A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
It's been a long time since I posted and November is a good month for controversy, so I thought I'd write about the regulation of guns and alcohol.
The Second Amendment
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
The Eighteenth Amendment
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
The Twenty-first Amendment
It's been a long time since I posted and November is a good month for controversy, so I thought I'd write about the regulation of guns and alcohol.
Maybe three years ago, driving home from my dad's house on Christmas Eve, I had a discussion with my brother Tom and his wife Kelsey comparing gun ownership and alcohol use. We never reached a conclusion but it has been on my mind ever since.
Certain issues seem to preclude rational discussion. I'm not sure what makes an issue untouchable. It doesn't seem to be how personal it is or if the outcome of the discussion has any bearing on your life. I can talk about God, gay marriage, evolution, and President Obama without hesitation across idealogical lines, but something warns me to wait until I know my audience before bringing up climate change, Hillary Clinton, or defunding the military.
Nevertheless, as we drove through slushy Spanish Fork that night, we started talking about the second most inflammatory subject of them all (the first being abortion). As happens in such discussions, we quickly stopped listening to each other and instead focused on feeling outraged and flummoxed by how another thinking being could hold a different opinion on such an obvious issue.
After my turn to talk was over and while pretending to listen, the following thought occurred to me: Why is gun ownership and regulation in its own category in my head? Is it any different from other risky behaviors like alcohol consumption, automobile use, or back-country skiing? The agitated fog that usually surrounds talk of guns started to lift and I saw the issue in a new light. There are risks inherent in gun ownership, as there are with many other behaviors, and regulation should be proportional to that risk.
Seeing a potential path towards mutual understanding, I asked Kelsey what she thought about alcohol consumption (a pastime she enjoys responsibly). She pointed out several benefits associated with alcohol, including social interactions, artisan craftsmanship, and cultural tradition, and implied that the negative impacts are due to irresponsible use, not the substance itself. She insisted that drinking was inherently different than gun ownership, which was intrinsically violent and dangerous. They dropped me off at my mom's house and I slept in the room I grew up in with my wife and two children waiting for Christmas morning.
All of us engage in risky behaviors. However, we tend to overestimate cost and underestimate value when judging other people's risky choices. Smokers and skateboarders are engaging in reckless behavior with high risk and very little benefit (says I the non-smoker and reformed long boarder). Conversely, we see the benefits of our choices more readily than the costs. For example, the dangers inherent to mountain biking and mountaineering are far outweighed by those activities' health, spiritual, and environmental benefits. This gets complicated when you get a big group of people together with different risk tolerances and double standards in perception.
I am not suggesting that there is no collective way to evaluate and mitigate risk. This is one of the major roles of government in any society. The point of most laws is to define the appropriate balance between personal liberty and communal safety when the two are at odds. Statistics, stories, and ideological affiliation all inform our individual and communal assessments, though these factors don't all carry equal weight. What we believe we should believe (based on family and friends) shapes what statistics and stories we seek out and what we accept or reject.
So what about booze and what about guns? How risky are they? I've assembled a variety of gun and alcohol statistics (with a few bike an car stats thrown in for context) based on ostensibly neutral, conservative, and liberal sources. Here is the executive summary (see the spreadsheet in the link above for citations):
Alcohol
Bikes
So, alcohol kills more people (in absolute terms and as percent of all users) and costs the U.S. almost four times its annual revenue in deaths and injuries (if you care about that). Guns kill slightly fewer people (as a percent of all users) but the monetary cost of deaths and injury is over twenty-five times what the industry generates (again, if you care about that). All in all, I was surprised at how similarly dangerous these two Constitutionally-protected activities are.
Two things stood out while compiling these numbers. First there are lots of conflicting and contradictory estimates on some subjects. For example, estimates of the number of instances guns are used in self defense annually vary from 60,000 to 3.5 million (two orders of magnitude!). The actual number (which still is uncertain) is likely close to 100,000. Second, lobbying by the gun industry more than doubled this year. It has been relatively stable, staying between $4 and $6 million over the past 15 years. This year when it reached more than $12 million. What is going on?
