Arm or disarm?

THANK YOU FOR the editorial "Gun points" (May 29), which a friend forwarded after we lobbied together in the New York state senate for the passage of the gun dealer bill. The bill was passed by the state assembly, but we haven't been able to get the senate on board.

I serve on the board of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence and was President Reagan's nurse for 10 days at George Washington Hospital after the 1981 assassination attempt. The friends I lobbied with are members not only of NYAGV but also of the League of Women Voters, Parents of Murdered Children and the local council of churches. The stories about children lost to gun violence told to senate staff members were almost more than I could bear.

The gun dealer bill would require gun shops to remove guns from display windows at night and lock them in a closet or other storage container. We've had several "smash and grabs" in upstate New York: criminals have smashed windows and stolen hordes of guns. One incident ended with the shooting of two state troopers; one was gravely wounded, the other killed. Another incident resulted in a flood of illegal guns on the streets of Albany.

The bill requires gun dealers to keep inventory to identify "lost" guns. It further requires training to spot straw purchasers (people who buy guns for criminals who wouldn't pass the background check). The bill does not present any significant cost to the small business owner.

When our legislators refuse to act, average citizens need to stand up and make their voices heard. The day after the Virginia Tech shootings, I started a daily gun violence blog called "Under Fire" to express my anger about the failure of our government to prevent such tragedies. Every morning I read the paper, scan the computer news and sit down to write the blog. And I am never at a loss for words.

Robyn Ringler

Ballston Lake, N.Y.

You ask why there has been no response in the U.S. similar to Australia's after the Tasmania massacre. The answer, of course, is that the United States has a Constitution which recognizes the individual fight to keep and bear arms, and Americans would not give up this right simply because an opportunistic government used a tragedy as an excuse to disarm them. You may also be aware that in 1776 Americans threw off the yoke of British oppression and took responsibility for our own defense. Australia, on the other hand, chose to remain a possession of the British Empire. They chose (dubious) security over freedom.

You argue that Cho need not have had the guns he did in order to hunt. But the Second Amendment recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to preserve their freedom. It dues not concern itself in any way with hunting. Since the purpose of the amendment is to preserve the people's right to preserve their freedom, 15-round magazines are absolutely within the scope of its protection, and your reference to hunting is without merit.

Finally, you argue that the 1994 assault weapons ban would have outlawed Cho's weapon. That's absolutely incorrect. The Glock 19 pistol was not outlawed by the 1994 ban. The only part of that law that might be relevant is the ban on magazines containing more than 10 rounds and manufactured after the ban went into effect. In any case, the people of the U.S. made it quite clear to their elected representatives that the 1994 ball was improper (remember how many Democrats lost their seats in 1994?), and Congress wisely chose not to renew it.

Gwalchmai Munn

Decatur, Ga.

While it is true that most pistols are not designed for the "sport of hunting," that is misdirection at best. Most pistols are indeed designed for police and military use--but just as important, they are also designed for civilian self-defense. Cho could have just as easily purchased a hunting shotgun (like the Columbine killers did) to do his dirty work.

Dale Roush

Mason, Ohio

As coauthor of "Gun Laws and Sudden Death" (British Journal of Criminology, October 2006) I must clarify Australia's 1996 experience with restrictive gun laws. To say that gun deaths were cut in half after the 1996 bans and a $AU500 million buyback tells only half the story. Firearm-related deaths were falling for many years before the legislative reform. Our peer-reviewed study found that firearm suicides (about 80 percent of firearm-related deaths in Australia) fell more quickly post-1996.

We concluded that the gun laws may have influenced firearm suicides, but advised caution because nonfirearm suicides also declined from the late 1990s. Suicide prevention programs and other social changes may have had overall effects. There was no evidence that the laws affected firearm homicides--a result consistent with at least two other independent papers on the topic.

Australia's close neighbor New Zealand has not had a mass shooting in over 10 years, just like Australia. However, New Zealanders still use, for hunting and target shooting, the types of firearms Australia banned in 1996. Tackling the immensely complex social issues underlying violence requires care and compassion, for which gun laws are no substitute.