Texting argument is a distractionDate: 3/22/2018 In 1994, President Bill Clinton was trying to get passed a ban on assault rifles and he enlisted the aide of three former presidents in doing so: Gerald Ford, Ronald Regan and Jimmy Carter. The three former chief executives released a letter in support of the legislation and wrote, “This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... Although assault weapons account for less than 1 percent of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10 percent of the guns traced to crime ...While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals … We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.”
The legislation was for 10 years and it has long since expired. It’s fascinating to me that these four people worked together across part lines to do something they believed would help American society.
So, to my more conservative readers, was Ronald Regan wrong? Did he betray some sort of conservative ideology by supporting a ban on a particular type of weapon?
Reagan, perhaps more than any other recent president, has been thrust into some sort of sainthood by many in his party, people apparently who today would not support his position on this issue.
This is just one of the curious elements in the ongoing debate about how to prevent gun violence.
I’ve become more and more interested by how the arguments against taking action are changing in popular culture and social media.
I’ve noticed there is a recurring argument that students who protest against the current status quo on gun law are hypocrites because the habit of texting and driving have reportedly killed more teens than gun violence.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that in 2015, 3,477 people died due to distracted driving. According to the agency’s stats – last released in 2016 – there has been a slight increase among teens divers texting while driving. The report indicated at that time “46 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands ban text messaging for all drivers.”
State governments have attempted to stem the problem through education, legislation and enforcement with hefty fines.
I guess what the people who are using distracted driving as an argument against speaking about banning assault rifles or other proposed measures are saying is it’s a numbers game. The activities that create the greatest amount of death should receive the greatest attention.
Right? Please correct me if I’m wrong.
The Gun Violence Archive has noted since December of 2012 there have been at least 1,607 mass shootings, with at least 1,846 people killed and 6,459 wounded. The database defines a mass shooting as an event in which four people, not including the shooter, were shot at the same general time or place.
Are these deaths less significant than those of people who perished because of distracted driving? Is that the argument?
Lately, I’ve been seeing news stories posted about attacks with knives in which people were either killed or wounded. The argument made is whether or not various knives should be banned – of course, that is spun as silly – and that anything could be a weapon.
Yes, people get assaulted through various means but I find it tiresome these arguments skirt the primary issue: how do we prevent these kinds of shootings from taking place? What combination of laws, education and community involvement must be undertaken? Can we speak seriously about it or will the issue be drowned in a chorus of ideology that puts gun ownership over public safety?
Tossing out arguments about how the teens are wrong to advocate for a solution or that anything can be a weapon is simply a smokescreen. The problem we are facing is difficult and complex and will require real and substantial change.
|
