Letter: Restrictions serve valuable purpose

Published:

 

Cars are not at fault for accidents, it is said, drivers are.

OK, I get that. Let's distinguish between the "tool" and the "responsible agent."

"Tools are not at fault." Yet we restrict the design of cars — require the installation of safety brakes and safety belts, require headlights and turn signals, and enforce myriad other design features.

Why not similar restrictions with commonly available guns?

But, put those thoughts aside. For the present, let's focus instead on the agents of gun violence.

Those who are concerned about the right to keep and bear arms should support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

One cannot freely sell, trade, or give away a car; all owners are registered.

We license users of cars — require training and testing. Not just any Tom, Dick, or Amy is allowed a license, and we require all to renew their license periodically.

We cannot drive cars freely wherever the mood takes us; we're pretty much restricted to driving on roads and highways.

Let's have similar restrictions on gun owners.

Of course, restrictions on gun ownership does not guarantee the elimination of gun violence; just as licensing car drivers does not eliminate accidents.

Licensing car drivers dramatically reduces the occurrence, and that's the point.

Peter Henrickson

Vancouver