Gun-Control Foe Lauds Armed Protection

Rebecca Schaeffer’s death was a tragedy (“Into the Firing Line,” Aug. 13). Danna and Benson Schaeffer have every right to be bitter. However, the strictest gun control laws would not have saved their daughter’s life.

There is a place that spends $812 per person per year to fight crime, compared to $218 that the average state spends. There are more police officers per capita in this place than anywhere else in the country. Handguns are outlawed, gun stores banned. People are not even allowed to keep loaded guns in their homes for self-defense. This is very strict gun control indeed.

The place is Washington, D.C., and it is the murder capital of America: Its murder rate is eight times higher than the national rate.

Even a “mid” step like a national waiting period is useless. John Hinckley, who tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan, had no felony record, no public record of mental disability and purchased the gun in Texas, where he was a legal resident.

We must attack the cause of the problem, not the tool. (Remember how well banning the sale of spray paint to minors worked to solve the graffiti problem?) Unfortunately, it is much easier to pass a law that does nothing than it is to provide education, employment opportunities, adequate housing and hope to those whose only present escape is through drugs or crime. As the police are here not to protect us, but to catch the offender only after he has robbed us, or raped us, or murdered us, our best defense is the private ownership of firearms and the ability to use them when needed.

One final point: In the wake of the Rodney King beating, can any of us afford to live in a society in which only the police are legally armed?

JOHN R. WOODS

Los Angeles