So, what is the point of this post? Am I defending guns, attacking alcohol, or just saying that you are way safer on a bike than you are drinking or owning a gun (way way safer than if you are drinking and owning a gun)? My goals are three-fold. First, point out that gun ownership is a risky behavior, just like many others, and we don't have to not be friends if we don't agree where the line should be drawn between safety and liberty. Second, we should acknowledge the risks that accompany our choices. We tend to downplay the costs of what we want to do and focus on perceived benefits. Third, a lot of our arguments for or against guns and alcohol are kinda non-sensical (dumb). If you are in favor of guns or alcohol, acknowledge that you consider the benefits to outweigh the costs, but don't imply that your behavior doesn't have any costs. I will leave you with a list of good and bad arguments for and against guns and booze (I'm categorizing arguments by logical merit, not by if I agree with them), and a brief statement of my position.
Good argument: There are legitimate uses of guns that can be a positive part of an individual's family's recreation and culture.
Good argument: Responsible consumption of alcohol can be a positive component of an individual or family's recreation and culture.
Bad argument: Chicago and New York have some of the nation's strictest gun laws and they have some of the highest rates of gun violence. Reason: Without a timeline you can't establish causation here. The gun laws are likely a response to a gun violence problem, not the other way around.
Bad argument: More gun control will automatically result in lower gun violence. Reason: Violence in general is complex and there are a lot of guns in the system. Effects of any legislation will have large lags (potentially decades).
Bad argument: Periods with high gun control aren't safer than periods with low gun control. Reason: See answer to previous bad argument.
Bad argument: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Reason: There is strong evidence linking access to guns with suicide risk and over 230,000 guns are reported stolen each year. As Eddie Izzard says, "The National Rifle Association says, 'Guns don't kill people, people do.' But I think the gun helps, you know?"
Bad argument: We tried banning alcohol once and it didn't work. Reason: During prohibition, deaths due to liver disease decreased by 2/3 (since we don't know the rate of clandestine alcohol consumption during this period, this is the most direct measure of alcohol use available).
Bad argument: An armed society is a polite society. Reason: First off, even if this cliche was coined by one of my favorite authors, Robert Heinlein (in a novel), I'd certainly rather live in an impolite society where I'm less likely to get gunned down by someone who finds my behavior impolite. The idea of increasing politeness by implied threat of killing is as anti-liberty as any tenet I've encountered.
Bad argument: Crime is sky-rocketing and it's so dangerous on the streets that we need guns for self defense. Reason: Crime rates have fallen 30-40% in most areas in the U.S. over the past two decades. It is safer now than ever before.
Bad argument: Gun ownership and number of guns in the U.S. are causing a rise in crime and violence. Reason: See answer for previous bad argument.
OK argument: Medical research suggests some health benefits from moderate alcohol consumption. Reason: There is no way alcohol saves more lives than it takes, but for individuals who are capable of responsible use there are some potential benefits.
OK argument: Guns are used approximately 100,000 times a year in self defense and certainly protect some number of lives and property each year (most of these uses are brandishing not firing of the weapon). Reason: We don't have the data to draw conclusions about whether guns save more lives than they take. Thousands of people die from gun violence yearly and some number are saved by guns.
Bad argument: People can get addicted to anything like exercise or eating. Alcohol is no different than other things. Reason: I personally know dozens of people whose lives or livelihoods have been destroyed by alcohol. I have one friend who exercises too much and a couple who are addicted to World of Warcraft.
So, what would I do with booze and guns if I were king? I would outlaw advertising for alcohol and guns. People can use them if they want, but companies shouldn't be able to push dangerous products (especially not to poor people and children). I would also forbid donations to politicians and political groups. In my opinion it's a strange system of sanctioned bribery dressed up as free speech. Training and licensing should be required for both activities. I would also require all people considering purchasing a semi-truck to watch this advertisement:
What do you think?
Nevertheless, as we drove through slushy Spanish Fork that night, we started talking about the second most inflammatory subject of them all (the first being abortion). As happens in such discussions, we quickly stopped listening to each other and instead focused on feeling outraged and flummoxed by how another thinking being could hold a different opinion on such an obvious issue.
