How government encourages drunk driving.

[Anti Federalist]

That's a bad comparison, though.

The reason for 2A is to protect ourselves from government/tyranny and from others who would intrude on our private property or try to harm us. Getting wasted and deciding to operate a vehicle, potentially putting other people in harm's way, doesn't protect anyone from anything. It's just bad news all around.

From an analytical and logical standpoint, perhaps it is.

Now, show me where logic and careful analysis is being used to sway public opinion.

I'll wait...

You need to get up to speed on this, the very same arguments that started in the 1980s against both drunk driving and smoking are being used now against firearms.

 

[cjm]

Open container laws also have some unintended consequences. When you're done with work for the day and ready for that after-work beer, rather than grabbing a tall can and sipping it on the way home, the law encourages finishing a full beer before you even start your trip. Assuming it takes one beer to get home and the travel and consumption are pretty linear, when someone is half-way home he only has half a beer in him. When he starts the trip, he has only a sip. By preventing open containers more people are encouraged to go to a bar to "wait out the traffic" and have at least a full drink in them before they set out for home, or perhaps a two or three (that's human nature).

The argument will come back that no one needs to have a drink on the way home or before they set out for home, but the reality is no one needs to drive at 65 MPH either. If we all drove stone cold sober at 5MPH, traffic fatalities would be unheard of. The allowance of high-capacity speed zones like 55MPH is a statement that some level of risk is an acceptable trade-off for quality of life.