive only with an ignition interlock after the first offense, as a condition of a restricted license and is required to have an ignition interlock installed in each vehicle owned by or registered to him after a second offense. The bill also provides that the court may authorize a restricted license for travel to and from the interlock installer and a person can pre-qualify for an ignition interlock prior to conviction. > > **Criticism** > A study by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded, "The results of the study show that interlock works for some offenders in some contexts, but not for all offenders in all situations. More specifically, ignition interlock devices work best when they are installed, although there is also some evidence that judicial orders to install an interlock are effective for repeat DUI offenders, even when not all offenders comply and install a device. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/127 "2012-12-19T15:01:23Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > As far as I know, there is no scientific proof that there is any harm from smelling smoke in an open ventilated area. Don’t need any. We _know_ that _the particles_ cause cellular damage that causes the mutation into cancer cells. We know that cancer is a _statistical_ risk – one cannot say _which_ particle will cause a mutation, but _more_ particles means _greater_ likelihood – which, in turn, does NOT mean _one_ particle is completely safe. We know that _smelling_ smoke is possible _only_ if the particles are inhaled. Therefore, if I smell it, I am exposed to it and am, on some level, being exposed to a cancer risk. This is self-evident. To believe otherwise is to engage in magical thinking – the cancer is caused _by the particles_, not by being indoors or outdoors. The fact that it’s _difficult to quantify_ doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, and certainly shouldn’t mean I have to put up with it. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/128 "2012-12-19T17:00:53Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Don’t need any. We _know_ that _the particles_ cause cellular damage that causes the mutation into cancer cells. We know that cancer is a _statistical_ risk – one cannot say _which_ particle will cause a mutation, but _more_ particles means _greater_ likelihood – which, in turn, does NOT mean _one_ particle is completely safe. We know that _smelling_ smoke is possible _only_ if the particles are inhaled. > > Therefore, if I smell it, I am exposed to it and am, on some level, being exposed to a cancer risk. This is self-evident. To believe otherwise is to engage in magical thinking – the cancer is caused _by the particles_, not by being indoors or outdoors. > > The fact that it’s _difficult to quantify_ doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, and certainly shouldn’t mean I have to put up with it. So you want to regulate other people’s behavior even if there is no **quantifiable** risk to you, but you assume it must happen? Personally I don’t smoke myself, but I actually appreciate the efforts of other people to decrease their life expectancy and keep Social Security economically viable. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/129 "2012-12-19T20:39:03Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > So you want to regulate other people’s behavior even if there is no **quantifiable** risk to you, but you assume it must happen? You’re mischaracterizing it. It’s not a case of assuming – _risk_ happens. It would be assuming if I asserted _harm_ was certain, but _risk_ is certain, just hard to measure or not yet measured. Remember, it’s hard to find comets outside the inner solar system, but nobody doubts they’re real, even though we see them infrequently. Your assertion is equivalent to saying they don’t _exist_; I’m just saying they’re hard to _predict_. Other people regulate my behavior all the time, for trivial interests of their own. I don’t see why I can’t want to regulate their behavior that inflicts risk on me. Let them wear patches for their nicotine and we’re all happy. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/130 "2012-12-19T20:52:55Z")
Clever OP, but a more appropriate analogy would be guns=cars than guns=alcohol. Alcohol is more like mental illness in this equation. And even then, I’d need to see evidence that your statistics account for the normal accident rate. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/131 "2012-12-19T21:33:10Z")
This is not a very bright OP at all. The existence of one problem does not preclude attempting a solution merely because other unrelated problems exist. Issues regarding guns, drugs, driving etc all have their own dynamic and must be addressed appropriately. Now if you wish to debate what is appropriate for gun control then that is ok. If you wish to debate drink driving rules, then that is ok, and if you wish to debate the control of alcohol as a general social issue then that is fine too - but to conflate issues, compare and use false analogies is to use poor, and unclear debating tactics and can only result in confused thinking and non-effective solutions. There is a name for this sort of fallacy, but I cannot remember what it is. In terms of drink driving, we had a culture of it in the UK for decades, but the rising cost of insurance along with it losing social acceptability and also vigorous enforcement with hefty punishments(with a high likelihood that you will no longer be able to attend your place of work due to increasing travel times) all have worked together to reduce this. One thing that surprises me when I see US real life traffic cop shows is just how tolerant of drink driving you are, it is very striking, specially to see repeat offenders return to the roads again and again without removal of the driving licence. Out of interest, what would the main source of illegally held firearms in the US be? I am betting that it will be from legal owners who have them stolen - so reduce the pool of weapons and perhaps you reduce the number of illegally held ones. I am quite sure a gun advocate will be able to debunk this little theory of mine quite easily. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/132 "2012-12-19T21:50:41Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > This is not a very bright OP at all. > > The existence of one problem does not preclude attempting a solution merely because other unrelated problems exist. > > Issues regarding guns, drugs, driving etc all have their own dynamic and must be addressed appropriately. Now if you wish to debate what is appropriate for gun control then that is ok. If you wish to debate drink driving rules, then that is ok, and if you wish to debate the control of alcohol as a general social issue then that is fine too - but to conflate issues, compare and use false analogies is to use poor, and unclear debating tactics and can only result in confused thinking and non-effective solutions. > > There is a name for this sort of fallacy, but I cannot remember what it is. Oh, do try, I think this thread really could use a bunch of people throwing named fallacies at each other like magic spells. I did not say that gun control should not be attempted because the problem of alcohol exists. I agree this is an invalid argument. Perhaps I may have said this somewhere on the board in a moment of sloppiness, hurry and frustration, but it’s not a position I support. I have been saying that many people are focusing on the negative consequences of guns because they have no experience with guns, or a visceral dislike of guns. And since many people enjoy alcohol, they tend to discount the harmful effects of alcohol. In reality guns cause harm at roughly the same rate as alcohol. Both of these are examples of confirmation bias. The fact that opinions on guns are highly politically motivated and opinions on alcohol are not just exacerbates it. If anti-gun folks would at least understand that gun owners are approaching their position on guns from the same perspective that alcohol users approach their position on alcohol, the whole discussion would be better off. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/133 "2012-12-19T22:27:04Z")
