Gun rhetoric: Shoot, then think

Re “Wrong thinking on gun control,” column, Jan. 21

It is refreshing to read a column on gun control by a moderate on the issue. I don’t agree that often with George Skelton, but he is on point in calling for sanity on gun legislation.

His discussion hints at a bigger issue: Politicians have seized upon the mantra of “any gun control legislation publicity is good publicity,” regardless of the efficacy or rationality of the legislation. Extremist positions breed extremist reactions. Every time some outrageous gun- control proposal is f loated in the media, extremist gun rights supporters send another check to the National Rifle Assn. and run out and buy another firearm.

The place for this to stop is in the middle, with common sense and moderation. We can all live free and safely without the extremists on either side running our lives. Sadly, moderates of any kind are in short supply these days.

Mike Post

Winnetka

Skelton argues against removing the gun industry’s limited immunity from lawsuits, stating, “There shouldn’t be a suit just because the gun works as designed and kills.” At the same time, are we to conclude that a gun and its bullets are only “innocent bystanders” that just happened to be in the “neighborhood” and “witnessed” a shooting crime?

Aside from allowing victims of shootings and their families legal recourse to pursue the gun manufacturers, such lawsuits will, in a very public manner, reveal the criminal’s weapons and manufacturers of choice. That unwelcome “criminal badge of honor” adorned to specific gun nameplates alone may cause the gun industry finally to take seriously its role in gun violence.

Besides, what gun manufacturer wants its products to be known as “America’s favorite gun for killing Americans”?

Donald Bentley

La Puente