Mass shooting in perspective

Each of the past few years, about 35,000 Americans died in traffic accidents. This fact should be taken into account when considering recent massacres of civilians. I was wondering if anyone else would be cold hearted enough to go that way. So I waited a few days to comment on the massacres in Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton, to avoid duplicating others’ commentaries. Plus, I have technical difficulties associated with my current location. Please, comment or wave if you see this.

Of the approximately 35,000 victims about half died in accidents involving alcohol. I will assume, against my thesis, that only 10,000 people each year died indirectly or directly because someone drank too much alcohol and drove.

How to count victims of mass shootings has become – strangely enough- controversial. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that shootings, specifically, of strangers for other than greed, or jealousy, or disappointed love have not caused 10,000 deaths in any of the past few years, not even close.

Do you agree; do you see where I am going?

So drunk drivers kill many more people – about 10,000 annually – than mass shooters. The victims of the ones are just as dead as the victims of the others; the loss and grief associated with the ones must be similar to those associated with the others. The deaths from one cause seem to me to be as meaningless as the deaths from the other. (That’s by contrast with the death of a firefighter in the line of duty, for example.)

A rational collective response should give priority to the avoidance of the many deaths from drunk driving over the much fewer deaths caused by mass assassins. Yet, the public reactions of the left are exactly the reverse of those rational expectations. In part, this inversion of priorities is due to the magnification the media affords mass shootings but not the slow massacre on the roads. In part, it may be due to the sometimes concentrated nature of the death tolls by mass shooting. This explanation, however, has only limited value because the small death toll at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, for example, was given much more publicity than is conceivable for any drunk driving accident with three lethal casualties.

This irrational ordering of priorities is made all the more puzzling by the fact that it would be much easier to reduce the number of deaths from drunk driving than by domestic mass shootings. Two reasons. First, people in jail can’t kill anyone with a car. The second reason is a little more subtle; bear with me.

Drunk drivers fall into two main categories, alcoholics who think they have to drive, and self-indulgent slobs. My intuition is that there are many more of the latter than of the former (especially among the young, who are overrepresented in car accidents) but I don’t have any figures. Self-indulgent slobs are capable of rational calculus. If the relevant punishment is severe enough and certain enough, they will become less self-indulgent. I used to be one of them. When the penalty for drunk driving went from about $100 to several thousand during my lifetime, I discovered that I could take a taxi, or pay a friend to drive me back, or drink at home. The quality of my life declined but it was worth it. It’s likely that my fear of heavy punishment saved someone’s life over the long run.

So, a credible remedial scheme is simple: withdrawal of driver’s license for a long period on the first offense associated with heavy fines for driving without a license. A significant jail term without possibility of parole would punish each subsequent infraction. Again, imprisoned drivers don’t kill anyone through their drunk driving. That’s a valid reason in itself to keep them locked up for a long time. It’s probably also economically reasonable.

So, I wonder why is there not a passionate public outcry on the political left and among its media partners in favor of a nation-wide remedial endeavor of the kind I just described?

Drunk driving kills many more Americans than do criminal mass shootings of the Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton kind. This, although suppressive remedies to drunk driving are conceptually straightforward. My friend Vernon Bohr pointed out in a comment on Facebook that accidental drownings of children alone claim more lives of all categories of Americans than do mass shootings. There are better priorities.

The indifference of the left to those more important preventable causes of mortality as compared to its display of strong collective emotion with respect to sudden death by shooting seems strange, on the surface. This strong emotion is usually, almost always associated with urgent calls for some sort of federal gun control.

The contrast is made all the more striking by the following legal facts: First, the regulation of behavior that is potentially harmful to others – such as driving automobiles – falls squarely within the purview of state legislatures, primarily, of Congress, secondarily. Number two, driving is nowhere a right, except by default. Possessing weapons, by contrast, is a right explicitly guaranteed by the US Constitution, and twice reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court.

So, why would the considerable emotional and political resources of the left, aptly guided by the mass media, be expanded on the deaths of comparatively few, on a problem that is difficult to understand, one whose resolution would also encounter strong legal obstacles? Why this relentless emphasis when there are obvious, bigger, more rational objects of collective compassion?

I am thinking of two answers. One, the unpredictability of shooting events make them seem more disruptive than the somewhat routinized highway deaths, including by drunk drivers. The logical implication of this explanation is that if mass shootings became more frequent, they would appear more routine, and thus, less disruptive, and less deserving of left-wing attention. Note that there is a long way to go between the few hundred annual casualties by mass killings, and the 10,000 I attribute to drunk driving alone.

Thus, mass shootings garner both attention and emotion – including on the left – precisely because they are comparatively rare. If this were correct, attention and emotion would diminish with an increased frequency of such events. That is not a trend I observe. Others may see it.

Two, the left, and its media component, may focus on mass shootings in preference to making more rational choices, not in spite of the legal obstacles in their path but because of them. In this perspective, the focus on mass shootings may not be an exercise in misguided compassion, but a means to a higher end.

