To the editor of THE EAGLE:

There have been recent assertions that lax gun ownership laws are responsible for too many deaths in the U.S. The contention is made that if guns were as "tightly regulated" as cars there would be fewer instances of firearm violence.

Really? Is there a law that prohibits ownership and use of a car by convicted drunk drivers or those who use a car in the commission of a crime like gun laws do for gun ownership by criminals? Is there a law that prohibits car dealers from selling cars to convicted drunk drivers or those who use a car in the commission of a crime like gun laws do for gun dealers? Is there a law that prohibits gas stations from selling gas to convicted drunk drivers or those who use a car in the commission of a crime like gun laws do for stores that sell ammunition? Is there a law that allows confiscation of cars from those convicted of drunk driving or use of a car in the commission of a crime like gun laws do?

Does it matter that nearly twice as many children aged 5 and under are killed every week on average nationally by drivers with 0.08 or greater blood alcohol concentration than were killed at Sandy Hook? Are the lives of children lost in DUI accidents less valuable because they aren’t lost all at one time in a nationally publicized tragedy?

I ask your thoughtful readers to consider the amount of control imposed on a protected right versus the unused control available to impose on a state granted privilege.

If there is a sincere intent to objectively weigh the urgency of new laws to reduce the loss of our children’s lives by guns versus cars, the emotional "gun revulsion" finger needs to be removed from the scale.

ROBERT L. MEYERS

Pittsfield


Advertisement