Gun Ban Issue Stirs Debate

* Our entire family was deeply saddened that Gov. Pete Wilson had vetoed SB-500 (“Governor Vetoes Bill to Ban Sale of Cheap Guns,” Sept. 27).

His veto will perpetuate the status quo, which is that gun violence is the leading cause of death among our young people in California. That’s right, not auto accidents, not drugs, not disease, but gun violence!

We were alarmed at his rationale for the veto. One only needs to compare our auto industry to the current situation in our gun industry to understand and our focus. We would never tolerate an automobile that did not have proper steering, but the governor is OK with a type of handgun that doesn’t shoot straight. We would not tolerate an automobile that didn’t have proper braking devices, but the governor is OK with a handgun that does not pass the current safety standards in place on the federal level for imported handguns.

As I understand his explanation, if he were to try to eradicate malaria today, he would do so by simply attempting to treat the problem after the harm had occurred. He is ignoring the tiny little mosquito, just as he is ignoring the fact that these tiny, lethal “junk guns” are flowing into our streets and into the hands of criminals, especially youthful criminals, at an alarming rate. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, four of five handguns traced to crimes in 1995, the most recent year for which figures are available, were “junk guns.”

We know that eventually safety will prevail over the special interests that drive the gun lobby.

CHARLES BLEK

Orange County Citizens

for the Prevention of Gun Violence

Mission Viejo

* Mary Leigh Blek of the Orange County Citizens for the Prevention of Gun Violence, a prime supporter of the vetoed legislation, has pledged to continue the fight and has promised to educate the public on the issue. I am happy to hear that, providing she tells the truth.

If she tells us that these cheap guns are the preferred choice of criminals and gangsters, then she is lying!

If she tells us that these cheap guns are used in a disproportionate amount of gun crime, she is lying!

If she tells us that this is a gun safety issue to protect the innocent gun owner from the gun accidentally firing or exploding, then she is lying!

And if she uses concocted statistics from “studies” of loosely disguised anti-gun groups, then she is trying to deceive us (I prefer the statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms).

Why, if a gun ban of this type is so meritorious, do these anti-gun groups have to lie and intentionally deceive the public about the issue? If the arguments for such a ban are based on lies, doesn’t that mean the justification for the legislation is false?

Even if the things she is trying to tell us were true, there would be a slim chance that this bill would have any positive effect on gun crime. The truth is that no ban of any type in the last 50 years has had any direct correlation to a reduction of gun crime. And the simple reason why is that criminals create gun crime, guns do not!

I challenge the public to at least ask yourself if you should support a premise that is based on lies. And I challenge The Times to at least question and research the information that these groups disseminate. Reporting what they say without questioning the facts gives these groups undeserved credibility. After all, your readers are looking for the truth and rightfully expect it from you.

MICHAEL E. SMITH

Placentia