I came here with the intention of stating what I think could be done to reduce the number of drunk drivers, but having read the thread, I’ve come to the conclusion that answering the thread title would be off-topic.
I don’t drink myself, but it seems to me like you using a lot of resources for a problem that is getting better without the measures you suggest.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
1982 26,173
2009 12,744
Diff 13,429
between 82 to 2009 alcohol related fatalities dropped from 26,173 to 12,744. They dropped from 60% to 38% of all driving fatalities. I think most driving fatalities will disappear as we switch to self-driving automobiles. They have already been legalized in Nevada.
Yeah, I took my best shot, and that didn’t last long.
FWIW, I have to agree with Absolute. The analogy is a reasonable one, based on the points of comparison, and I haven’t seen many counters in this thread that haven’t amounted to some flavor of the above.
It’s an interesting question. We permit alcohol consumption despite the predictably higher death rate that results. Why is that? Why isn’t there a similarly passionate outcry? Is it because incidents like the Connecticut shootings are so viscerally disturbing? Do proponents of gun restrictions lean that way because gun bans have no direct impact on their lives (but an alcohol ban would)? Something else?
Because few rational people think their current rights should be infringed just because somebody else is an asshole. Do you think we’d have the current restrictions on air travel (taking off your shoes, no liquids on the plane, subject to cavity searches) if they were voted in by Congress rather than just imposed? No way in hell. There could be planes falling out of the sky every day and we wouldn’t approve of these measures. Back when people were actually hijacking planes and holding them hostage, we didn’t have these measures.
I think that’s Absolute’s point. If this is reasonable for those who enjoy alcohol responsibly, why isn’t it reasonable for gun owners? If the answer is some form of “because of all the predictable destruction that results from guns,” then we’re back to Absolute’s OP: Why not have the same outcry and concern for alcohol, which results in even more deaths?
BTW, I don’t own any guns. But the analogy is an interesting one.
I think that the OP is in error. Alcohol in and of itself is dangerous only to the consumer. Caveat Emptor.
However, when combined with a driver and an automobile, alcohol is a dangerous weapon that must be dealt with.
Luckily, we have a solution at hand. We must mandate the use of ignition interlocks in ALL vehicles - and enhance them to insure that the operator of the vehicle is the individual who passed the breath test required by the interlock. All existing vehicles must be retrofitted or face punitive licensing and insurance terms. (Note that much of this technology is already in use for those convicted of DUI).
As with the harmless combination of automobiles and gasoline, firearms and ammunition are equally harmless until misused. To solve this, we simply extend the vehicle solution to firearms to insure the person wielding the weapon is in fact not under ‘chemical’ influence and is the registered owner. Admittedly there is some work to be done, but if we can invent a smartphone and go to the moon, we can solve this. Again, all existing weapons must be retrofitted or face punitive licensing and insurance regulations. If this is not practical, trade-in or buy-back programs will be provided.
Because the historical country-wide ban of alcohol led to even higher death rates, for a variety of reasons - crime, corruption, the inherently unsafe nature of home brewed rotgut… stress of life without a little sumthin’ sumthin’ to take the edge off, possibly 
?
Thing is though, alcohol consumption is an addiction. A physiological addiction (and one with a hereditary component, if I’m not mistaken). In retrospect, and even ignoring all the cultural/traditional baggage that alcohol could boast, it was somewhat predictable that the whole of the country shouldn’t have been expected to go cold turkey overnight, particularly considering just how widespread alcohol use was back in the day. Or how generally more fucked up society was at the time.
Is gun play an addiction, too ? Do gun nuts get the shakes when they haven’t popped off a few high calibre rounds in a while ? That’d explain so much 
Besides, I do believe your (and Absolute’s) premise to be somewhat fallacious. There is an outcry against irresponsible drunks in general, and drunk drivers in particular. There is moral panic every time a particularly egregious or horrifying drunk driving incident makes the news. There’s widespread social shaming. There’s bartenders taking your car keys when you’ve had one too many. There are countless outreach, PSAs and education programs. Rehab is an entire business. There’s intrusive (and controversial) law enforcement procedures set up in some places to address the issue and attempt to nip it in the bud, such as random traffic stops cum breathalizer testing. And of course, there are plenty of laws & ordinances regulating the sale, purchase and public consumption of alcohol.
What there isn’t is a drunk driving lobby, fighting tooth and nail to protect the rights of people to jolly well drive drunk as skunks and damn the haters.
