Gun Control and Violence

Re “Lessons of Gun Violence: A Need for Tough Controls,” editorial, March 10: Tough controls are already in place. Only tough enforcement of existing laws will make a difference. Possession of fully automatic firearms, and “components used to convert semiautomatic rifles to fully automatic,” has been illegal since the 1930s, yet the North Hollywood bank robbers possessed them. Convicted felons may not legally purchase any firearm, yet convicted felons do purchase firearms.

The Times is mistaken to conclude that further anti-firearm legislation will reduce violence. If existing legislation is so ineffective at restraining criminals, what makes you think further restrictions will restrict anyone but those who already obey existing laws?

PAUL HENDERSON

Long Beach

I agree completely on your call for tougher gun controls. Unfortunately, I am also realistic enough to understand that the National Rifle Assn. and others will scream loudly about the right to bear arms. Regrettably the NRA and other groups do not understand that the whole object of gun control is not to limit an individual’s right to own firearms for hunting, target sports or protection.

However, supporting an individual’s right to bear the type of arms that can be easily converted into fully automatic weapons is absurdity. I see no need to own an AK-47 or an Uzi or some other comparable weapon. I am not fearful of my home being attacked by elephants or rhinos.

If any of us don’t know enough about weapons we own so that we can hit what we shoot at, then maybe we shouldn’t own a firearm in the first place.

KEN FEASTER

Colton