Share this article

print logo

Letter: Writer’s comparison of cars, guns misfires

Writer’s comparison of cars, guns misfires

A recent contributor to Everybody’s Column tries to make a comparison between automobiles and guns – their use and ownership. He wonders why some in Congress try to make laws that regulate gun ownership but do nothing when it comes to the deaths and injuries caused by automobiles. He must live in a world different then mine.

In my world you must register for your driver’s license and take a course in auto laws and usage before you are even allowed to take both a written exam and a road test before you are granted a license to drive.

The car itself must be insured, registered and regularly inspected, and this only after the manufacturer has had to follow a long list of regulations in its design and manufacture. In fact, the licensing of automobiles is so well regulated that a quick check can reveal everything about a car’s and driver’s history.

The writer then goes on to contradict himself by telling us that although the word “automobile” is not in the Constitution there are numerous laws and regulations controlling their ownership and use. Why, then, does he object to laws pertaining to semi-automatic, assault-style weapons with extended magazines loaded with armor-piercing bullets, etc., since these are not mentioned in the Constitution either.

An automobile, when used according to its design, gets you from place to place with comfort and speed; an assault-style rifle with an extended magazines and loaded with armor-piercing bullets is also designed with a purpose in mind: to kill multiple individuals, including those wearing protective vests (that’s what happened to the officers in Dallas). Look at the ads in the gun magazines; they tell the whole story.

Paul Tenser