That alcohol is directly responsible for more harm (or not) is completely irrelevant to a gun control policy. I do struggle to find a non-negative aspect to guns, so perhaps that is why the only way I can think of them is in a negative manner. This is hardly surprising given the other aspect of guns is to impose power over others, and this is one of the troubles of the world. This is hardly relevant in a direct way to the US, but it does inform the views of many folk. The enforcement of anti-alcohol laws in some countries is also an imposition of power on others too, you could well argue that religion is responsible for more deaths than all these things put together and the exercise of power in its name is completely repugnant.Maybe religion should be restricted and licenced, or even outright banned. As for people taking a political outlook, pretty much everything that affects you directly has a political aspect, but the things that seem to many people to affect life and death most directly are going to be at the high end of the political priority. Right now its obvious why there is such a lot of concern about gun ownership, but it will pass until the next spree killing comes along, and along and along. Folk are kind of weird that way, yet spree killings are such a small number of untoward deaths that we will see all the outrage again and again. We will not see much concern over the long slow killers, we never have and I don’t expect that to change, one person dies here, another person dies there - it just doesn’t gather the public interest like a good shooting spree does. Cancer deaths from asbestos or other serious work related health issues kill far more people every year than everything we have so far noted, but I don’t see much of a cohesive campaign to deal with it, not many votes there I suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/134 "2012-12-19T22:52:04Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > That alcohol is directly responsible for more harm (or not) is completely irrelevant to a gun control policy. > > I do struggle to find a non-negative aspect to guns, so perhaps that is why the only way I can think of them is in a negative manner. Yes, I pretty much agree, gun control policy can and should be set on its own merits. I am not trying to argue that the existence of alcohol negates the need for better gun control. The purpose of my analogy is simply to point out to people who are considering their own positions on guns that their visceral response is not the One True Way of thinking on the issue, by pointing out that guns are really quite similar in many ways to another recreational activity with harmful effects, that they may think of differently because of their own biases. In practice, most people seem to respond by reflexively and dogmatically rejecting the analogy and defending alcohol in one way or another, rather than sitting back in quiet contemplation and thanking me for helping them evaluate the issue rationally. Oh well… And of course, anything the government does is an imposition of power over others, be it restrictions on drugs, alcohol, guns, speech, religion, etc. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/135 "2012-12-20T01:13:40Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Yes, I pretty much agree, gun control policy can and should be set on its own merits. I am not trying to argue that the existence of alcohol negates the need for better gun control. That’s basically what you did in your OP. > [@Absolute](#): > > The purpose of my analogy is simply to point out to people who are considering their own positions on guns that their visceral response is not the One True Way of thinking on the issue, by pointing out that guns are really quite similar in many ways to another recreational activity with harmful effects, that they may think of differently because of their own biases. Guns are not a “recreational activity”. Hunting and skeet shooting are, but guns are not. Guns are tools that are unfortunately used many times in tragic ways. Again, this just highlights your complete misunderstanding of the issue. If guns were only used to hunt, few people would have an issue. It’s because they are tools that are often used in crimes and by criminals (among other things) that people have a problem. And unlike alcohol, the negative effects are not a bug, they are a feature. > [@Absolute](#): > > In practice, most people seem to respond by reflexively and dogmatically rejecting the analogy and defending alcohol in one way or another, rather than sitting back in quiet contemplation and thanking me for helping them evaluate the issue rationally. Oh well… More stupidity. Do you realize both alcohol and cars are far more highly regulated than guns are? Do you also realize there are few people calling for looser DUI laws, or laxer regulation of alcohol? That’s why your analogy is even dumber than it initially seems. You can’t even legally drive a car that emits too many pollutants. Eighteen states have a government monopoly over the wholesaling and/or retailing of most liquors. Do we have anything comparable wrt to guns? Even if your analogy was good (it’s not), the point you are trying to make is not really borne out by the facts. I, an many others, would be more than happy to treat guns like we do alcohol. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Hartwick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Dave\_Hartwick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Hartwick)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/136 "2012-12-20T01:17:57Z")
Has anybody argued that the solution to drunk driving is more booze yet? ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140/137 "2012-12-20T02:06:34Z")
> [@Dave\_Hartwick](#): > > Has anybody argued that the solution to drunk driving is more booze yet? If they get drunk enough then they probably can’t get the car door open. My roommate and I had a laugh watching a drunk friend trying to change a tire until we took his keys away and drove him home. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-prevent-drunk-driving-deaths/644140.md?page=6)