Inner-City Violence and Gun Control

Your recently published commentary by Gerald Petievich (“We’ve Got to Start Somewhere; Giving Up Is No Answer,” July 18) argues that gun control is a necessary precondition to controlling gang violence in Los Angeles. What the argument does not consider is that the cure is worse than the disease.

Sure, let’s remove or severely limit the rights of the 12 million people in the greater Los Angeles area in order to have a law enforcement tool to use against the 75,000 gang members. This is an example of the foolish willingness of simple-solution minded people to trade our individual rights (which we will definitely lose) for the promise of reducing crime. Trade my rights under the Second Amendment so the police can have a tool? Come on, there are 20,000 gun laws in America today; they are distinguished by their lack of use against hard-core criminals or gang members.

Instead of suggesting that the law-abiding gun owners have their rights limited and be required to show evidence of firearms training and have to carry liability insurance, why don’t we limit the ability of newspapers and TV news shows to show acts of violence, and require certain education and experience levels before becoming journalists? After all, that might reduce crime, too.

JIM DODD

San Diego