LETTERS: Brus' column off the mark

To the Editor: First, Brus states that GOP control of most of Pennsylvania's elected offices is a telltale sign that all voters support the gun lobby. This argument is so idiotic that the Political Science Department ought to reconsider granting Brus his B.A. in political science. First and foremost, it is irrelevant what people in Erie and Harrisburg think. Ignoring the fact that Ed Rendell was elected by the city and is filing this lawsuit on behalf of the city, one need only look as far as Sen. Arlen Specter and Gov. Tom Ridge to note that not all Republicans are mindless, gun-toting zealots. Second, Brus ignores the financial aspects of a civil lawsuit. Brus thinks that embarking on this lawsuit would waste the city's resources. Brus forgets that plaintiff's lawyers, of which the best in the nation are in Philadelphia, work on a contingency fee basis. These attorneys will front the cost of the lawsuit. Brus's concern about using government resources elsewhere is misplaced. Finally, Brus ignores the realities of product liability lawsuits. These types of lawsuits insure that manufacturers make their products safely. In this case, the Mayor will ask a jury to decide if there are ways to insure that only the owner of the gun fires his gun. In addition, this lawsuit may compel gun companies to guarantee that individuals buy only one gun a month. With the exception of Brus and Charlton Heston, few people need to purchase three dozen guns a month unless they intend to resell them illegally. Thus, this lawsuit will compel gun manufacturers to insure that their products are distributed more reasonably and not fired accidentally. I'd suggest that Brus stop speaking out about things that he understands so little about. Jed Silversmith Law '99 To the editor: Michael Brus' column, (DP, 01/22/99) although possibly well-conceived, features a total lack of cohesion or, for that matter, logic. Brus argues that "government regulation could save many more lives in other areas [other than gun control]." However, thiscompletely ignores the matter at hand. Even if he had demonstrated effectively other areas in need of reform, he still would be neglecting the issue of gun control. Forgetting this logical fallacy for a moment, let's consider Brus' suggestions. He suggests "sharply" reducing pollution, without explaining how this could be done; even so, very few people actually die of pollution. He also suggests lowering the speed limit, another very impractical solution, as the problem with speeding is more a problem of enforcement than practice. Also, contrary to what Ralph Nader might lead us to believe, there has never been any data that has shown a direct correlation between the raising of the speed limit and traffic fatalities. Would lowering the speed limit to 45, say, really do anything? I doubt people would actually drive more slowly, even if this was done. Brus next complains that there is something "profoundly undemocratic" about Mayor Rendellƒs decision to file a lawsuit. However, last I checked, we lived in a representative democracy, where elected officials make the decisions. Does Brus suggest that we hold a vote every time an important decision is to be made? We elect our leaders because we agree with their stands on the issues. I would much rather have a mayor willing to take initiative than one who always succumbs to what the people might think. Brus states that since "the GOP controls the governorship, both houses of the legislature and both U.S. Senate seats" that the "voters have sided with the gun lobby." I, for one, doubt that to be the case. Even thought the NRA does have a strong presence in Pennsylvania, it is hard to jump to the conclusion Brus makes. Still, the Mayor is under no obligation whatsoever to do what his constituency desires. I praise his boldness in taking a stance against the gun lobby. I might respect Brus' viewpoint, but I cannot respect the reasoning behind it. Jeff Berman College '02