Congressional Votes on Gun Control

Re “Terrible Weapons, Terrible Votes,” Commentary, Aug. 19:

Episcopal Bishop Edmond Lee Browning’s comments on the representatives’ votes on gun control show a naivete that I often see in your editorials. A man who intends to commit a robbery, rape, or murder does not worry too much about following gun control laws.

The do-gooders always want to disarm the law-abiding citizen. Thousands of Rwandans would still be alive if they had guns in their homes. The answer has been and always will be to severely punish people who use guns to commit crimes.

WOODROW W. PALMER

Hawthorne

*

After reading Browning’s column, I thought I need not write my own letter as he has said it all. I do, however, wish to make a suggestion. We should follow the example of those people who, enraged by the senseless slaughter on the highways by drivers who drink, have formed the organization called Mother Against Drunk Driving. Their success should be duplicated by the rest of us, Mothers Against Weapons, and used to control that other irresponsible group, the National Rifle Assn.

HELEN B. SCHOOLER

Inglewood

*

In response to congressional resistance against an “assault” (read “militia”) weapons ban, Browning asks, “Why would we want private citizens to carry such weapons? Of what possible use are they to civilized society?” May I suggest that he study the words of people like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Henry, Lee, Paine, Mason and a score of others on this subject?

He’s absolutely right in terming this “a deeply moral issue.” There can be no higher calling for a free people than resisting tyranny.

DAVID CODREA

Manhattan Beach

*

The article asked, “How can Congress, composed of good and decent people, possibly be opposed to a ban on assault weapons?” Precisely because Congress is not composed solely of good and decent people.

HENRIETTA JORDAN

Burbank

*

The battle in Congress over the passage of the Clinton Administration’s crime bill (“The Assault on Common Sense,” editorial, Aug. 23) was not about crime control, gun control or the cost of big-ticket social programs. It was simply American politics as usual; ugly and not very effective.

President Clinton, Atty. Gen. Janet Reno and Co. would have signed a pact with the devil to be able to claim legislative victory and a defeat of the National Rifle Assn. Even The Times reported that the final hours of arm-twisting and deal-making revolved not around the issues, but around party loyalty and the need for the Democrats to claim a big win in preparation for the November elections.

So long as the (useless) assault weapons ban and any semblance of his social proposals remained, President Clinton would have found a way to support the compromised bill. The purpose of politics, after all, is to win.

DAVID C. BRITTON

Anaheim

*

Neither “hug a thug” nor “drop a cop” rhetoric passed the crime bill in the House. The compromise guys did. By putting problem-solving dialogue ahead of partisan potshots, they broke the gridlock. May their kind increase!

When more legislators engage in problem-solving debate rather than partisan labels, government will cost less, accomplish more, neuter special interests, serve the people better and restore trust in government.

BARBARA BURBY

Garden Grove