Raise it to 18? Whaddya say, chap?

I went to England once. The roads are all narrow. They have speed humps instead of bumps and there is no “shoulder”— just hedges. They also don’t have 16 year olds behind the wheel. In fact, Britain (yes the same country where you can drink at 18) doesn’t allow unsupervised driving until 18 years of age.
Why? My 16-year-old self would kick me for saying this, but 16-year-olds are not mature enough to drive. Some are, sure. But definitely not all. Blame it on the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex. The National Institute of Health has determined that at the age of 16, this decision-making and consequence-perceiving part of the brain is much more underdeveloped than at 17 or 18. Of course, you can always argue that our brains develop more quickly than the Brits.
Regardless, two people will die every day in USA by vehicles driven by 16-year-olds. One in five 16-year-olds will be involved in a crash within their first year of driving. AAA reports that “In 2003, there were 937 drivers age 16 who were involved in fatal crashes. In those wrecks, 411 of the 16-year-old drivers died and 352 of their passengers were killed. Sixteen-year-old drivers are involved in fatal crashes at a rate nearly five times the rate of drivers 20 or older.” I suggest that we take after our mother country and raise the driving age to 18.
The advantages are clear. It will save lives. The disadvantages are less clear. Raising the driving age would bring up transportation issues for teens such as getting to work or school. Often this is the argument that shuts down arguments for a raised driving age. This sounds to me like a call for better public transportation options, better sidewalks and cheaper bicycles. The lives on teenagers and everyone else on the road must be prioritized over conveinence.

Sixteen too early to drive

Different states are now considering raising the driving age to 17 as a result of high accident rates among 15 and 16 year olds. South Carolina is one, who is very optimistic about raising the age. Only 2% of the state's drivers are under the age of 18, but those teens make up 4% of the drivers involved in fatal collisions. They also make up 7% of drivers involved in all accidents, according to 2000 traffic data from the S.C. Dept. of Public Safety. Lancaster's Buford High School Principal James Jordan, said the teen-age girl who lived down the street from him and baby-sat his kids died in a car crash. Buford high school lost two cheerleaders in a car crash a few years later, then in August, two more students were killed in a two-car crash where one driver was 15 and the other was 16. Jordan has written letters to several state legislators urging action on raising the permit age to 16, the age for a restricted license to 17, and a full license at 18. "These kids need more supervision before we turn them loose," Jordan said.
On a national level, teens only make up about 6.7% of all motorists in the U.S., however, they account for 14% of the fatal crashes (teens aging from 16-19). Speeding is especially risky for young drivers because they are more prone to making errors and have less experience on the road. 77% of fatal crashes involving 16 yr. olds behind the wheel are caused by driver error. And, 16 yr. olds are nearly five times as likely to be involved in a fatal crash as drivers 20 and older. Overall, they don't really have a good sense of judgement or decision making, especially when other teenagers are in the car as well. Talking causes alot of distraction and it only takes that one second when you're not looking to take your life. 40% of 16 yr. old drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2003 had one or more teen passengers with them.
True, teenagers are a little more experienced at 17, but I don't really feel it's going to make a difference if they raise the age to just 17. If you look at statistics, many of them categorize 16-19 yr. olds together. And, from 16-18, I think that teenagers should be involved in a special type of defensive driving course, a practice driving course with designated older drivers (ie. parents, etc.), or real world situations classes, where they prepare these kids to react when they are about to have an accident. Defensive driving is extremely important, and I don't think parents stress that enough to their children. Some schools have implemented driving classes, but it doesn't seem like they're structured closely enough to real world situations that these kids might encounter. Personally, I didn't drive until I was 17, simply because I didn't have a car until that age. However, I drove with my mom in the car from 15-17, so I had a solid period of her teaching me how to react to situations, when you have the rightaway, when you yield to others, etc. And, by 18, I feel that I'd been thoroughly educated on how to drive safely and carefully. Some parents choose not to spend time teaching their kids how to drive, so if we are to have driving courses/classes that are going to be offered to newly driving teenagers, I think they should simulate more life-like situations that are sure to be encountered on the road. If they do decide to raise the law, and it does put a strain on some families, I believe special permission should be granted to those families that need their 16 yr. old to work. Maybe judges could do a conditional agreement, where the teen would take so many hours of defensive driving and so many hours of driving classes (state funded if need be), until the state feels the teen is able to drive safely. Overall, we just aren't caring enough to take the action necessary to prevent these things from happening; maybe not enough people are standing up to change the law. Either way, America's children are loosing and paying the price for our lack of good judgement.

