Letter: Deaths by crashes, guns not comparable

John Malec's letter to the editor on Nov. 7 appears to offer level-headed perspectives on gun ownership, but his comparisons to traffic fatalities and DUIs are false equivalencies. Guns are intended to be lethal, not so with cars. Deaths by automobile are rarely intentional murders, whereas 79% of all U.S. murders involve guns, according to Pew Research Center.

The Constitution has been subjected to interpretation throughout its history. It's past time to reconsider the original intent of the Second Amendment and its applicability to modern society.

Yes, it conveys a right to own arms, but that's not what the core of the gun debate is. It's about the necessity of applying effective, common-sense laws and systems to the acquisition and ownership of firearms.

Current laws involving guns are generally less restrictive than those for driving cars or buying alcohol. For example, you have to be at least 16 years old to obtain a driver's license and 21 to buy alcohol, but there is no age restriction on the purchase of an AR-style rifle in a private transaction.

To get your driver's license, you have to take an in-person test, but you can obtain a FOID card by filling out an online form. You have to have insurance to drive a car, but not to own a gun. And, of course, there are myriad traffic regulations governing driving cars. Using Malec's comparison, shouldn't there be more firearm regulations, too?

Murders by guns are up 49% over the past five years and 75% over the past 10 years. In that same period, with the exception of the last two "COVID years," vehicular deaths have been trending down, mostly thanks to regulations requiring better safety features and highway design. We must stop treating guns as sacrosanct. We can save lives.

Bob Dohn

Hoffman Estates