In the middle of the last century, as Americans took to the highway in record numbers, the statistics on lives lost in auto accidents set records as well. By 1972, more than 54,000 people were killed on the road.
Complicated problems require multiple solutions, so America tried lots of things to reduce highway fatalities. We built safer highways and tamed the wildest intersections. Government required automakers to build safer cars, with seatbelts, airbags and shatter-resistant glass.
Infant car seats were invented, and required, to keep the youngest passengers safer. Laws were passed and public education campaigns were launched to encourage seatbelt use and discourage drunk driving.
All those things had an impact, and by 2011, auto fatalities had been brought down to 32,479 -- even as the number of miles traveled continued to grow with each year.
Compare that all-hands-on-deck approach to the political gridlock, especially at the federal level, that has stifled attempts to do anything to reduce gun violence. As Dr. Michael Hirsh told a gun violence rally in Worcester, Massachusetts, last week, there are now more Americans killed by guns than by auto accidents.
There's no single thing we can do to prevent every gun death, but there are lots of ideas that might help: Universal background checks, "smart gun" technology, limiting the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, prohibiting gun sales to people on the terrorist "no fly" list. Republicans in Congress have not only refused to bring those measures up for a vote, they have prohibited the funding of research that might produce other ideas for reducing gun deaths.
We can imagine a more productive discussion. What if we set a goal of reducing the number of gun deaths from 33,000 a year to 28,000? How close could we get to that goal without violating anyone's Second Amendment rights? What would it take to reduce the number of suicide deaths by gun from 20,000 a year to, say, 10,000? How can we stop children from accidentally shooting themselves and others? We likely can't stop every mass shooting, but what would it take to make mass shootings less lethal, to reduce the average number of victims?
Like cars, guns are associated in many American minds with freedom. They have a cultural importance that must be respected, and a legal status protected in the Constitution. Those factors place parameters on the discussion of how to achieve the goal of reducing gun deaths, but they do not preclude any discussion, or any progress.
In California last week, Gov. Jerry Brown signed six bills into law tightening gun regulations, while vetoing five others he said threatened the rights of gun-owners. That's what can happen when elected leaders truly grapple with a complicated problem instead of just fund-raising off of it.
Two weeks ago, Democrats in the U.S. House staged a 26-hour sit-in to demand debate and votes on two bipartisan gun control bills. House Speaker Paul Ryan responded by saying there would be votes on gun violence this week, but only on a weak, unwieldy bill approved by the gun lobby. That's no way to find common ground.
We can reduce the carnage from gun violence, just as we reduced the lives lost to car accidents. Voters need to tell Congress to stop playing games and start finding solutions.
