Logical, Judicious And Wise

By Patrick Weadon

One summer night in 1980, I was pulled over by a state trooper for having a burned out brake light. Earlier that evening I had been at the now-defunct Fireside Beef House in College Park having a few beers with some college buddies. “License and registration please,” he said. “Did you know your brake light is out?” “No, officer,” I said.

“Well,” he replied, “I am going to have to write you a repair order.”

“No problem,” I said. “By the way,” the officer asked, “have you been drinking tonight?”

Trying to be as obsequious as possible, I said, “Yes, officer, I had a couple of beers.”

“Well,” he said, handing me the repair order, “if I were you, I would go straight home.” Not wanting to tempt fate, I followed his directive to the letter.

Had a similar incident happened today, I would have, at a minimum, been given a breathalyzer test, and depending on the reading, may have been deprived of my liberty. Today I would no more drive after drinking alcohol that I would vote for Sarah Palin. What changed?

Public attitudes have definitely evolved. Groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), as well as corporations that manufacture alcoholic beverages, have made it known that it is not only illegal to drink and drive but also socially and morally unacceptable.

This brings me to the subject of guns. Many of my conservative friends are of the belief that incidents like the slaughter of the innocents at Newtown cannot be prevented by additional gun control legislation. I believe they are wrong.

To my knowledge, MADD has never lobbied for banning alcohol. That has been tried before and found to be impractical. What they oppose is allowing drunks to get behind the wheel of a car. Has their organization eliminated drunk driving or the incidence of death caused by drunk drivers? The answer is no. Every day, drunks climb into cars and kill innocent people.

However, the real question is this: Has MADD reduced the number of deaths caused by drunk driving? The answer to that is an unequivocal yes. Indeed, MADD has not eliminated drunk driving, but because of their efforts, statistics confirm that thousands of people, who would otherwise be dead, are alive.

In the same way, despite my liberal perspective, I believe that the Second Amendment is quite clear in guaranteeing the American people the right to bear arms. In addition, our nation is littered with guns. They are ubiquitous to the point where trying to eliminate them is a pipe dream. In addition, unlike Canada and Great Britain where guns are viewed as accidents waiting to happen, many Americans love their AR-15s more than they do their own mothers.

Guns are not going away. However, like the drunks who still frequent our roads and highways, we can reduce the carnage they cause through logical, judicious and wise legislation. What sane person could be against banning assault weapons and high-capacity clips? Do the math. God forbid that deranged individual should assault your child’s school. If such an unthinkable event should occur they will likely kill more children with a 30-round clip than one that holds three rounds. Turning our schools into armed camps is not the answer.

As Mayor Bloomberg noted, those who favor bringing more guns into our schools offer a paranoid, dystopian vision of a more dangerous and violent America where everyone is armed and no place is safe. He is so right. With this in mind how can any sane person be against these initiatives?