Yes, but not a call for an outright ban, and I don’t believe that’s a reasoned position so much as, well, people like to drink. On this board there is no shortage of people who describe the 2nd amendment as a relic, and enthusiastically call for an outright ban based on the damage that results from guns. That passion is a good bit lesser, ISTM, for alcohol. I don’t hear anyone calling for an outright ban.
There is no lack of opprobrium for drunk drivers, it’s true. But the practicality of an alcohol ban, so obvious with guns, becomes less obvious somehow when it means people wouldn’t be able to have a cocktail when they want to.
I suspect there would be widespread chaos and crime if the government tried to outright ban guns, too.
But I am not suggesting that we ban alcohol, just like no one is seriously suggesting we ban guns. I’ve simply proposed a set of rational, stricter regulations for alcohol inspired by those recently proposed on this board for guns. If you find them ridiculous, overbearing and mostly pointless, well…
Of course there’s an outcry against alcohol abuse, and existing regulation. There’s certainly an outcry against shooting people illegally too, and a huge infrastructure and set of regulations set up to prevent it.
Despite all this, we still have surprisingly similar numbers of people dying each year from both alcohol and guns. Yet we do not hear strident demands for more regulation of alcohol, only guns. As someone who enjoys both alcohol and guns but would not be devastated if either were banned, I wonder why this is.
And there is certainly an alcohol industry lobby that opposes additional regulation or restrictions and promotes alcohol as a positive thing when enjoyed responsibly, just like the NRA promotes gun ownership as a positive thing when in the hands of responsible adults. Obviously there are no lobbying groups promoting either reckless use of alcohol or reckless use of firearms, but I’d say the groups in both industries operate from pretty similar game plans.
I lived in New Mexico for a while. New Mexico has one of the worst DUI problems in the country, or did when I lived there anyway. The damn gas stations were better-stocked than most liquor stores where I live now, and they kept those little one-shot mini-bottles of liquor right next to the counter as if they were sticks of gum. Whenever the question came up of whether this just might be one of the dumbest fucking things you could possibly do in a huge, poor, rural state with a major DUI problem and limited police funding, the alcohol lobby came down hard and shut down the discussion.
Totally ignoring the links to gun control, I’ll try to answer the OP using experience where I live in Australia.
To reduce drink driving means education and enforcement, not taking away alcohol.
By all means have a few drinks, just don’t drive if you do.
We have mandated legal blood alcohol limits and test this using breathalyzers. Every Police car carries them. You get pulled over for a random licence check or for speeding, you have to do a breath test. They also set up random roadblocks at certain times and test everyone coming through.
First offence means usually loss of licence for 12 months. Multiple offences mean longer plus jail.
For the education component, we have some of the more stark TV adverts you’re even likely to see, with a repeated blunt slogan, “If you dink and Drive you’re a bloody idiot”.
Here’s one example of the Ad’s.
Here’s the current once circulating for the summer holiday season.
If you want more, follow the links or look up TAC Drink Drive ads.
That doesn’t sound much different than here. The third time is actually a felony and typically results in several years of probation plus at least a few weekends in jail.
Maybe this thread is getting back on track, so I’m gonna post my thoughts. I think the most important thing that can be done to reduce drunk drivers is to give them a convenient alternative. Sure, they can take taxis, but they’re pretty expensive especially if you have to take one both ways. It may be less expensive than a DWI, but some people would rather just take their chances.
Here, you can buy a day pass for public transit for $5. It’s quite cheap and I’d do it in a heartbeat but there’s just one problem: they shut it down completely at around 01:00 and start up again around 04:00. Closing time is at 02:00. It almost seems like they want drunk people on the roads. It makes it hard for me to take them seriously when they say they’re trying to get drunk drivers off the roads.
Consequently, people like me just avoid having more than a couple of drinks while out and others drink anyway and then drive home. Granted I think some people will still drive rather than ride the bus and it isn’t a solution in rural areas without transit, but I don’t think there’s any solution that would work better short of draconian alcohol laws. Force them to choose between a $50 taxi and taking the chance of a DWI and apparently some will take their chances. Make it between a $5 transit pass and a chance of a DWI and I bet that’ll change for a lot of them. It’s my understanding that New York is the only city in the country with transit running all night and I bet they don’t have nearly as much of a drunk driving problem as other cities.
