Stirring Up the Gun Debate

Why did Kim Murphy choose to revisit the story of Tom Wales now, months after his murder took place (“Tom Wales Fought for Gun Control. Maybe He Died for It,” Jan. 13)? No substantive new information has been presented since October, when she wrote several Times articles about the Wales case. In fact, police won’t even reveal what kind of firearm was used, let alone any significant details that might be newsworthy. Is it just coincidence that both the Washington and California state legislatures are going back into session about now, with a raft of gun-control bills waiting in the wings? Looks to me as if this article was printed just to stir up the gun debate caldron.

Brooks A. Pangburn

Duarte

*

I find the Tom Wales story to be a prime case of irresponsible journalism. It describes Wales as a low-level Washington state bureaucrat who was the voice of many liberal fringe organizations and causes, and who had the kind of “in-your-face” personality that aggravated people at every level. Yet of all the unpopular causes and organizations that he was involved with, you print a story that draws the unsubstantiated conclusion that the NRA or one of the local gun organizations had him killed because, among other things, he was pro-gun control. This is outrageous. He was killed by one of the many people who knew him because he had the personality to drive people to do it.

L. Petrucelli

Torrance