Posted on 11/13/2004 2:34:57 PM PST by neverdem
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Nothing kills Democratic candidates' prospects more than guns. If it weren't for guns, President-elect Kerry might now be conferring with incoming Senate Majority Leader Daschle.
Since the Brady Bill took effect in 1994, gun-control efforts have been a catastrophe for Democrats. They have accomplished almost nothing nationally, other than giving a big boost to the Republicans. Mr. Kerry tried to get around the problem by blasting away at small animals, but nervous Red Staters still suspected Democrats of plotting to seize guns.
Moreover, it's clear that in this political climate, further efforts at gun control are a nonstarter. You can talk until you're blue in the face about the 30,000 gun deaths each year, about children who are nine times as likely to die in a gun accident in America as elsewhere in the developed world, about the $17,000 average cost (half directly borne by taxpayers) of treating each gun injury. But nationally, gun control is dead.
So it's time for a fundamentally new approach, emblematic of how Democrats must think in new ways about old issues. The new approach is to accept that handguns are part of the American landscape, but to use a public health approach to try to make them much safer.
The model is automobiles, for a high rate of traffic deaths was once thought to be inevitable. But then we figured out ways to mitigate the harm with seat belts, air bags and collapsible steering columns, and since the 1950's the death rate per mile driven has dropped 80 percent.
Similar steps are feasible in the world of guns.
"You can tell whether a camera is loaded by looking at it, and you should be able to tell whether a gun is loaded by looking at it," said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Professor Hemenway has written "Private Guns, Public Health," a brilliant and clear-eyed primer for the country.
We take safety steps that reduce the risks of everything from chain saws (so they don't kick back and cut off an arm) to refrigerators (so kids can't lock themselves inside). But firearms have been exempt. Companies make cellphones that survive if dropped, but some handguns can fire if they hit the ground.
Professor Hemenway notes that in the 1990's, two children a year, on average, died after locking themselves in car trunks. This was considered unacceptable, so a government agency studied the problem, and General Motors and Ford engineered safety mechanisms to prevent such deaths.
In contrast, 15 children under the age of 5 die annually in fatal gun accidents in the U.S., along with 18 children 5 to 9 years old. We routinely make aspirin bottles childproof, but not guns, even though childproof pistols were sold back in the 19th century - they wouldn't fire unless the shooter put pressure on the handle as well as the trigger.
Aside from making childproof guns, here are other steps we could take:
Require magazine safeties so a gun cannot be fired when the clip is removed (people can forget that a bullet may still be in the chamber and pull the trigger). Many guns already have magazine safeties, but not all.
Finance research to develop "smart guns," which can be fired only by authorized users. If a cellphone can be locked with a PIN, why not a gun? This innovation would protect children - and thwart criminals.
Start public safety campaigns urging families to keep guns locked up in a gun safe or with a trigger lock (now, 12 to 14 percent of gun owners with young children keep loaded and unlocked weapons in their homes).
Encourage doctors to counsel depressed patients not to keep guns, and to advise new parents on storing firearms safely.
Make gun serial numbers harder for criminals to remove.
Create a national database for gun deaths. In a traffic fatality, 120 bits of data are collected, like the positions of the passengers and the local speed limit, so we now understand what works well (air bags, no "right on red") and what doesn't (driver safety courses). Statistics on gun violence are much flimsier, so we don't know what policies would work best, and much of the data hurled by rival camps at each other is inaccurate.
Would these steps fly politically? Maybe. One poll showed that 88 percent of the public favors requiring that guns be childproof. And such measures demonstrate the kind of fresh thinking that can keep alive not only thousands of Americans, but the Democratic Party as well.
The '06 and '08 elections are shaping up just fine.
They will never get it!LOL
BANG
Wouldn't it be much easier to make word processors "media proof"?
Guess Nick never heard of "Treat EVERY gun as loaded.".
The NYT shows its ignorance (again) by printing a bunch of stupid suggestions that were old 20 years ago.
The left is right.They didnt get their message out.They need to keep preaching on gay marriage,more gun laws ,how the military is bad,raising taxes on the rich ,christians are idiots,Then only then will they win.I'm trying to give them good red state advice. Dont forget to knock Nascar fans that will really go a long ways,You will be sure to pick lots of votes!
I completely disagree with his position and his answers, but this is the one Dem I've read recently who is saying "We have to change or our party will die." Fortunately, no one will listen, and those who listen will, as he does, come up with the wrong answers.
but to use a public health approach to try to make them much safer.
This shows his true colors right there. "Guns are a disease" according to the public health fascists(and that's exactly what the public health lobby is).
"You can tell whether a camera is loaded by looking at it, and you should be able to tell whether a gun is loaded by looking at it,"
Guns are always loaded, dummy. They must let anyone into Harvard nowadays.
Require magazine safeties so a gun cannot be fired when the clip is removed (people can forget that a bullet may still be in the chamber and pull the trigger). Many guns already have magazine safeties, but not all.
One of the first training rules is remembering that in semiautos, there's one in the chamber.
This innovation would protect children - and thwart criminals.
Will the cops use smart guns?
This guy needs to get bitchslapped again in 2006
So what's wrong with these ideas?
Guns could and should be made safer.
Although attempts to ban older "unsafe" guns should be resisted, I see no reason why we should knee-jerk reject the very idea of making guns safer.
How about this, Dave? If you see a gun, it's LOADED!! The rest of us seem to be able to comprehend that, even if you can't.
Lost in the political wilderness without a map, compass or flashlight.
They are toast.
"One of the first training rules is remembering that in semiautos, there's one in the chamber."
Not only that, but if you drop a magazine in combat, the one in the chamber can save your ass.
So now leftist girlymen are advising firearms manufacturers. Cool. Maybe colorblind nudists should start advising the fashion industry
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.