Is the skyrocketing sale of firearms driven by fear or is it simply human nature? ...

[av8r1998]

19. To Expand on the MADD Example

I remember in the late 60s and early 70s that many more drunken drivers were on our roads than are today. Due to the efforts of groups such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) we have made headway in addressing this problem but MADD didn't try to ban whiskey but instead worked to improve laws and penalties against those caught driving while intoxicated. While drunken driving is still a problem in our nation, the roads are much safer today.


Right, but ...
In it's original form, MADD made great strides in taking existing laws and improving enforcement, punnishment and creating a deterant. Drunk driving used to be a big joke, portrayed in movies and on TV in a comical sense. If you got stopped for DUI the worst that happened was you spent the night in the drunk tank sleeping it off.

MADD helped to make the punnishment more severe, more "inconvenient", and more expensive.

So now, you have both a civil and criminal component of DUI. (The criminal component is rarely charged, the civil penalties are pretty harsh, and easier to prove) Here in CT you immediately lose your license and spend the night in jail. In the best case you attend alcohol treatment classes, get a 90 day license suspension, and it goes on your DMV record for 7 years. You can't rent a care, and you get spanked by your insurance company. DUI since the 80's has been villified culturally, and these measures have worked.

But ....
A number of years ago, there were still some fatal drunk driving accidents.
So they reduced the limit to .08.
Has it worked? I don't know, but I really doubt that people, when drinking are cognizant of whether they are .08 or .1.

But there were more accidents, so now it's zero tolerance for anyone under 21.

But... yes there were still more accidents, so there's an enhancement for DUI with a "child" in the car.

As we keep adding more and more laws, there is a diminishing return, mostly because people who will STILL drive under the influence will do so anyway, and no amount of additional sentencing will change that.

As an analogy, look at NY's "Safe Act"
For decades, posessing a handgun in NYC outside of one's home has been restricted to the priveleged few. Namely retired LE, and Chuck Schumer. (Yes, he is a NYC permit holder)
But there was still gun crime. So they banned the sale of Hi Cap magazines.
But there was still gun crime, so they changed the limit from 10 to 7. They believe this will work because people who commit gun crimes will go turn in their Pre-Ban hi cap magazines. They also say you can HAVE 10 round mags if they were owned before the ban, but you can only load 7 in them. I guess people who commit gun crimes will download 3 rounds, right?

So where's the analogy?
The guy who's going to have 3 drinks and drive is STILL going to have 3 drinks and drive.
And the guy who's going to use a gun to rob a liquor store is STILL going to use a gun to rob a liquor store.

It is the ones who will follow the law that will be affected.
More and more laws have an ever-diminishing impact, and contraband laws never work.
Just look at Prohibition and the war on drugs.