Drivin N Cryin

Due Wednesday October 25:
Should Georgia's driving age be raised to 17? Find research showing 16-year-old drivers are disproportionately responsible for car accidents. Also consider the potential hardships caused for some 16-year-olds and their families if they were forced to wait an additional year to get their licenses. Use your own experiences and those of family and friends as appropriate, as well as those reported in the news.

Was it the butler in the parlor with the candlestick? Or the pimp in the ATL with a handgun?

Do guns kill people? Or do people kill people? First, let’s not take this bumper-sticker seriously. Gun control is a pressing issue that deserves more than just rhetorical arguments. We all know guns don’t kill people by themselves and that people kill other people with a lot of other tools than firearms.
The fact is, people with guns kill people. Now I’m not saying everyone who has a gun shoots it at others—I’m just making the point that in a firearm shooting, there are two parties involved—a person, and a gun.
My argument is simple. Get the guns out of the equation. The National Institute of Justice found in 1994 that 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. The counterpoint to my argument is also very simple. If a person wants to kill another person, they will do it regardless of gun control laws. Knives, baseball bats and chain saws are all in great supply. Do we want to restrict them too?
No. Why are the majority of gun crimes committed with a firearm? They simply get the job done the best. The same study by the NIJ found that the other means for murder just didn’t work as well. “In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology confirmed this. It found that the fatality rate in gun crimes is approximately 4 per 1,000—about 3 times the fatality rate for knife robberies, 10 times the rate for robberies with other weapons, and 20 times the rate for robberies by unarmed offenders.
Locally, we have reason to be concerned. Atlanta has the country’s seventh highest violent crime rate. We also lack restrictive gun control laws. In Georgia you do not have to have a permit to purchase firearms. You do not have to register that firearm, and you do not have to have a permit to carry a firearm (with the exception of handguns). In fact, a requirement to be licensed to carry a concealed handgun is the only measure that restricts gun use at all.So I ask, are we that protective of our gun “rights” that we can’t turn that last paragraph around? Would it be a violation of our personal dignity to ask that gun enthusiasts undergo a little bit of firearm training before they are handed the most effective killing tool known to man? How about licensing the guns to their owners? This just adds a bit of accountability to the mix. If you aren’t going to violate anybody else’s right—for instance, to live—then there isn’t much reason to be concerned. If it were just good ole’ Southern boys shooting deer and beer cans, there would be no reason for gun laws. But that’s just not the case. Not until people with guns stop killing people.

Whose fault is it?

