Even Gun Fans Know We Have a Problem : To legally drive a car, you must pass tests to acquire a driver’s license. . . . But such routine, sensible safeguards don’t apply to guns.

Tim Elliott of North Hollywood writes:

If you really want to hear some good arguments, talk to the NRA. In 1990, 48,024 people died from motor vehicle accidents--should we ban cars? Should we make the national speed limit 25 m.p.h. “if it will just save just one more life. . .?”

Yes, yes--I know. You’re tired of the gun-control debate. You’ve already heard the arguments. You’ve already made up your mind.

But see, it’s like this: I just got back from vacation and deadline’s coming and a couple of old letters have been waiting for a rainy day. Or a first day back from vacation.

It’s not that guns aren’t a worthy topic. To the contrary, it’s just that, like aftershocks or car insurance, the topic gets tedious. Firearms have become just too familiar. And so does the debate over gun control.

For guns to become newsworthy, we require something extraordinary. An accidental shooting or a drive-by won’t do. In only the first two months of 1994, the Los Angeles County coroner’s office recorded 239 deaths by firearms. But to get our attention, we require something like the ambush murder of LAPD Officer Christy Lynne Hamilton, gunned down by a disturbed teen-ager who had already killed his father and would ultimately turn the gun on himself.

If you want to hear some good arguments, Tim Elliott suggests, try the National Rifle Assn. But we already know the argument: Guns don’t kill people. People do. An AR-15, the civilian version of the military M-16 assault rifle, didn’t kill Christy Hamilton, mother of two. A 17-year-old boy, Christopher Golly, did.

Which is true as far as it goes--and that isn’t very far at all. Who, or what, pulled the trigger that killed Christy Hamilton? Many of the factors are obvious.

In the Golly household, it seems, the influence of drugs and the erosion of family life went hand-in-hand. Christopher’s parents were in the process of divorcing in 1990 when his mother, Pam, died of a cocaine overdose. Christopher spiraled downward, faltering in school and developing a taste for crystal methamphetamine, commonly known as speed. His father, Steven, in a feckless and ultimately fatal effort to mend a stormy relationship with his troubled son, introduced him to his hobby: firearms. Christopher liked to show his dad’s gun collection to his friends.

Guns don’t kill people. People with guns do.

And, as Tim Elliott notes, so do people who drive cars. Unlike the people with guns, they kill without even trying!

Of course, it’s a comparison of apples and elephants. It’s not like we drive our guns to work each day. (Columnist Molly Ivins has noted that Texas politicians are so concerned that deaths from guns would exceed those resulting from car crashes that they’re thinking of raising the speed limit.)

Still, the comparison is useful. Actually, for some years now, more people have been killed by firearms in Los Angeles County than die in car accidents. And the truth is, we regulate automobiles far more than we regulate firearms.

To legally drive a car, you must pass tests to acquire a driver’s license. To legally own a car, it must be registered. But such routine, sensible safeguards don’t apply to guns and the people who use them.

Happily, this dichotomy is not lost on many gun enthusiasts who, contrary to the NRA, support stronger gun control.

James K. Mattis of Sunland writes:

In your column . . . you said that we gun freaks have itchy keyboard fingers. It’s true . . . I too believe that we can use a strong gun control law or two. But we don’t need a dumb gun control law or a dozen. . . .

A smart gun control law addresses the fact that there are some people out there who shouldn’t be trusted with a gun, and not all of them are already crooks. Some of them are even nice people, but they can’t follow the directions, and we may not want them driving a car either. A licensing requirement would be a smart law. If one passes the background check and a training requirement (designed for people of normal intelligence who are serious about taking on a serious responsibility, to make dumb, if not malicious, shootings unlikely), one would get a card that says one may keep and bear any gun short of machine guns and mortars, and ammunition. Without the license, one would . . . eventually be prohibited from buying so much as a box of .22 shells.

In his letter and in a telephone conversation, Mattis emphasized that such a licensing requirement would discourage “casual” gun ownership and “keep a lot of irresponsible parties out of the gun stores.”

Mattis, who rattles off the names and characteristics of guns the way Tommy Lasorda talks about Dodgers, is one self-described “gun freak” who objects to the NRA’s stubborn resistance to even such modest gun-control measures as the Brady Bill, which finally went into effect nationally this week.

Mattis’ proposal isn’t all to my taste. He would ban relatively few firearms and impose no limit on the size of ammunition magazines. My law would impose substantial fees for licenses and registration. I doubt his would.

Still, it’s encouraging to find gun owners who favor sensible regulation of such a dangerous endeavor.

Nobody thinks a good law would eliminate reckless behavior. But maybe, just maybe, it would encourage parents to be responsible when they introduce their children to guns.

And maybe they would think twice about owning an arsenal.

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Readers may write Harris at The Times Valley Edition, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth, Calif 91311.