In the editorial "No Cheers: NTSB Goes Too Far in DUI Standard Proposal" (May 20), you write: "Experience teaches that some lives would be saved, but at what cost to freedom?" and "So it's a matter of making a reasonable balance between saving lives and America's sense of freedom."
So ... are you willing to face the families of those 1,000 people killed by drivers in the proposed blood alcohol range and say, "Your loved one needed to die so that others could have fun and a big industry could continue to make money"?
No? That's surprising because this sort of emotionally outrageous counterargument is exactly what the PG and others have used against firearms ownership.
You say the current blood alcohol limit is reasonable and that further restrictions would cut drunken driving deaths by only 10 percent, so it's not worth the tradeoff of freedoms. Yet when there are proposals that would ban semiautomatic rifles and ammunition magazines you are all for them, even though those bans would save fewer lives than the National Transportation Safety Board's proposal.
This editorial reads almost like a letter from a gun owner, with a substitution of "alcohol" for "guns." There is one important difference though: When the PG writes that effective enforcement of existing laws is adequate to protect the public and freedom, you are making a reasoned argument. When a gun owner or the National Rifle Association writes the same thing, you indicate they are gun nuts, supporters of domestic terrorism and have blood on their hands. Why is this? Is it just a selfishness where "your" freedoms count but "mine" don't, or an actual hatred of gun owners?
By the way, I actually agree with the PG editors on the blood alcohol level proposal. It's the hypocrisy in making their argument that bothers me.