Gun Debate Too Complex for Extremes : He’s the Energizer bunny of Letter to the Editor writers, an opinionated, voluble soul I know only by the words on the page and the oversized blue envelopes.
The relentless Ron Yorke of Reseda writes:
. . The one point that I have always conceded to gun prohibitionists is that there really are “some people” that shouldn’t be allowed to have guns . . . . I also believe that the behavior of children must be limited and regulated because children are not afforded the same rights as adults nor the same responsibilities. Therefore laws that force the parents to assume those responsibilities are valid if judiciously applied.
He writes and writes and writes and writes. He’s the Energizer bunny of Letter to the Editor writers, an opinionated, voluble soul I know only by the words on the page and the oversized blue envelopes. Ron Yorke writes a lot of media types. The other day, he tells me, George Putnam boomed out Ron’s “Open Letter to Pete Wilson” on KIEV radio. The governor, Ron says, should forget his self-professed “duty” to run for President and fulfill his promise to serve a full term in Sacramento.
Ron Yorke is a charter member of my personal gun lobby. Whenever I write something suggesting that laws to control guns are a good idea--and the enforcement of such laws is a keen notion too--they use my column for verbal target practice. Their certitude, I dare say, surpasses my own. Their marksmanship is open to judgment.
This time, Ron was reacting to a column concerning the way gun-toting children are punished for the irresponsibility of parents. Since Jan. 1, 1992, the Children’s Firearm Accident Protection Act has required adults in California to store firearms in a manner to keep them away from unsupervised children.
Since then, however, more than 400 students have been expelled from the L.A. schools for gun possession. Often these guns were found at home. Yet not a single parent or guardian has been prosecuted under this law by the city attorney’s office.
When I wrote that, to some gun advocates, “there’s no such thing as a good gun law,” Ron seized the opening. And since he was willing to endorse parental responsibility, he suggested something in return.
Relentless Ron continues:
. . . Now if I can admit that some gun laws are valid, such as a “Use a gun, go to jail” law, you should be able to admit that some gun laws such as an “OWN a gun, go to jail” law are invalid, and worse yet, laws like the recent so-called “assault weapon” ban are even beyond invalid, they are actually counterproductive . . .
The problem, as Ron’s letter illustrates, is that we too often tend to argue the issue from the polar extremes. Those who favor tougher gun laws are considered “prohibitionists.” In fact, almost everybody favors some sort of weapons control, such as laws pertaining to juveniles and, yes, the type of weapons. The Second Amendment, after all, concerns arms , not just guns, yet nobody seems eager to legalize the sale and possession of hand grenades, flamethrowers and land mines, much less poison gas and nuclear warheads. Yet the rhetoric is cast in either/or, black/white terminology.
Consider this quote: “Gun control is a completely ineffective approach to the lack of safety and security in our communities. Disarming law-abiding citizens only places them at the mercy of those who break the law.”
So said Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) in a letter to the National Rifle Assn., vowing to seek repeal of restrictions on the sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons. “Law-abiding” is a key phrase. We agree lines need to be drawn--but where?
It will be interesting to see how this plays politically as Sen. Dole seeks the presidency. Ron and the NRA may be thrilled with his support for assault weapons. But will the public at large?
Polls show that, though an estimated 50% of American households have a gun, most Americans favor the ban on assault weapons. My guess is that many gun owners can relate to the ambivalence of Dr. Paul Hackmeyer, who recently marked the first anniversary of his survival of a shooting at his North Hollywood home.
Dr. Hackmeyer, the subject of a recent column, owns a pistol for home protection. Early in his recovery, still fearful that the attack may not have been random, he sometimes carried the gun outside his home, in violation of concealed permit laws. Now, he says he has “weaned” himself of this “security blanket.”
Not unlike Ron, Dr. Hackmeyer has an appreciation for guns. Yet Dr. Hackmeyer can’t fathom why law-abiding citizens (as opposed to, say, major drug dealers) might feel the need to have a semiautomatic assault rifle for home protection. To him, the gun lobby’s fixation on such weaponry boggles the mind.
Meanwhile, Dr. Hackmeyer is teaching his children about guns. Knowledge, he figures, is better than ignorance. And he’s in the market for a code-activated gun locker--to be sure his kids can’t get their hands on his pistol without permission.
Dr. Hackmeyer isn’t a member of my personal gun lobby.
He’s part of the health care lobby.
Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Readers may write to Harris at the Times Valley Edition, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth, Calif. 91311. Please include a phone number. Address TimesLink or Prodigy e-mail to YQTU59A ( via the Internet: YQTU59A@prodigy.com).