Harriet Cady’s letter of June 7, comparing driving impaired to gun use, asks why not restrict people who drive drunk or drugged from owning cars? We don’t need to restrict people from owning cars, we actually demand that they have a license to drive. But if they abuse that license, we can revoke it – or mandate that they use an interlock device to prevent them from being able to drive their vehicle.
Sadly, those who support unrestricted gun use refuse to even consider licensing people to own guns so the option to revoke that license from someone who is impaired in some way is not available to us. So, in place of an interlock device why not just limit the amount of ammunition a weapon can fire at once.
After all, even a drunk driver is likely to only kill or maim very few people at a time. Then there’s the issue of our reluctance to provide adequate mental health care to those who need it, especially in New Hampshire.
Finally, I disagree with her last sentence. Rather, common sense, for the majority of us, says that tt is guns, particularly legally obtained automatic guns without (regulation) controls, that are killing people every day.
Dianne Schuett
Pembroke