Would a Handgun Ban Really Have Averted Dana Point Death?

Why is the tragedy of a shooting death so often compounded by an immediate, knee-jerk reaction of the fuzzy-thinkers who blame the gun--or the accessibility of guns--for the death, misdirecting the real responsibility, (“Swimming in Handguns,” Editorial, Sept. 11).

Unless, by magic, the government could make all handguns disappear, the Dana Point surfer shooting might have occurred even with a ban on handguns.

The alleged shooter, a 16-year-old, has no right, under existing law, to own a handgun. He cannot legally buy one. Clearly, he had no right to carry it concealed.

What on earth makes your resident fuzzy-thinker believe the answer to the instant tragedy is more legislation if this shooter was quite willing to ignore the present law? Might he obey it just because it’s new?

I particularly differ with the conclusion that the shooting “offers more sickening evidence of the menace of guns in our culture.” The shooting, if anything, offers evidence of the failure of our society to teach and discipline our children. No one who had anything to do with either lad’s upbringing can point with pride at this tragic result.

But, don’t blame the pistol for the act of the shooter, that’s too easy. That’s a cop-out. That makes an inanimate object the whipping boy for the failure of the home, the church, the school and of society itself.

The blame rests there, not just with Messrs. Colt, Smith & Wesson.

BOBBY D. YOUNGBLOOD

Orange