Smith & Wesson’s Agreement

Re “An On-Target Gun Policy,” editorial, March 24: I am astonished that The Times would think that governmental blackmail forcing any business into taking an action it opposed would be an acceptable principle. Smith & Wesson did what it did to prevent itself from going bankrupt and in turn it seems will make a big profit. Would The Times only accept advertising revenue from government-authorized, approved companies?

How much can the government, without the representative vote of Congress or state legislatures, bully any industry with the threats of heavy lawsuits? If this can happen to the gun industry, what’s next, cars, alcohol, pharmaceuticals? Whatever happened to the concept of a representative democracy as espoused by The Times?

MICHAEL L. FRIEDMAN

Rancho Palos Verdes

*

Your editorial states that gun makers can take steps to reduce gun violence. How? Can baseball bat makers take steps to hit more home runs?

BILL MARVEL

San Pedro

*

National Rifle Assn. spokesmen seem to have the federal government on the run with accusations that lax enforcement of existing gun regulations is responsible for much of the gun violence that blights life in America. But what regulations can be used in the case of disgruntled workers and vengeful ex-husbands who blow as many people away as possible before killing themselves? All of us are capable of irrational acts, and owning guns just makes these acts more lethal.

It is not President Clinton who accepts a certain level of killing in order to further his political agenda, but rather the NRA that closes its eyes to murder in furtherance of its objectives.

BAILLIE KRIVEL

Rancho Mirage