Lessons from Cars Applied to Guns

According to a study from the Violence Prevention Center ten states had more deaths from guns than from vehicle accidents in 2009 (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Washington). Nationwide, there were 31,236 gun deaths for a rate of 10.19 per 100,000 and 36,361 motor vehicle deaths (both occupant and pedestrian) for a rate of 11.87.

Cars and guns make for an interesting comparison. Both are useful tools and recreational equipment that can be deadly in the wrong hands. Both evoke a sense of nostalgia, freedom and power in America. But while per-capita gun death rates have remained steady, motor vehicle death rates have been declining.

Total annual deaths due to motor vehicles dropped by about 10,000 from 2005 to 2010, even though the population increased by millions. Why? Cars are getting safer all the time, mostly through regulations imposed by the government for safety equipment like air bags and seat belts. Another factor are laws in more and more states that require seat belt use. And younger people are driving less: between 2001 and 2009 the number of miles driven by 16- to 34-year-old drivers declined by 23%. Younger drivers have more accidents, and if they drive less there are fewer accidents.

The parallels between cars and guns are simply too strong to keep denying the obvious. In fact, in terms of destructive potential, guns are more similar to aircraft than they are to cars, so one could argue that a better model would be much more restrictive pilot licensing, but we'll restrain ourselves to the lessons we've learned from motor vehicles.

The first lesson from cars is technology. Cars have keys and alarms to deter unauthorized people from stealing and using them. Car stereos frequently have mechanisms that prevent them from working if they're removed.

Cops get shot by criminals using the cops' own guns all the time. Many criminals get their guns from burglars who've stolen them from homes. Every year hundreds of kids pick up their dads' guns and shoot themselves or their brothers. People are constantly shooting themselves or others while cleaning their guns, or when they drop an "unloaded" gun whose clip has been removed.

We have the technology to prevent completely pointless accidents like these, as well as unauthorized use of guns by thieves and family members. Smart gun technology can render a gun useless in the hands of a criminal or a child. It would even be in the interests of American gun manufacturers to advocate legislation requiring this technology, because it would mean millions of new gun sales.

The second lesson from cars is training and testing. Most American drivers go through drivers training programs. All drivers are tested and licensed. Drivers take a vision test every time they renew their licenses. The Second Amendment is couched in terms of a "well regulated militia," so the obvious intent is that gun owners be proficient in the use of their weapons. Every right detailed in the Constitution has a whole host of legislation controlling the conditions under which it is exercised. The Second Amendment is no different.

Just as it makes no sense to let 12-year-olds and the blind people drive cars, it is senseless to put a gun in the hands of an untrained woman who can't handle the recoil of the Desert Eagle she thinks she needs, or an old man who can't see what he's shooting at, or an abusive drunk with an anger management problem.

Therefore all gun owners should be trained, licensed and tested, just like drivers. The testing should be technical (a written exam), practical (testing hands-on cleaning and safety techniques), ensure accuracy (performed on a firing range), and situational (some kind of simulation of a live-fire emergency, the way cops do). Additionally, gun buyers should undergo background checks that not only assess criminal background, but psychological state as well. Background checks should extend to anyone who lives with or has access to the purchaser's home.

Too intrusive? There's ample precedent for psych evals and extensive testing: pilots must undergo physicals, and many states require women to undergo counseling (a thinly veiled psych eval) and invasive ultrasound testing before having an abortion. Since the whole point of guns is to kill people (potentially lots of people), they should be regulated at least as rigorously as one-shot abortions.


Finally, there must be appeals to make sure people aren't denied their rights unfairly or whose circumstances change.

Note that I haven't mentioned assault weapon bans and magazine limits. Because, as the right's mantra of "guns don't kill, people do" implies, the most important thing is to keep guns out of the wrong hands in the first place. Weapons bans and magazine limits would certainly reduce the carnage, but don't get to the root of the problem.

This also addresses the idea that more guns make more people safe. That might be true if the people who wielded those guns were well-trained SWAT team arriving on the scene well-prepped. But even cops suddenly immersed in a live-fire situation make tragic mistakes. A hundred guns in the hands of clueless, untrained civilians in that darkened theater in Aurora would have left many more dead, and in the confusion the guy who started it all might have walked out alive and unscathed in his body armor.

Applying the same kinds of commonsense safety features and rules to guns that already apply to motor vehicles could save a lot of lives, including those of people who own guns. No, we can't save everyone. But if it would have saved the 26 people at Newtown and the 12 people in Aurora, their family and friends would have gladly accepted some extra inconvenience and expense in getting a gun.