Gun control not the answer to crime; We have enough laws; we need to get tough Well, you did it again. Your editorial comment on guns in the Oct. 23 issue is way off base. The key to curbing murders and other violent crimes is not better gun control; it is better criminal control. There are enough gun laws on the books now, and they should be enforced every time a gun is used or possessed by a criminal. Each instance should result in a sentence consecutive to the original crime's sentence, and it should be for the maximum time the law allows. That will not happen as long as Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann is in office and the Journal Sentinel keeps printing its opinion of the crime problem. The resulting prison overcrowding is not my problem or your problem. It is the criminal's problem when he or she willingly breaks the existing laws. Tom Gaudynski Milwaukee; How can comparisons of cities be justified? Boy, is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board off base again. What about New York City and Washington, D.C.? They have the strictest gun control laws and some of the highest shooting rates in the nation. How do you square this one? Phil Royer West Allis; We shouldn't trade rights for safety Regarding the Oct. 23 editorial "Gun control equals crime control," your new twist on this old argument is clever. Without a doubt, the number of people murdered in the United States is tragic and shameful. However, foreign countries with low homicide rates have other qualities that the U.S. may want to try emulating instead of trashing our Second Amendment rights. For example, other countries have effective criminal justice systems. They have punishments for convicted criminals that people actually fear. They have parents who teach their children about right and wrong, about respecting other people and about personal responsibility. On the other hand, these countries don't have our Bill of Rights. These first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution have existed since our nation's inception and have served the citizens well. These amendments guarantee us things such as free speech, freedom to worship as we choose, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, protection from self-incrimination, and the right to protect our homes, our families and our communities by owning firearms. Which of these precious rights should we throw away for some perceived sense of safety? I say none of them. Richard L. Stegehuis Helenville; Common sense says gun control won't work I would like to respond to the Oct. 23 editorial "Gun control equals crime control." In comparing gun crimes between New York and London, the writer fails to recognize that common lawful citizens of New York City cannot legally buy or own a handgun. In 1976, Washington, D.C., passed some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Since then, its crime rate has tripled; common sense tells us that gun control has not worked and will not work. A few months ago, I read an article in the Journal Sentinel about two Appleton homeowners defending themselves, with handguns, against a knife-wielding intruder. As a result, the felon is now in custody and two homeowners are safe. Would the writer of the gun control editorial put his or her family in this same situation with no means of defense? That's what this kind of gun control would do. What it will not do is stop illegal gun trafficking by the criminal underground and foreign countries. An example of a viable deterrent to violent crime could be "The Boston Gun Project," designed to combat gang violence, not the rights of lawful citizens. As a result of this project, violent crimes in Boston have been cut by two-thirds in the under-24 age group. This is the type of legislation lawmakers should be looking at, not feel-good, do- nothing laws! Kelly O'Donnell Whitewater