I think I should explain my motivations for starting this thread. As I’ve said, I am mostly indifferent towards both guns and alcohol, although I own a gun and have a drink or two on a regular basis.
After looking at some statistics and seeing the similarities between gun crime and alcohol that I’ve described, I posted the OP as parody of gun control proposals, hoping that it would point out to people who may not have experience with guns just how ridiculous and ineffective many of these proposals are, by reformulating them in the context of something they may have more experience with. In retrospect, perhaps I should have been less subtle about the parody (although at the time I thought it was rather over the top as-is).
I did not expect that anyone would really challenge the analogy itself, since I considered it fairly straightforward and uncontroversial once pointed out, and so I did not spend a lot of time trying to gather precise statistics, since the ones I found seemed accurate enough and I was only interested in communicating the fact that the rates of deaths due to guns and alcohol were roughly equivalent.
My first few replies were also rather tongue-in-cheek, but as the thread progressed and people started challenging the analogy itself, I became more seriously interested in discussing why people apparently view gun deaths and alcohol deaths (roughly equivalent in my eyes) so differently.
It’s not an interesting one for a number of reasons. Primarily because:
-
The negative impact of both things needs to be weighed against the positive impacts, and the number of people engaged in each activity. In 2010, 32% of US households owned a gun. In 2008, 67% of adults said they drink. Three trillion miles are driven each year. Even if alcohol/drunk driving harms more people, there are far more instances of driving and alcohol consumption, and far more people doing both. That makes the relative harm of a drink less than the use of a gun.
-
Second, you need to consider the relative incidence of harm under proper use, and the cumulative affects. Most people who buy guns by them for protection, and most people drink drink to increase sociability. The likelihood one will have to use a gun for protection is low, and the likelihood that same gun will be used for something more nefarious is relatively high. The likelihood an evening of drinking will lead to increased sociability is fairly high, and the likelihood of negative outcomes is relatively low.
Plus, while one gun is pretty much just as capable for resulting in fatalities as multiple guns, the same cannot be said about one drink. The negative consequences are from alcohol are due to over-consumption, which is far easier to mitigate.
-
Guns are meant to kill things. Even in the best of circumstances, you are either killing animals, or killing people who are committing or suspected of committing crimes. The latter is not always a good thing given our general desire to see fewer dead people.
-
Alcohol is heavily regulated. First, you may need an ID to purchase it. You cannot legally sell it, or in some cases, make it, without a license. You may not be able to ship it across state lines. In many areas, you cannot purchase it certain days of the week and times of the day. The alcohol content (eg. the potency) of many types of alcohol is capped by statute. You usually cannot “use” alcohol in public, nor can you (usually) have an open container in a motor vehicle. A bar selling you alcohol may be held liable if you drink to much, and they cannot legally sell you more if you are drunk; meaning we sometimes hold third parties responsible for another person’s over-consumption. In some states, the alcohol is owned by, and can only be sold by the state itself.
Additionally, because you are driving, if your drunken actions affect others, they will likely be covered by car insurance in order to make the affected parties whole. There is a mandate that all those involved in injurious or fatal accidents will have their BAC tested. One’s BAC can be prima facie evidence of intoxication regardless of actual incapacitation. There is also the fact that we have sobriety checkpoints that can randomly test every single driver to see if they are under the influence, without probably cause. And if a driver refuses a test, the police can legally assume they are under the influence. Just being on the road puts you under suspicion of committing a crime in those cases.
The above is mainly why the OP’s argument is ridiculous on it’s face.
FWIW, I would be more than happy to treat guns more like we do drunk driving given the number of laws were have governing the operation of a motor vehicle AND alcohol consumption. I would start with a few simple things.
-
A car needs to be registered, and cannot be legally sold or transferred without alerting the government. Let’s do the same for guns.
-
In order to drive, you must pass a driving test, and your right to drive can be taken away for demonstrating bad judgment behind the wheel. Let’s do the same for guns.
-
Every vehicle must be insured not only to protect one’s self, but also others. Let’s require the same for gun owners
-
Random “sobriety” checks can be conducted by the police to ensure you are operating a vehicle under compliance with the law. Let’s make gun owners subject to similar random inspections.
-
Any person who owns a bar may be held liable if they knowingly over serve a customer. Let’s do the same for gun sellers.
-
You cannot sell alcohol without a (often) very expensive license. Let’s to same for guns.