After my turn to talk was over and while pretending to listen, the following thought occurred to me: Why is gun ownership and regulation in its own category in my head? Is it any different from other risky behaviors like alcohol consumption, automobile use, or back-country skiing? The agitated fog that usually surrounds talk of guns started to lift and I saw the issue in a new light. There are risks inherent in gun ownership, as there are with many other behaviors, and regulation should be proportional to that risk.
Seeing a potential path towards mutual understanding, I asked Kelsey what she thought about alcohol consumption (a pastime she enjoys responsibly). She pointed out several benefits associated with alcohol, including social interactions, artisan craftsmanship, and cultural tradition, and implied that the negative impacts are due to irresponsible use, not the substance itself. She insisted that drinking was inherently different than gun ownership, which was intrinsically violent and dangerous. They dropped me off at my mom's house and I slept in the room I grew up in with my wife and two children waiting for Christmas morning.
All of us engage in risky behaviors. However, we tend to overestimate cost and underestimate value when judging other people's risky choices. Smokers and skateboarders are engaging in reckless behavior with high risk and very little benefit (says I the non-smoker and reformed long boarder). Conversely, we see the benefits of our choices more readily than the costs. For example, the dangers inherent to mountain biking and mountaineering are far outweighed by those activities' health, spiritual, and environmental benefits. This gets complicated when you get a big group of people together with different risk tolerances and double standards in perception.
The Abbott family engaging in what is certainly considered by many to be unacceptably risky behavior.
The kids love the wind in their hair though, and you just can't get that with a helmet (unless you are talking about this helmet).
So what about booze and what about guns? How risky are they? I've assembled a variety of gun and alcohol statistics (with a few bike an car stats thrown in for context) based on ostensibly neutral, conservative, and liberal sources. Here is the executive summary (see the spreadsheet in the link above for citations):
Alcohol
- 221 million Americans (67%) drink alcohol an average of four drinks per week
- The American alcohol industry is worth $400 billion
- $59.4 billion in annual revenue
- Money spent by industry lobbying federal politicians in 2013: $15.8 million
- Alcohol causes 80 - 85 thousand deaths annually in the U.S.
- 10,000 from impaired driving
- 16,000 from liver damage
- 20,000 from alcohol-related cancers
- 34,000 from alcohol poisoning, alcohol-related violence, accidents, and other causes
- Estimated societal cost of death and injury: $223.5 billion ($677 for each U.S. citizen)
- Death and injury cost percentage of annual revenue: 376% ($223.5/$59.4)
- 3.6 deaths annually per 100,000 users
- 3.2% of all deaths in U.S.
Guns
- 155 million Americans (47%) live in a home with a gun and 108 (33%) own a gun personally
- The American gun industry is worth $32 billion
- $6 billion in annual revenue
- Money spent by industry lobbying federal politicians in 2013: $12.1 million
- Guns cause 29 - 31 thousand deaths annually in the U.S.
- 10,000 from homicide (75% of homicides involved handguns)
- 19,000 from suicide
- Estimated societal cost of death and injury: $153.3 billion ($465 for each U.S. citizen)
- Death and injury cost percentage of annual revenue: 2,555% ($153.3/$6)
- 2.3 deaths annually per 100,000 users
- 1.2% of all deaths in U.S.
Bikes
- 99 million Americans (30%) own a bicycle
- $7.3 billion in annual sales
- Bikes result in 600-700 deaths annually in the U.S.
- Estimated societal cost of death and injury: $4 billion ($12 for each U.S. citizen)
- Death and injury cost percentage of annual revenue: 56% ($4/$7.3)
- 0.66 deaths annually per 100,000 users
- 0.03% of all deaths in U.S.
So, alcohol kills more people (in absolute terms and as percent of all users) and costs the U.S. almost four times its annual revenue in deaths and injuries (if you care about that). Guns kill slightly fewer people (as a percent of all users) but the monetary cost of deaths and injury is over twenty-five times what the industry generates (again, if you care about that). All in all, I was surprised at how similarly dangerous these two Constitutionally-protected activities are.
