Letter to editor *sent

**HyDef** · May 18th, 2013, 05:14 PM

Saw a DUI opinion piece in my local fish wrap today. Couldn't help but agree with their rationale, suprising I know. I thought I'd have fun changing some terms around making it an gun law opinion piece, lol. What do you think, should I click on the submit button?

Their piece, then my rewrite...

Focus DUI law on problem
Published: May 18, 2013

Drunken driving remains a serious problem despite significant improvements over the last several decades. About 10,000 people in 2011 were killed in crashes caused by drunken driving, about a third of all traffic fatalities, and 170,000 are injured.

About 21,000 people died in DUI-caused crashes in 1980, when the nation's population was about 226.5 million, compared with more than 310 million now.

There are many reasons for the reduction, including nationwide adoption of a uniform legal standard for 0.8 blood alcohol content for impairment. In 1980, most states had a standard of .10, and some were as high as .15.

Now the National Transportation Safety Board has recommended reducing that BAC standard from .08 to .05. It is questionable, however, whether that would address the fundamental problem. It would increase the governments' fine revenue and create criminal records for people who exercise moderation in consuming alcohol, but it wouldn't address the true problem - people who drink heavily and drive.

The average BAC of a drunken driver involved in a fatal crash is .16, twice the .08 threshold and more than three times the NTSB's proposed level.

Rather than going after drivers with BACs lower than .08, the government and anti-DUI advocates should focus their efforts on the true risk - heavy drinkers who drive.

The NTSB also made some recommendations along those lines in its report, "Reaching Zero: Actions to Eliminate Alcohol-Impaired Driving." For example, it called for greater efforts to diminish recidivism, such as mandatory ignition locks for repeat DUI offenders, and the development of in-car technology to detect impairment.

The NTSB is one of the best federal agencies, and its conclusions must be taken seriously. But as a practical matter, the way to reduce DUI is to go after drunken drivers rather than altering laws to technically create more of them.

My letter...

I had to pinch myself when I read your 'Our Opinion' article concerning new, stricter DUI laws. It's not often you see a liberal using reason, logic, and facts, instead of just emotion or feelings, to further their stance on something.

I also had to chuckle at how easy it would be to simply change some of the words and phrases in your opinion piece to address gun laws, rather than DUI laws.

What if you changed all the DUI related terms to gun law related terms? Let's see.

Gun crime remains a serious problem despite significant improvements over the last several decades. About 8500 people in 2011 were murdered by guns.

About 16,000 people were murdered by guns in 1980, when the nation's population was about 226.5 million, compared with more than 310 million now. Fire-arm related crimes have dropped by about 70% in the last couple of decades.

There are many reasons for the reduction, including the near nationwide adoption of open carry and/or shall issue conceal carry laws. In 1980, most states had much stricter gun laws while now about 43 states either allow open carry and/or are 'shall issue' states.

Now the Obama administration and some in Congress have recommended banning some weapons, expanding background checks, and reducing magazine capacity. It is questionable, however, whether that would address the fundamental problem. It would increase the governments' fine revenue and create criminal records for people who exercise their constitutional rights, but it wouldn't address the true problem - people who obtain and use guns illegally.

The average criminal involved in a gun crime neither obtained his weapon through background checks nor used a weapon the government seeks to ban.

Rather than going after law abiding citizens with 30 round magazines, the government and anti-gun crime advocates should focus their efforts on the true risk - career criminals with guns they didn't get through background checks and cannot legally have.

Many groups, not just limited to the NRA, have recommended ways to fight gun crime. For example, they call for stricter mandatory sentences for those convicted of using a gun in any crime or for engaging in straw purchases.

While the Obama administration and some members of Congress are certainly mostly wrong on the gun control issue, the issue of gun crime must still be taken seriously. But as a practical matter, the way to reduce gun crime is to go after gun criminals rather than altering laws to technically create more of them.

**CenterTree** · May 18th, 2013, 05:49 PM

Gun crime remains a serious problem despite significant improvements over the last several decades. About 8500 people in 2011 were murdered by guns.

About 16,000 people were murdered by guns in 1980,

You mean WITH guns. ;;; Right?

**HyDef** · May 18th, 2013, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by CenterTree

You mean WITH guns. ;;; Right?

change made, thanks.

**pacodelahoya** · May 18th, 2013, 05:57 PM

Maybe leave out the insults in the first paragraph?

**CenterTree** · May 18th, 2013, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by pacodelahoya

Maybe leave out the insults in the first paragraph?

LOL!! I thought the same, but then I thought maybe THAT portion wasn't "really" part of the actual letter to send. Not sure though. LOL.

(first paragraph is true though)

**HyDef** · May 18th, 2013, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by pacodelahoya

Maybe leave out the insults in the first paragraph?

If you've ever read any of my other letters to this paper, you'd see they probably wouldn't think it was me unless they were getting insulted. They've taken some insults out, left others in.

**HyDef** · May 18th, 2013, 06:14 PM

Letter submitted, let's see they print it. They didn't print the two letters I submitted asking them where their coverage of the Gosnell trail was. They've probably printed about 75% of my letters over the years.

**pacodelahoya** · May 19th, 2013, 07:30 AM

I hear ya on the truth or the first paragraph, just thinkin it's easier to catch flies with honey...

I don't even bother writing letters to the editor anymore. You're lucky they print any of yours. They either wouldn't print mine or would edit them so much that what came out in print bore no resemblance to what I submitted.