Gun Issues

Richard Seid writes about how America is somehow responsible for crime in Mexico (Opinion * Commentary, July 26).

But his article only reinforces the notion that gun control advocates tend to be either misinformed or deliberately deceptive.

First, Mr. Seid states that "the U.S. Congress voted to ban certain types of deadly assault rifles" and therefore "their export to Mexico became a lethal certainty." As of this writing the ban has not been approved by Congress, so any floods must be anticipatory in nature.

Secondly, he refers to AK-47s "assembled from illegally imported parts" and "not . . . sold in Mexico" as somehow connected to his thesis of America as gun-runner to the Third World.

I am confused as to whether Mr. Seid is claiming that these particular weapons or parts came into Mexico from the U.S. They were not made here. It would seem plausible, if not much more likely, that they were brought in from the country of manufacture.

Mr. Seid cites the case of Luis Colosio, killed by an assailant who used a revolver "purchased in San Francisco." Does this single case prove any kind of trend?

Do any fact or statistics support the implied claim that the U.S. is the primary cause of Mexican violence?

Or is it just possible that the repressive, one-party government of Mexico has produced a society where ordinary citizens are unable to possess firearms for personal protection, and where only the criminals and terrorists are armed?

If there were no gun traffic from the U.S., would Mexico magically be gun-free?

Mr. Seid proposes "a public campaign to counter the brainwashing of the National Rifle Association," licensing (only?) collectors and sportsmen, forcibly "recalling" all other firearms and allowing only carefully controlled "deputized" citizens to possess firearms for protection.

Given his advocacy of such totalitarian policy, we can only hope that Mr. Seid's 20-year expatriation to Mexico continues.

John C. Taylor

Columbia

Flower Mart Move

In response to some of the editorials and letters of recent weeks, I would like to set the record straight about the vote by the board of the Women's Civic League to change the location of the 79th Flower Mart in 1995.

It was a wrenching decision, because it was our decision to leave Mount Vernon.

Some facts that swayed this move: Revenue has been declining for the past six-to-eight years. The reference to "profit" really is to the funds raised to support the upkeep and operating expenses of the historic Thorowgood Smith House at 9 Front Street, to fund a scholarship program for students excellent in civic and other causes.

This decline is due to loss of many office and business personnel around the surrounding area. The War Memorial location can draw from the new bank and office buildings within short walking distance, as well as Harborplace and the many municipal buildings.

Let us reassure everyone that the same "tradition" of lemon peppermint sticks, crab cakes and flowers will prevail, along with our ladies in colorful flowered hats.

Also we will be giving a lot of citizens an opportunity to explore another part of our great city, the Zion Lutheran Church, St. Vincent Catholic Church, Peale Museum, City Hall and much more.

Agnes Crowley

Baltimore

4( The writer is Flower Mart treasurer.

Hiding History

Recently while driving past Old St. Paul's Cemetery at Redwood and Pine Streets, downtown, I noticed something that deeply troubled me.

The bronze wall plaque noting the burial location of Confederate Brig. Gen. Lewis A. Armistead, who died during Pickett's charge at Gettysburg, was missing.

I first thought the plaque may have been stolen. I later learned, however, that it had been removed after renovations to the cemetery wall. For some reason, the owner felt the plaque no longer fit the decor of the historic cemetery.

Could this be another example of Confederate-bashing? That plaque was placed on the wall to honor one of the bravest soldiers in American history.

How can we as Americans allow our history to be taken away? We must not forget the brave soldiers of both the Union and Confederate armies who served their cause.

I hope that my thinking is wrong and that the plaque will be placed back on the wall so Baltimoreans can read it, learn by it and remember our history. I respectfully ask the owners to reconsider their decision to remove the plaque, and re-attach it to the wall.

Charles J. Bury Jr.

Baltimore

FHA Loan Limits

I would like to respond to the column by Jane Bryant Quinn July 25 headlined, "FHA mortgages for high-income folks? Think again."

It is a mistake to claim that increased Federal Housing Administration loan limits would cut service to low- and moderate-income families. FHA insurance is not a zero-sum game.

Higher limits would strengthen FHA's insurance fund reserves, while increasing HUD's ability to serve millions who otherwise would have little hope for becoming home-owners.

Who are these people? They are America's struggling middle class -- teachers, police officers, nurses, fire-fighters, factory workers.

If they could obtain conventional financing they would, because these loans have less paperwork and lower fees than FHA insurance.

But conventional lenders often fail to meet the mortgage needs of moderate-income families, and FHA has been prevented from serving them because its loan limits are too low.

To serve these hard-working Americans, President Clinton asked the Congress to increase the FHA loan limits.

Under the House-passed bill, FHA could insure home mortgages for up to $101,575. A family with a combined household income of $42,000 would qualify.

Millions of two-earner families fit in this category. These are not "high-income families;" they are people who work hard and play by the rules, and they deserve an opportunity to purchase their dreams.

Last year, FHA's national foreclosure rate was less than 1 percent, a solid accomplishment by any definition.

Henry G. Cisneros

Washington

I= The writer is secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Opposite Views on Smoking Ban

With new restrictions, Maryland government has taken almost every conceivable approach to eliminate smoking.

This crusade to "protect the public" is just another opportunity for the anti-smoking movement to control our lives and my income.

As a bartender, I am constantly reminded how the bar is one of the last refuges for smokers. For many people, smoking and drinking go hand in hand.

If smoking is banned in bars, as the new rules require, many of my customers will buy a six-pack and stay home (along with my tips).

As a responsible (and non-smoking) adult, I should have the option to work where I choose and take the possible health risks that go along with it.

Should coal-mining be outlawed because it has been proven that workers are susceptible to black-lung disease? Lifeguards are exposed to cancer-causing rays of sunshine. Should we protect them from doing their job?

I am in the business of serving customers. If the government insists that I not breathe any second-hand smoke, I am willing to report to work in scuba gear with a tank of smoke-free air so as not to inconvenience my customers.

The line must be drawn between government regulations and responsible adult decision-making. To include bars and restaurants in this ban on smoking in the workplace is stepping ** way over this line.

It's time for the public to stop acting like sheep and allowing special-interest groups to make decisions for us.

We need to take charge of our lives and lungs and tell the government to focus its efforts on more serious challenges.

Samantha E. Buhr

Baltimore

Many bar and restaurant owners are worried that they will lose business due to the proposed smoking ban.

Have these owners considered the non-smokers who now stay away because of the cigarette smoke? Being in a smoke-filled environment is very unpleasant for myself and many other people.

I would like to enjoy myself at a bar or night club, but the thought of going to a place where my eyes will burn and I will be choking on cigarette smoke keeps me at home.

On the occasions that I do go out to a club, I only stay for a short time.

My friends and I would love to have a place to go where we could meet people, socialize and dance but not have to put up with unpleasantness of cigarette smoke.

Some restaurants have a good non-smoking section which allows for a pleasant evening without the smell of cigarette smoke distracting from the taste of the food and drink.

On the other hand, other restaurants have a problem, since sometimes there is no room in the non-smoking section, or the smoke travels to the non-smoking section or we have to go though the smoking section to get to the non-smoking section.

Some of these other restaurants are very nice, but I stay away so that I do not have to put up with the cigarette smoke.

There are more non-smokers than there are smokers, and based on the remarks from some of my friends who smoke, there are many smokers who would like being able to go out to a smoke-free environment.

Alan Emerson

Towson