Importation of Assault Guns

Re “Block These Guns, Mr. Clinton,” editorial, Nov. 13: Notwithstanding The Times’ position regarding so-called assault weapons, there is one real issue raised by you and the companion front-page article. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and The Times decry that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms approved permits knowing that the president “intended” to issue an order banning such imports. Since when is it right for federal agencies like ATF to make policy based on what officials “believe” the president (or Congress) will order in the future. They are bound by the law at present, not the future.

This is especially true for President Clinton, who changes his intent as often as he changes his socks. If the president was preoccupied by other issues, tough. If the president didn’t actually issue the order, the fact that he had the authority to do so is irrelevant.

This is probably the first time The Times or anyone else complained that a federal bureaucracy ever did anything too quickly.

ARDEN L. ACORD

La Crescenta

If assault weapons are so dangerous to our nation, then why is it that the U.S. government reports that less than 2% of gun-related deaths (which include suicides and accidental deaths) are attributed to assault weapons? Could it be that these guns are more intimidating to most people than other guns? Or, perhaps, politicians like Feinstein are sensationalizing these weapons in an effort to gain additional public favor!

Before many of us buy into the fear tactics presented by many of our politicians, we must consider the motivating factor--votes.

RODNEY GUYTON

Torrance