The Good and Evil of Gun Ownership

The story about armed Californians was scary (“Armed and Anonymous,” by Steve Berry, Nov. 18) because 1) The guy on the cover violated safety rule No. 1: He had his finger on the trigger but wasn’t aiming at an intended target; 2) David Chow needs firepower in case someone doesn’t “like slant eyes.” What’s he going to do, blow the person away because of the insult?; 3) Aracelia Parra was pointing her gun at the heads of two of her children, with her finger on the trigger! Kudos to Deborah Fuller and Cori Harris. At least they know how to hold a pistol properly.

John Elfmont

Via the Internet

*

Under the posed family photo of Aracelia Parra is the headline, “Protecting a Fragile Dream.” Please note that anyone holding a pistol to the head of her child, index finger wrapped around the trigger, would be better served by the headline, “Waiting for Perpetual Sorrow.”

Richard V. Simon

Via the Internet

*

The gun debate should focus on the question do guns save more lives than they take? That is an issue that The Times has almost never addressed, and when you have, the treatment has been half-hearted.

I am one of those in the unseen and unloved center of the gun debate. I am certainly not silent, but my voice seems to do little good. I believe that the Second Amendment means that anyone has a right to own a gun, and I also believe that right is subject to sensible regulation. I belong to the NRA but believe that they are extreme in many ways, and I do not support the extreme positions. I do not belong to any “Brady bunch” organization because they are too extreme.

I own guns for protection. Many of the proposed gun laws are appropriate. For example, I believe that a background check should be done for every firearm sale. That is already the law in California, and should be extended nationwide. As Berry’s article emphasizes, there are many of us who don’t support the extremes of either side in the gun debate. But it is the extremes that are “newsworthy,” so we are seldom heard.

Sam Brunstein

Burbank

*

Does the existence of “gun moderates” matter much in the crucial debates regarding ease of access and over-manufacturing of cheap weapons? Not really. As a proud anti-gun extremist, I suggest that we provide gun worshipers with unlimited ammunition and free transportation to an attractive reservation in the mountains. They could then be given the freedom to wipe each other out in playful but rewarding “self-defense training exercises.”

Wouldn’t we have fulfilled their fondest dreams by putting their guns to use? And wouldn’t more sensible and less paranoid citizens be relieved of the tragic menace that originated in their obsession? They say they have a dazzling device. When I see its most fabulous trick, someone will die. In light of statistics on gun deaths, extreme controls should be placed on the availability of such devices. Or start selling heroin, explosives and uranium at liquor stores, just to keep from being hypocritical.

Cay Sehnert

South Pasadena