Limits on Gun Purchases

Re “How Many Guns Do You Need?” editorial, March 23: Fortunately gun rights are mentioned in the Bill of Rights, not some mythical Bill of Needs as you would have it. You editorial takes the classic liberal position, first assuming you know what is good for everybody. Then you insist on laws to enforce your wishes on others. In this case it is one handgun a month.

Nevermind that sellers must be licensed and buyers must already pass state and federal background checks and waiting periods before buying any gun.

JIM DODD

San Diego

* Your editorial concerning Assemblyman Wally Knox’s bill to limit handgun purchases does serious injustice to gun owners. Surely one’s heart goes out to anyone forced to limit his or her purchases of handguns to one a month. Only 12 a year? In 10 years, a mere 120 handguns? What cruelty!

Of course, one must make allowances for the replacement of the thousands of handguns stolen during burglaries--handguns are prime targets for burglars. And those needed for the gun shows, some of which might be in serious difficulty without the constant supply of “previously owned” handguns.

ARNOLD SIMON

Los Angeles

* Why would anybody need more than one gun a month? Why would anybody need more than one gun a year? Heck, why would anybody need a gun at all? This is the road our elected officials are taking us down, with the 1st Amendment-protected Times cheering them on. Actually, it is easy to fight violent crime: Make sure those who do violence are prosecuted to fullest extent of the law, make sure they serve their full sentences and make sure the related gun charges are not plea-bargained away.

California is among the top 10 states in strict gun-control laws (we get an A rating from Handgun Control Inc.) and yet our crime rates are about 30% above the national average.

JOE SOLIS

Santa Paula