‘The Case for Gun Control’
My reaction to the editorial “The Case for Gun Control” (Dec. 20) was to immediately send a $50 donation to the National Rifle Assn.
What’s more, the conclusions drawn are wrong. If Nathan Trupp had tried to purchase a handgun in California, which has a much more restrictive waiting period law than the one rejected by Congress, he probably would not have been denied. The reason is law enforcement authorities have no way of checking for a history of mental illness that does not include violence or a court-ordered commitment to an institution.
The editorial mentions a Gallup Poll result, which purports to show that 91% of Americans favor a federally mandated waiting period for “gun” (not “handgun”) purchases. That figure seems incredibly high when one considers that Californians voted 2 to 1 against the last gun-control initiative and that Congress rejected the Brady Bill by a substantial margin.
Responsible, gun-owning citizens oppose most gun-control efforts because the anti-gun people have not been honest about the intent of their proposals and are not satisfied with reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. Take for example, California’s waiting period law. When it first went into effect in the 1960s it was only three days. Now it is 15 days.
Of course, waiting is only going to inconvenience a law-abiding person. The criminally inclined are going to do what they always do; obtain a stolen gun.
BRUCE A. MOODY
Los Angeles
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
