All News & Blogs
I noticed William Dowling's flawed logic in his recent letter to the editor ["Flawed logic is used in gun-regulation debate," Feb. 3].
Dowling took the analogies in the wrong direction. If we were to apply the gun control logic to the situations he proposes, the outcomes would be similar to the following: To reduce house fires there should be more regulations to limit home fires; ban real candles, space heaters, and whatever else causes house fires.
It is illegal to drive drunk so all vehicles in the U.S. will have breathalyzers installed, requiring the driver to blow legal prior to starting the car. Anyone convicted of a felony can't legally drive for the rest of his life. Speeding causes deaths, so all vehicles will not be capable of exceeding a national speed limit.
At what point do we stop pushing agendas and start identifying problems and potential solutions? The 1994 assault weapons ban did not work; neither will a new ban. What is the problem that we must address to reduce needless deaths? The issue is more complicated than any one issue or law can change.
Could part of the problem be that the U.S. has become more narcissistic over the past 30 to 40 years? Just watch how our fellow drivers drive with a "me first" approach at every opportunity: What happened to stopping on yellow instead of running the red light, and coming to a complete stop at a stop sign instead of just yielding? When did we decide it's OK to run five to 10 mph over the speed limit?
These are all symptoms of