Two things stood out while compiling these numbers. First there are lots of conflicting and contradictory estimates on some subjects. For example, estimates of the number of instances guns are used in self defense annually vary from 60,000 to 3.5 million (two orders of magnitude!). The actual number (which still is uncertain) is likely close to 100,000. Second, lobbying by the gun industry more than doubled this year. It has been relatively stable, staying between $4 and $6 million over the past 15 years. This year when it reached more than $12 million. What is going on?
So, what is the point of this post? Am I defending guns, attacking alcohol, or just saying that you are way safer on a bike than you are drinking or owning a gun (way way safer than if you are drinking and owning a gun)? My goals are three-fold. First, point out that gun ownership is a risky behavior, just like many others, and we don't have to not be friends if we don't agree where the line should be drawn between safety and liberty. Second, we should acknowledge the risks that accompany our choices. We tend to downplay the costs of what we want to do and focus on perceived benefits. Third, a lot of our arguments for or against guns and alcohol are kinda non-sensical (dumb). If you are in favor of guns or alcohol, acknowledge that you consider the benefits to outweigh the costs, but don't imply that your behavior doesn't have any costs. I will leave you with a list of good and bad arguments for and against guns and booze (I'm categorizing arguments by logical merit, not by if I agree with them), and a brief statement of my position.
Good argument: There are legitimate uses of guns that can be a positive part of an individual's family's recreation and culture.
Good argument: Responsible consumption of alcohol can be a positive component of an individual or family's recreation and culture.
Bad argument: Chicago and New York have some of the nation's strictest gun laws and they have some of the highest rates of gun violence. Reason: Without a timeline you can't establish causation here. The gun laws are likely a response to a gun violence problem, not the other way around.
Bad argument: More gun control will automatically result in lower gun violence. Reason: Violence in general is complex and there are a lot of guns in the system. Effects of any legislation will have large lags (potentially decades).
Bad argument: Periods with high gun control aren't safer than periods with low gun control. Reason: See answer to previous bad argument.
Bad argument: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Reason: There is strong evidence linking access to guns with suicide risk and over 230,000 guns are reported stolen each year. As Eddie Izzard says, "The National Rifle Association says, 'Guns don't kill people, people do.' But I think the gun helps, you know?"
Bad argument: We tried banning alcohol once and it didn't work. Reason: During prohibition, deaths due to liver disease decreased by 2/3 (since we don't know the rate of clandestine alcohol consumption during this period, this is the most direct measure of alcohol use available).
Bad argument: An armed society is a polite society. Reason: First off, even if this cliche was coined by one of my favorite authors, Robert Heinlein (in a novel), I'd certainly rather live in an impolite society where I'm less likely to get gunned down by someone who finds my behavior impolite. The idea of increasing politeness by implied threat of killing is as anti-liberty as any tenet I've encountered.
Bad argument: Crime is sky-rocketing and it's so dangerous on the streets that we need guns for self defense. Reason: Crime rates have fallen 30-40% in most areas in the U.S. over the past two decades. It is safer now than ever before.
Bad argument: Gun ownership and number of guns in the U.S. are causing a rise in crime and violence. Reason: See answer for previous bad argument.
OK argument: Medical research suggests some health benefits from moderate alcohol consumption. Reason: There is no way alcohol saves more lives than it takes, but for individuals who are capable of responsible use there are some potential benefits.
OK argument: Guns are used approximately 100,000 times a year in self defense and certainly protect some number of lives and property each year (most of these uses are brandishing not firing of the weapon). Reason: We don't have the data to draw conclusions about whether guns save more lives than they take. Thousands of people die from gun violence yearly and some number are saved by guns.
Bad argument: People can get addicted to anything like exercise or eating. Alcohol is no different than other things. Reason: I personally know dozens of people whose lives or livelihoods have been destroyed by alcohol. I have one friend who exercises too much and a couple who are addicted to World of Warcraft.
So, what would I do with booze and guns if I were king? I would outlaw advertising for alcohol and guns. People can use them if they want, but companies shouldn't be able to push dangerous products (especially not to poor people and children). I would also forbid donations to politicians and political groups. In my opinion it's a strange system of sanctioned bribery dressed up as free speech. Training and licensing should be required for both activities. I would also require all people considering purchasing a semi-truck to watch this advertisement:
What do you think?
