To the editor:
Your Jan. 16 editorial recommending more gun control as the solution to drug-related shootings in our area, prompts this response.Your suggested prescription, besides displaying appallingly poor logic, is nothing more than a call for ``doing something - anything - for appearances,' even if it does practically nothing to solve the problem.
Drugs, it's redundant to point out, have been ``controlled' substances for decades. Their mere possession, not to mention use, is against the law. Yet, despite a massive ongoing effort to stamp out their availability and use, they continue to be available, even to children in school.
Moreover, it's fairly apparent that the predominant group of drug users are ostensibly not criminals, at least in the same sense as those you describe as gun users. Yet, these ``law-abiding' drug buyers presently have little or no difficulty obtaining all the illegal drugs they need.
So, unless it's some other agenda you're pursuing with this persistent remedy, it is ludicrous to continue suggesting tightened gun restrictions as a practical way to prevent real criminals from getting them.
Former Chief Justice Warren Burger's Jan. 14 article, ``The right to bear arms,' notwithstanding, continuing the charade that restricting the availability of Saturday Night Specials (whatever type of firearm this journalistic buzzword describes) and handguns will prevent those intent on getting them for criminal use, simply defies common sense.
Burger, in the same article, pointed out that states regulate and require licenses for automobiles. They certainly do. But, this has not deterred people, in any way, from getting and using them in stupid and even illegal ways - including continuing to drive with their licenses revoked or without insurance.
People, it seems, and the way they often use inanimate objects, really are the problem. But then, I suppose, in your judgment that's just another version of the ``diehard's slogan.'
John L. Tuohy High Point