Federal, State Gun Bills

Re “House Votes to Repeal Ban on Assault Weapons,” March 23:

I will soon be breaking family tradition when I become a registered Democrat. Obviously, my Republican representatives in the House are not voting by their conscience, common sense or by taking into consideration what the voters who put them in office want for this country. They are voting to assure that their reelection coffers are filled again by the National Rifle Assn.

If this is what the Republicans are motivated by, I will now embrace the Democratic Party, because of representatives like Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), who voted with conscience, common sense and a ray of hope for the future of America’s children.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, continue to be courageous and give those Republicans a filibuster they won’t soon forget. Oh, and President Clinton--if you veto this (if it gets that far), you have my vote.

SHARON GRANDINETTE

Torrance

Shame on Rep. Gerald Solomon’s (R-N.Y.) attack on Rep. Kennedy on the assault weapons ban. Why would he leave his wife alone five days a week in a rural area in upstate New York and expect her to kill an intruder with an assault weapon? Has he never heard of locks on doors or security alarm systems or moving her into an urban environment or with relatives, or even with himself?

I really wonder why he became so livid and combative when Kennedy said, “Play with the devil, die with the devil.” Does that phrase hit too close to home and to the NRA lobby?

BARBARA YEOMANS

Santa Barbara

The Times, like the rest of the mass media, has buried the truth about the “assault rifle ban” in a mountain of lies (editorial, March 22). If the ban only applied to 19 types of guns, not even the most strident pro-gunner would spend much time fighting it. The ban includes all guns that have a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds, in effect making illegal most semiautomatic pistols and rifles that were previously on the market.

The redesign of guns by manufacturers in response to the bill has had the unwanted effect of producing smaller-sized and larger-caliber handguns. As these more concealable guns hit the streets, The Times will of course start clamoring for banning them as well.

Wake up, America! The “assault weapons” banned were used in far fewer than 1% of violent crimes. This bill was never about crime fighting! The government is afraid of these weapons because they put the power in the hands of the people, where it well belongs.

DAVID J. ARMBRUSTER

Vista

The editorial made the point that introduction of the bill to repeal the ban had been postponed twice. It was feared that to make such a move after the bombing in Oklahoma City or during the Christmas season would be deemed “insen- sitive.”

The editorial failed to mention that the bill was introduced while the entire world is in grief and mourning over the murder of the schoolchildren in Dunblane, Scotland. While we resonate with the pained bewilderment of the school’s headmaster that “evil visited us,” our elected representatives try to convince the vast majority of us who support that ban that our concern is exaggerated.

BERNIE TROY

San Luis Obispo

Re “Block This Reckless Gun Bill,” editorial, March 24:

Are we to be persuaded that those legally carrying concealed weapons won’t use them “unlawfully or negligently”? Recently two drivers in Texas, which permits concealed weapons, scuffled over a very minor traffic accident: a side mirror grazing a pickup. One man used fists; the other, a handgun. Guess who won. And the winner was cleared of murder charges.

Californians aren’t immune to hot tempers. Not having a criminal record is no proof that a person will be sane during every argument everywhere. It’s not a reason to issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Concealed weapons are a danger to us all. California should not permit them to be carried.

DAMIANA CHAVEZ

Los Angeles