The statistics I found were closer together, but I am done playing Statistician Fight . At best your statistics indicate a factor of 2 difference in the relative danger to the public between “owning/having access to a gun”*, and “consuming alcohol”, and the fact that alcohol-related deaths are significantly greater in number reduces that difference further. I don’t think a factor of between 1-2 really explains the significant difference in public opinion between the two issues.
Also, I cannot resist pointing out, against my better judgement, that your statistic for “people who drink” includes everyone who is not a total abstainer, even if they only have a bit of champagne on New Year’s Eve, and that we really should only consider people who drink on a regular basis, since it is a lot easier to drink “just a little” than it is to own a gun “just a little”. Someone who is not that into alcohol might still have a drink a few times a year and thus be included in your statistic even though their net effect on the alcoholic death rate is almost nil, whereas someone who is not that into guns probably just will never buy a gun.
But again, I concede gun crime and alcohol are not exactly alike, and unfortunately there are no statistics that allow a direct unquestionable comparison.
- note that many gun crimes are in fact committed with friends/family members’ guns, like the Newton shooting
This is really the same point you made above, just worded differently. See above.
Yes, you need just one gun, but you need a few drinks. If “1 drink” was not a totally arbitrary measurement and if there were something preventing people from having more than one drink at a time, this might be an actual problem for my analogy.
Now, how many drinks does the average person consume on the average night? There is a thread in IMHO right now we could consult. But probably more than one, and obviously enough to cause 100,000 deaths per year.
This is just the “guns are bad” argument. The mother of a dead child is not terribly comforted by the fact that alcohol was not “meant” to cause the drunk driver to run him over.
And not to beat this to death, but the vast, vast majority of all guns in this country have never and will never kill anyone, and will be used for nothing but shooting holes in paper targets and various game animals. If you are opposed to killing animals, you might want to have a word with your local wolves, mountain lions, bears, coyotes, etc. about their dining habits.
Guns are regulated too, in much the same ways. People are certainly held liable for the crimes they commit with guns. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think the lack of “gun crime liability insurance” is considered a major problem. And despite the heavy regulation of alcohol, it still kills more people than guns. Yet people are upset about gun deaths in a way they are not upset about alcohol deaths. You still have not explained the difference.
Perhaps the closest thing to rational thought on this issue truly is “guns are bad but I like alcohol”.
For the record, 1), 2) and 3) seem reasonable to me, although I don’t really understand what the insurance would be for (State Farm cannot raise the dead). Since it is likely to be ridiculously cheap, I don’t care.
-
is equivalent to requiring that every consumer of alcohol be subject to random home inspections. There is almost nothing the police could find by searching a legal gun owner’s home that would help deter any crime. And they will not know to search the illegal gun owners’ homes, for obvious reasons. This is one of the irrational, pointless proposals I was trying to mock in the OP. If you are out in public using your gun, the police have the right to check your permits, licenses, etc. already, from the same legal basis they use to stop your car.
-
What does “over-serve” a customer mean in the context of guns? You’ve already conceded that 1 gun is deadly enough. And gun sellers are already liable if they sell a gun to someone they should not have.
-
The alcohol license is a source of revenue for the local government. I am not aware of any other purpose. Gun sellers already have to be licensed. Other than simply punishing gun sellers, is there a point to this proposal?
It’s much greater than 1-2. There are FAR more instances of an individual consuming alcohol than there are people using a gun.
Which is exactly my point. I will make this much easier. Compare one average night of drinking to the average use of a gun. Which is more likely to have a negative outcome? Clearly, the results of both are fairly low, but aside from using a gun to hunt, many of the times civilians use guns are negative.
It’s not really the same point at all. As you noted, you can’t own a little bit of a gun. That means the threshold for bad outcomes is FAR lower than it is for alcohol. Meaning, one drink is far less likely to cause harm than owning one gun is. That is part of the problem. If every instance of someone consuming alcohol resulted in a high BAC, which is statistically far more likely to lead to negative outcomes, then I would agree we might look into much stronger prohibitions against drinking.
It’s not that guns are bad. It’s that they don’t have that many positive or neutral uses.
Which means nothing. The vast majority of cars will not be involved in a fatal accident, yet we stop cars randomly just to see if their operators are drunk.
