Licensing Gun Owners
In response to “Taming the Gun Monster: Doing It Right,” editorial, Nov. 8:
You propose to license people to own “sporting guns” if they can pass a background check and a written test on gun safety, but to ban handguns and “assault weapons,” the ugly military-style guns that have shown up in some high-profile murders, which are a tiny part of the overall problem. As a gun owner who has successfully avoided mortal combat for my whole life so far, and as a licensed driver, I have no problem with a license to “keep and bear arms.” After all, the militia should be “well-regulated.”
But a gun is a gun. As a licensed driver, I don’t have the DMV telling me that I must drive a “family car” and not one of those “performance cars” that some of us think are built only for reckless driving; I’ll thank the government to not quibble about what kind of gun(s) I should own, once it has decided I am a low-risk gun owner.
The law should set forth what is expected of a responsible gun owner. I’ll be glad to have my picture taken and my rap sheet checked. I’ll take a test that’s harder than the DMV multiple-choice test, but I hope easier than the CPA exam. I’ll go to classes on the usage of guns and on anything else a good citizen ought to know. I’ll go along with any reasonable requirements to put myself and my guns low on any list of things to worry about. In return, I would like to be able to take my gun license to a dealer and buy any gun short of a machine gun or mortar, and ammunition for the same, without further delay or red tape.
JAMES K. MATTIS
Sunland
* Thank you! Thank you, Los Angeles Times. At last, the editorial I have been waiting for lo these many years. As all the horrible shootings have happened over the years The Times has issued strong editorials decrying all the violence and killing but this editorial is the Big One.
It is not going to be easy; it’s going to take years to do it, but America must get rid of all the guns not useful for public safety. The insanity of punks jumping out of the bushes and shooting dead three boys returning home from a Halloween party in Pasadena shocked almost everyone. Let us hope that the memory of that sickening crime where guns were used utterly senselessly comes to mind when the opportunity is presented to all of us to goad our representatives to totally ignore the gun lobby, and act for us.
And let there be no half measures.
DICK RUFF
Oceanside
* You say many Japanese and Germans don’t understand individual freedom of firearm ownership and use. But I equally don’t understand why they severely limit this most important freedom.
During the last 200 years of America’s liberty, the Japanese and Germans have been decimated by the grip of dictatorship several times. Have they learned nothing about America’s fault protection--guns in the hands of the people?
TED EASTMAN
Apple Valley
* In your listing of other countries you left a few out, such as Mexico, with massively strict gun control laws and three times the murder rate of the United States; or from the recent past, the Soviet Union with strict gun controls for its citizens and where the state itself murdered tens to hundreds of thousands of its people annually.
You also neglected to mention that citizens of Japan are subject to random searches and extended detention without any of our other constitutional protections.
JOHN A. SCHMIDT
Los Angeles
* The Times is on the ban-the-gun bandwagon again. The problem in this country is the criminal justice system, not firearms. I’ve been a police officer for 30 years and when it comes to gun control all the public hears from are the chiefs of police, most of whom are politicians and bend whichever way the popular political wind is blowing. The politicians don’t have to face the guns. Street policemen do, and most of those I work with are against gun control, rationing and bans. When we apprehend the bad guys we want them punished to the full extent of the law. That rarely happens.
Just what are the motives of those who would disarm law-abiding citizens? For the sake of argument, let’s say that goal is accomplished. Now how do you disarm the bad guys? While you’re trying in vain what are the good guys supposed to do when the bogyman comes? Go to slaughter like sheep seems to be what ban-the-gun politicians want us to do.
The Pasadena killings represent a new level of depravity. If these children’s killers are caught and found guilty of capital murder, they should be executed forthwith. But that won’t happen. The appeals process will languish for years while lawyers play Ping-Pong with the nuances of the law. Until there is respect and maybe a little fear of the law, don’t expect any collective change in America’s attitude. And don’t expect the rank and file of America’s police to go door-banging searching for guns. The last time I saw that was some old World War II movie starring the Nazis.
JEFF DYE
La Verne
* I wholeheartedly support your editorial, “Brady Bill Vote” (Nov. 10).
In the editorial, you state that California’s 15-day waiting period and background check have kept 10,000 firearms out of the hands of criminals and others. In fact, the number is much higher.
In 1991, 5,859 persons were denied. In 1992, 5,763 were denied. Through September of this year, 4,798 people were rejected. Thus, in less than three years, over 16,000 persons, mostly criminals, have been denied the “right” to freely purchase a firearm. California’s law is more effective than you stated.
GENE ERBIN
Counsel, Assembly Committee
on Judiciary, Sacramento
* Since the ratio of smoking deaths to gun-related deaths is around 11 to 1, can we now expect to see 11 editorials raging against the evils of tobacco subsidies for every editorial extolling the virtues of gun control? Just asking.
WILLIAM CARROLL
Canyon Country