Americans are, on the whole, much attached to their Constitution. Modifying it is an arduous and uncertain task. Shortcuts to this effect are much appreciated. It would be difficult to find a more effective shortcut than the guided emotionalism the left supplies on the occasion of each mass shooting perpetuated by an American who is not also a violent jihadist. The spectacle of perfectly innocent victims, including children, cut down by someone seemingly exercising his constitutional right to bear arms must be the most formidable nonrational argument against that constitutional right. It can be mustered to sidestep collective choices – such as further reductions in deaths by drunk drivers – that would make the most sense from the standpoint of simple compassion. Thus, a one tenth reduction in deaths by drunk driver, and the corresponding shrinking of human misery, would do about twice more good than would the total (total) elimination of mass shootings.

The outburst of emotionalism expertly guided by the media we witnessed following three civilian mass shootings in quick succession is not about compassion, it’s about power. Every reduction in the autonomy of individuals increases the power of government, of those who are in charge of it through legitimate political means, and of the permanent bureaucracy.

Incidentally, I suspect there must be libertarian solutions to the vast and continuing problem of death by drunk driver, solutions that don’t involve putting people in jail. I don’t know what those are. I would like to hear about them.

19 thoughts on “Mass shooting in perspective

  1. I was trying to find the number of accidents caused by impaired driving due to alcohol (vs say tiredness) and came across MADD’s website. I can see why they are recommending ignition interlocks:

    “On any given day, you and your family share the roadways with more than two million drunk drivers, who have three or more prior convictions. These drivers, on average, driven drunk 80 times prior to the first arrest. Continually, offenders roll the dice with your safety. Eventually, the numbers catch up with them, but that’s a small comfort to those they injure and kill.”

  2. Also, time/location sensitive highway use fees might help? Make it really expensive to drive from a bar when drunks are most likely getting out. Ionno. Just throwing ideas out there.

    • I think the time is ripe for some elaboration on this idea. It’s in definite need of a boost.

  3. I think there’s a simpler reason why the Left chases the windmill of gun control on the horse of mass shootings, rather than focus on reducing the number of substance abusing impaired drivers.

    The Left’s constituency incudes few gun owners. Gun owners are “deplorables” to the left. No one on the left is concerned about inconveniencing or disappointing the 99% of benign gun owners in the hope of thwarting the dangerous 1%.

    The rate of impaired driving is probably pretty evely split between red and blue drivers. Remember, Ted Kennedy’s car killed more people than 99.9% of all guns.

  4. If the author actually bothered listening to the left instead of inventing motives out of whole cloth, they would understand that the reason why we don’t compare gun deaths to automotive deaths is that cars are a mode of transportation vastly improving the quality of life of people all over, whereas guns are made explicitly for the purpose of killing/causing grievous injuries.

    • AJ Excellent comment! People are again going to accuse me of making up a commentator! Reality does not matter; those killed by guns are much more dead than the more numerous ones killed by drunk drivers.

      I listen to the left every day until I am sick. Takes hours. Gun control leftists rarely make much sense if you look at the facts.

  5. […] time. American fatal combat casualties in that country are a tiny fraction of those needlessly and uselessly dying on American roads at the hands of drunk drivers. And none of those dead were volunteers. All military personnel is. (I know I am repeating myself. […]

  6. THANK YOU!!! I love that someone else is seeing this. Mass manipulation is what i call it. Politicians & the media have mastered the art of distraction. Manipulating the masses with the greatest of ease. If we follow this line of thought there should be a democrat on cnn calling for all private cars to be outlawed. Come on now everyone turn in your keys! You dont need your own vehicle! Take a bus! Trust your government to get you where you need to be. CARS KILL PEOPLE, TRAINS KILL PEOPLE, BOATS KILL PEOPLE. MY GOD!!! THESE ARE ALL INANIMATE OBJECTS!! THEY CANT KILL PEOPLE ON THERE OWN. GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE! PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Taking away guns, cars, knives, or anything else will not stop people from killing each other. We were killing each other long before guns were invented. Should we outlaw rocks? Come on people take some responsibility.
    I am neither democrat or republican. I vote for personal freedom & fiscal responsibility. I believe a women have the right to choose, its ok if adam married steve, what You do is not my business if it doesnt affect me, & my guns are my right as an american. Guns are a tool that can be used to save a life or take a life. The gun itself is not evil, just like a car driven by a drunk driver is not evil. They both have the ability to be USED for good or bad. Please dont forget, without our guns we would most likely still be ruled by some weirdo in another country. Ill end with a question.
    To all who believe we dont need our guns – What do we as a people do if / when our government becomes oppressive? How do you fight back if we need to? What would you do if President Trump declared martial law and turned our country into a dictatorship? How would you defend your way of life and your family? Are you gonna throw rocks?

    • The craziest element, the religious fanatics are gaining more power every day. I need a gun more than I did ten years ago. The Founding Fathers were wise.

Please keep it civil

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s