Letters: More guns, more safety?

Re “Senate opens heated hearing on gun control,” Jan. 31

The National Rifle Assn. insists that the only way to reduce gun violence is to put more guns and ammunition into the hands of more people. But at the local Crossroads of the West gun show in Costa Mesa last weekend, attendees were prohibited from carrying loaded weapons. The show’s website states, “Safety is our Number One Priority, and a safe environment in the show can only be maintained if there are no loaded guns.” Isn’t that ironic?

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords implored lawmakers to be courageous. The same goes for ordinary folks. It doesn’t require owning a gun to be courageous. It only requires the courage of your convictions to pick up the phone and tell your elected officials what you think about reducing gun violence.

Barbara Jackson

Cerritos

Despite all the rhetoric one hears concerning guns and the need to — or not to — control them, I think many commentators have lost sight of one of the most important arguments as to why firearms need to be regulated: The primary purpose of guns is to kill, and over the years they have become better at this.

Harry Norkin

Thousand Oaks

Re “Felons keep guns as state falls behind,” Jan. 30

Isn’t this ridiculous? Per your article, California already has a law on the books to confiscate “weapons owned by convicted felons and people with mental illnesses,” but “staff shortages and funding cuts” have left roughly 39,000 firearms in their hands. Isn’t that like issuing traffic fines and then not making the necessary efforts to collect them?

How many people are getting killed because of this? Please do not appoint another committee — just get it done.

Herman Steinman

Calabasas

Since the NRA spends millions lobbying Congress to stop gun control, it should pay the $25 million to enable California to investigate and seize the guns from the felons and mentally ill on the state’s prohibited persons list.

Also, doesn’t it seem more rational to seize their guns when they are hospitalized for mental illness or convicted of a crime?

Vicki Scrimger

Rancho Palos Verdes

Re “Framing the gun debate,” Letters, Jan. 27

According to letter writer George Whitaker: “The framers knew that change is a fact of life, and they wrote the Constitution as a living document that could be changed as the future evolved. We ended slavery and granted women the right to vote, for example.”

Rather than being a living document, the Constitution is an ironclad contract between America’s citizens and our government. Therefore, the framers designed an amendment process that was as difficult and time-consuming as possible. Judges who try to circumvent that lawful process and amend by fiat usurp the power of the legislative branch.

Yes, we freed the slaves and gave women the right to vote, but we did it by amending the Constitution. If anyone thinks he can get two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states to repeal the 2nd Amendment, let him try. It’s a free country.

Alex Fergulson

Whittier

ALSO:

Letters: Cable blackout

Letters: If the next mayor is a woman

Letters: Reforming community colleges