Driverless Cars and Trucks: Do we Need to go There?

Technological trends point to a fully viable driverless vehicle sooner rather than later.  Safer, cheaper, and more dependable than their living, breathing counterparts the replacement of drivers with automated systems seems only a matter of time.  Its probably useful - before the technology becomes perfected- to question the cost it brings in terms of lost career opportunities.  Technology progress has enabled the mechanization of farming and manufacturing: productivity gains have been substantial but so has the human cost as measured by lost employment opportunities.  Shouldn't we be addressing the human side of divorcing cars and trucks from drivers?  At some point should we embrace featherbedding, most recently associated with union instance on maintaining employment levels in areas where they were really no longer necessary, in order to avoid the human costs associated with massive technology driven unemployment?  Technological advances will continue to erode employment opportunities and societies need to advance accordingly in the way they treat those who desire to work but lack- through no fault of their own- the opportunities to do so.

A Middle Ground Exists in the Gun Debate

Battle lines have been drawn once again.  NRA seeks to arm teachers, increase the presence of armed resource officers, and harden the schools against an armed intruder while the far left wants to ban all semi-automatics.  Student involvement things may turn out differently this time around: something, in fact, may get accomplished. 

It seems to me that there is plenty of room for a compromise solution that goes well beyond the steps taken by the Florida legislature.  Compromise from the right entails a recognition that some steps need to be taken regarding weaponry.  Compromise from the left entails allowing the continued sale of semi-automatic weapons for hunting and target shooting.  These compromises can take place at the state as well as federal level.

Issue One: ensuring weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands.  Instead of having a background check conducted when the decision to purchase is made, insist that prospective buyers obtain prior-approval from the state.  Each state can establish its own criteria.  The bottom line is that weapons may not be sold, under any venue, to any individual lacking a state-issued permit.  Sellers who violate this rule will face a mandatory punishment, to include the loss of their ability to sell weapons for a substantial period of time.

Issue Two:  removing weapons from individuals deemed a risk to society.  Some states have enacted provisions whereby law enforcement are allowed to temporarily impound an individual’s weaponry based on reporting that said individual has demonstrated a predilection toward violence.  The weapons would be returned once the state has determined that said predilection does not or no longer exists.

Issue Three: limiting the ability of semi-automatics to be used in a combat like role (as opposed to hunting and target shooting).    A sensible proposal would be to prohibit the sale, purchase, or possession of large capacity magazines -bullet clips holding more than ten rounds. This would be reasonably sufficient for hunting and targeting purposes but limit the potential carnage possible with a semi-automatic weapon.  If done on a national level, a buy-back program would incentivize the return of illegal sized clips.   Punishments for possession would be severe, including –at a minimum- confiscation of all weapons owned by the individual in question.

Some states have already adopted these or similar proposals, including Connecticut, and California.  There is no reason why other states can’t follow their lead.  There is no need to wait for Federal action along these lines: it will be a long time in coming.