It is because the costs are not borne by the people most likely to do the damage. For example, in most of these mass shootings, it’s the businesses, schools, and anyone else with deep pockets who is tangentially involved who bears the cost of these events. Occasionally, the shooter’s families are sued if they have money. But, the amount of damage one crazed killer can do with a gun is typically greater than their ability to make their victims whole financially speaking . That’s why they should be insured. As a result, it also means that anyone who decided to own guns with have to directly bear the expense that the collective ownership of guns heaps onto society. That should not longer be an externality that society pays when society doesn’t really benefit because some dude gets to hunt. Also, the increased costs of gun ownership might make more people think twice about the responsibilities and aggregate costs of gun ownership.
Once again, that is because both cars and alcohol are used FAR more often; not because of their inherent or relative danger. I think we can reasonably state that looser driving/liquor laws would likely result in more people being killed.
Because people are emotional, and because it’s clear we are doing very little to prevent gun deaths relative to alcohol deaths. The former point is still relevant because people are emotional beings. If Lanza had killed 26 pedophiles, or 26 NFL players, or 26 Congressmen, instead of kids and schoolteachers, we would be having a different discussion. Does that make sense? In most circumstances it does because being guided by cold numbers without context is no more logical than considering the emotional resonance.
I am not so sure it would be ridiculously cheap. Owning a gun sometimes makes getting home insurance difficult, and even if you can get it, your premiums will be much higher. Also consider that those costs are spread over the entire customer base to a small extent too. The main upside is that insurers make sure to ask whether guns are properly secured, have safety locks, etc. Just that vigilance would help in a lot of these cases. If State Farm know they are on the hook if your son flips his lid and kills 20 people, resulting in multimillion dollar damages, then I bet they will want to know if he is depressed or troubled. The larger point is that we need to make everyone who chooses to won a gun has a vested interest making sure their guns are not used in crimes.
They could look for signs of depression, a felon living on the premises, etc. etc. In combination with the other things I suggested, they could check for all sorts of stuff.
The analogous position would be searching EVERYONE’S home, just as they stop every car.
The point is that a bar can be help responsible for the actions of a patron getting too drunk. As a person selling an item (alcohol), we hold them responsible in limited circumstances where it is foreseeable that negative consequences could arise from them selling their wares to a particular person. The analog would be a gun store selling to people who are obvious straw buyers, unstable, or otherwise unsuitable to be a prudent and careful gun owner. Selling to people who are obviously not interested in using their guns for innocuous purposes should be illegal.
Strictly speaking, private citizens who sell a gun do not have to be licensed. This is a problem because it means strawbuyers can skirt the law, and that random idiots can sell guns to criminals. Witness what happened in the fats and furious case. In addition to a numerous other fuckups, there is this:
To highlight the real problem:
In many bars, they won’t even let you buy two drinks for yourself at the same time, yet a teenager can go into a gun shop with 20k in cash, buy multiple weapons, and the guy who sells them isn’t required to stop them from acting, or to ask any questions? Is there ANY chance such a transaction is on the up and up? I call bullshit. There is no reason some bartender should be held to a higher standard than someone selling guns, PERIOD.
I don’t understand what your obsession is with “1 drink”. You are making a rather strange argument. Yes, obviously, using a gun to shoot someone is more dangerous than having 1 drink of alcohol. But comparing the “use” of alcohol and guns to determine the relative danger is a nonsensical and arbitrary comparison, and “1 drink” is a totally arbitrary unit.
The danger from alcohol is highly correlated with use. People go out, have fun, get drunk, and then kill themselves or someone else as a result of the side effects of alcohol inhibiting their judgement. It is impossible to separate the dangers of alcohol from the use of alcohol - the danger of alcohol only appears when it is used.
On the other hand, the danger from guns is almost totally uncorrelated with use. You are not at any greater risk of committing a homicide just because you’ve gone down to the shooting range to practice target shooting, or gone deer hunting or whatever. The number of accidental gun deaths is very small. Rather, the risk of gun crime comes from simply owning the gun, or having access to it, because if you get depressed, you can easily kill yourself, and if you get angry or scared or whatever, you’re in possession of a deadly weapon that can do great damage very quickly with minimal effort. This risk comes from simply owning the gun and is present regardless of how often you actually use it. People can own and/or carry a gun for years without ever shooting it. That doesn’t make it any safer.
Statistically, if you own or have access to a gun, you are as likely to kill yourself or someone else as if you are a regular consumer of alcohol. That is the only statistic that is meaningful to compare.