Every time there’s a high-profile shooting here in the U.S. the same predictable thing happens. The same people start complaining about gun violence and demand that tighter restrictions be placed on guns and the same people demand an outright ban on private gun ownership.
Every single time.
In the U.S., a gun-related homicide occurs about once every 30 minutes. What I find interesting is that the rate of the deaths seems to make a difference. Ten deaths spread out over two and a half hours doesn’t make a blip on the “outrage-o-meter”. But, if those same ten deaths happened over…say…a half hour, then the outrage factor goes to eleven.
They claim that gun control is all about saving lives. Maybe it is. But there are other ways of saving even more lives that nobody is willing to even consider.
Before I continue, I’m going to admit a few things that contribute to my biases. Yes, I’m biased. Everyone is. One of the differences between me and most people is that most people either don’t know or won’t admit that they are.
First, I own guns. I carry a gun everywhere I go. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m a “gun enthusiast” but I did spend a lot of time and money getting a carry permit and spent thousands of dollars shooting thousands of rounds to make sure I hit what I aim at.
Second, one of my sisters was killed by a drunk driver. It was nearly 40 years ago, but her death has undoubtedly influenced my opinions for almost four decades. It was partly her own fault and she never should have gotten on the back of the bike. But the guy behind the handlebars was drunk. So I have a particularly strong distaste for drunk drivers.
Third, I don’t drink. I never have. I’m probably one of the few people you’ve ever heard of who has never tasted a drop of alcohol nor have I ever taken an illegal drug. I don’t even like to take Advil unless absolutely necessary.
In the United States, alcohol-related deaths occur about 261 times a day. And that’s not counting the kids born with fetal-alcohol syndrome, doomed to a lifetime of mental challenges. That number only includes deaths attributed to alcohol.
On the other hand, there are 110-ish gun deaths each day (including accidents, suicide, etc.). Hmm. I’m not a mathematician but it seems like alcohol is about two and a half times as big of a problem as guns.
For me, it’s a no-brainer. I would absolutely support a complete ban on alcohol and all other legal forms of substance abuse. Because such a ban would have no downside for me.
I don’t drink or use drugs so a ban wouldn’t negatively impact me at all. And, since there is no Constitutional right to impair oneself, there can be no debate about preserving our Whatever Amendment rights. To me, a ban on recreational drugs makes perfectly good sense. Because, for me, it only has an upside.
But most people aren’t like me. Most people do use recreational drugs. I think the idea of banning such items is a great one. But to most people, banning their socially-acceptable poison would have a downside.
Unless you’re biased against it, banning alcohol and other drugs is a great idea. It wouldn’t take a Supreme Court decision and could happen almost immediately. It’s low-hanging fruit.
And, just banning alcohol alone would save over twice as many lives as a ban on guns.
Since I don’t drink or take other drugs, proposing that nobody else does is easy for me to do. Similarly, if you don’t have any guns, then proposing that nobody else should have guns is easy for you to do.
When I hear people calling for more gun control because “it will save lives”, I have to wonder what their biases are. If the issue was purely about saving lives, then they’d be screaming just as loudly for a ban on alcohol and other drugs. They’d be doing whatever they can to save lives.
But gun control isn’t just about saving lives. It’s about saving as many lives as you can without there being a downside for you.
