How Republicans are Wrong About Gun Control

Are Republicans stupid? 

Their response to this gun control issue illustrates why they are suffering as a party.  Democrats want to save lives.  How can you fight that and not see yourself as the bad guy?  11,078 people were murdered with guns in 2011, and 606 people were killed by the accidental discharge of firearms, which means there were 11,684 innocent people killed by firearms in 2011.  

That's a lot of lives.  That's what prompted Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, to say, "This is a scourge on society. At what point do you say, `No more innocent loss of life."'

Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago, stated his concern when he wrote, "This crisis is real — and every day it is tearing apart families and neighborhoods throughout America...common-sense reforms are a first step toward ensuring a safer future for our country — a future worthy of the memory of those lost to senseless gun violence everyday."

Republicans need to join the "We Care About People" party and start initiating some of their own crisis-ending legislation to save lives.  Here's where they should start:

Smoking kills 443,000 people every year.  According to the CDC, over 49,000 of those are the innocent victims of second-hand smoke.  However, given that 9 out of 10 smokers start smoking before they are 18, you could argue that 90% of those are innocent victims.  In other words, smoking kills 398,700 innocent people every year.   

Tobacco Legislation Option A:  Outlaw tobacco.  Lives Saved: 398,700 (35 times as many as Democrats will save if they can outlaw guns)

Tobacco Legislation Option B: Outlaw tobacco sales, possession, and use in all areas, public and private, except highly regulated smoking facilities in order to eliminate exposure of non-users and minors to peer pressure and second hand effects.  Lives Saved: 49,000 (4 times as many as Democrats)

In 2009, the fatal accident rate of drivers under 24 and over 75 is 34 fatalities per 100,000 licensed drivers.  Compare that to the much lower rate of 20 for drivers between the ages of 24 and 35.  Drivers outside of that range are almost twice as dangerous, and if we revoked their licenses, we could save 14,000 innocent lives every year.  We could go a step further, outlaw private vehicles entirely, mandate public transportation for everyone, and save almost 40,000 lives every year.  All the jobs and money lost in the car industry would be transferred to the mass transit industry, so the economy would undergo a transition, but no real harm.

Driving Legislation Option A:  Outlaw private vehicle ownership and operation.  Lives Saved: 40,000 (almost 4 times as many as Democrats)

Driving Legislation Option B: Restrict driving age to between 25 and 74 years old.  Lives Saved: 14,000 (about 3,000 more than Democrats)

If you think outlawing private vehicles for everyone is too extreme, what if we just did full background checks on all driver's license applicants and car buyers to see if they drink.  Ever bought or consumed alcohol?  Then the government doesn't let you own or drive a car.  It may sound mean, but 10,839 people were killed in drunk driving accidents in 2009.

Driving Legislation Option C:  Outlaw private vehicle ownership and operation for all consumers of alcohol.  Lives Saved: 10,839 (roughly as many as Democrats)

33,041 people died from accidental poisonings in 2009, according to the CDC.  We could outlaw all dangerous household chemicals and over the counter drugs.  Life would be a little more difficult if people had to clean with just hot water and elbow grease, kill mice with just traps, and suffer through head colds and allergies, but we would save lives.

Drug and Chemical Legislation Option: Outlaw all toxic household chemicals, detergents, poisons, and over the counter medications.  Lives Saved: Over 30,000 (almost 3 times as many as Democrats)

If the Republican House drafted and passed any or all of the above legislation quickly, before even considering  gun legislation, they could claim that they were the party that cared about saving lives.  If they passed the strictest measures, they would show they cared 4,000% more than Democrats!  When all the measures were defeated by the Democratic Senate or vetoed by the Democratic President (because it would be political suicide to pass any of these measures), then the Republicans could legitimately ask what all the fuss about guns is about, since it would be clear that saving lives was not the issue.  This would expose both parties for what they are − self-serving elitists who don't care about limiting how we die, only limiting how we live − and we ordinary Americans would go on dying at the same rate, but at least we would still be free.