With the coming of the 21st century, a new generation of troubled children wishing to unleash their pinned-up emotions on fellow students and administrators with deadly weapons has spawned. School shootings are now just as part of our American everyday way of life as shootings on the street. More and more schools are sabotaged nationwide on a weekly basis, it seems, by criminals and students alike that are allowed to enter these schools with deadly weapons. How easy is it? Too easy, thanks to negligent state law making officials. In Joplin, Missouri, a boy fired an assault rifle in a Joplin Middle School this last Monday. Luckily this time, no one was hurt. The 13-yr old was wearing a dark green trench coat, very symbolic of a troubled young child who may take irrational action. That might sound like a stereotype to some, but I classify it as a trend these children have set for themselves. There was something very different about this situation however, that seemingly represents the current nationwide issue at hand. This boy was firing at the ceiling, not at any students or administrators. He did not intentionally attempt to injure or inflict pain on another person, which proves to me that this was a desperate cry for help. Something is happening to our children. They're being deprived of that which makes them whole; it could be love, attention, understanding, lack of guidance. Where are the counselors and why are they not communicating effectively with individual students? Isn't anyone going to step in and help? Do we know how to help or do we want to learn? Do we have time to care?
The more troubled a child is, the more drastic measures he/she will take to make sure everyone knows he/she needs help. It is unfortunate that we let it go that far. Spotting troubled children is the first step to battling these incidents; the second is to actually connect with the child to determine what it is he/she really needs to be complete as a child, then have he/she attend counseling sessions; the third step is to modify current gun laws.
Colorado state law does not require licensing or registration in the purchasing/possession of firearms. It is a felony for any parent/guardian to knowingly provide a handgun to a juvenile when that parent is aware that a substantial risk exists that the juvenile will use the handgun to commit a felony. Okay, "A"- kids lie, all the time, and "B"- the parents of these kids are idiots most of the time and couldn't spot a sign their kid was in trouble if it jumped up and smacked them in the head. Therefore, school counselors need to be more involved and concerned for their students; all of them! The delinquents aren't the only ones who need attention; the two Columbine shooters were A/B students, were they not? So, going back to the law, if the parents did not know, they're not held accountable? Well allright! Gotta love them "get out of jail free cards!" Oh, and guess what...in Colorado, there are no age restrictions related to possession of rifles or shotguns! Let that marinate for a minute.
Now for Georgia laws: 1) Gun owners are not held accountable for leaving loaded guns accessible to kids. What the ****! Are you kidding me. An eight year old is going to be held accountable before the adult that left the gun laying around in the first place. OH MY GOSH! 2) There is no law stating that child safety locks should be sold with guns. 3) There are no limitations restricting the sale or possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons (some of these weapons can fire up to 100 bullets without reloading).
4) There are no state restrictions on gun-trafficking, such as a limit on the number of handguns that can be purchased at one time. Large quantities may be bought at one time and sold to crminals/kids with no problem. 5)Those eligible to buy handguns may carry them in loaded and concealed in public. 6)Background checks are not required for guns purchased at gun shows, or for private sales. 7) Children under 18 may not possess a handgun without permission from a parent, but they can possess a rifle, shotgun or semiautomatic assault weapon. Hmmm. Let that marinate for a minute...
Also bizarre, 8) the state limits selling/giving handguns to children under 18, but there are no restrictions on transferring rifles, shotguns or even assault weapons to kids-their parents permission is not needed.
What's even worse is that even though the state fails to pass responsible state-wide laws, the state forbids city governments from enacting any local gun laws. In essence, our state is actually stripping the cities within it of their right to make sure that their people are protected. And, when events of this magnitude occur (shootings in schools), all the top government officials involved like to "pass the buck!" "Oh, it's not my jurisdiction," they say. It is the state's jurisdiction; if they don't take responsibility and they don't hold individuals accountable for leaving a loaded, unprotected gun around a child, then who do they hold responsible? THE CHILD! And just imagine, these are the idiots running our government, representing us as a nation (as a whole); these are the idiots making money off the state and taking state-paid vacations, while failing to do their job as state law making officials. I have one more law to discuss; I've intentionally saved this one for last, as I think it can be the single-most contributor to solved vs. unsolved cases.
9) No license or permit is required to buy a handgun, or any other gun. Okay, I'm now officially sickened by our state government; anyone else care to wallow in disgust with me? We are watching criminals slip through the cracks, and I'm sure we'd all be surprised at the alarming percentage of cases that remain unsolved. If they filed a damn permit, we'd know everything about them now wouldn't we? Let's all go back to kindergarten and learn our ABC's! All in favor, say I!

Do Guns Kill People?

Blog posting due Oct. 11th:
Research gun laws in the South and how they differ from other parts of the country and/or the world. Do these differences affect the frequency and/or severity of crimes involving guns? Do you think changes should be made in the laws and if so, what suggestions do you have?