PUBLIC FORUM : BRADY BILL'S IMPACT ON CRIME EXAGGERATED.

I don't expect politicians to be statisticians, but I do expect common sense. President Clinton's assertion that his assault rifle ban and the Brady Bill helped lower crime rates (Daily News, Jan. 5) flunks the common-sense test.

For example, California had a background check and waiting period years before the Brady Bill and so was not affected by that law, yet our crime rates fell in step with the rest of the United States. And it strains credulity to claim that the assault rifle ban has had any effect on crime rates when rifles and shotguns of any type are used in only 1.3 percent of violent crimes, not even close to the drop in crime rates.

Clinton's most obvious error, however, is claiming that laws that became effective only in 1995 affected crime rates that started falling in 1992. Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block offered a much more believable explanation for crime rate reductions when he noted in your paper (``Valley homicides plunged 31 percent in '96,'' Jan. 1) that the number of young adults, who tend to commit more crimes, is being reduced because they are growing up.

Longer sentences also have reduced the number of criminals on the streets, and the resulting drop in crime rates has been documented by researchers such as the Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1996. So please, Mr. President, stop sacrificing your common sense for a quote; start thinking about anti-crime policies that work.

- Robert Harding

Granada Hills

Burbank Airport terminal

Reader Melvin Perlitsh (Public Forum, Jan. 4), is wrong in his idea that the only argument for a new terminal at the Burbank Airport, is that the old one, built in 1930, is too close to the runways.

It's true that today's passenger airplanes demand more space because they carry far more passengers, are heavier and faster, and a tragedy at Burbank is possible.

But a far greater margin of safety for airplanes is just one of dozens of compelling reasons for a new terminal.

For one, the airport has at least two decades of catching up to do just to provide decent floor space at its passenger gates for the nearly 5 million people who use the airport each year. Parking and baggage handling space has also long been far below minimum standards.

For the future, passenger demand will continue to grow. Even the anti-airport and anti-growth element now dominating the Burbank City Council agrees the city must prepare for more travel demand in the next century.

The real tragedy at Burbank has been happening for years, with the city slowly strangling its own economic progress by blocking approval of a new airport terminal.

- James E. Foy

North Hollywood

Teaching and teachers

Thomas Sowell's column about ``The Federalist Papers'' (Opinions, Jan. 3) stated that teachers resisted having students read the ``Papers,'' due to their difficulty.

I think some of our teachers do not resist the difficulty but the content. Indeed, ``The Federalist Papers'' are based ``on a particular vision of what human beings were like,'' as Sowell so well stated.

Alexander Hamilton, one of the authors, said, ``the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint,'' and ``men are ambitious, vindictive, rapacious.''

It is no mystery why many teachers would rather avoid the Constitution and the supporting literature, which clearly reflects the Judeo-Christian concept of man's fallen nature, the premise on which the founding fathers designed our government.

That pessimistic view of the nature of man will certainly bruise the tender self-esteem of the students, some teachers fear. That truly negative, although accurate, assessment of humankind will hinder their humanistic fantasy of peace through pacifism and optimism.

- Gene Gray

Palmdale

Turning back the clock

I would like to applaud Woodrow J. Hughes for his insightful letter (Public Forum, Jan. 3). He displayed great eloquence when he both rebutted Mona Charen and Morton Kondracke for their praise of Judge Robert Bork's book and when he questioned the rationality of their cry to ``turn back the clock.''

Simple human logic denotes that, ``For every giant step forward, there's (usually) a small step back.'' Could this be to ensure that perception is not lost in the advancement, to make sure that we never lose sight of things, like right and wrong?

We don't need to go back to the past to find our values. After all this would only change one set of ills for another. As Hughes points out, the past had its own fair share of demons. Sexism, bigotry, injustice, perversion and cruelty were just as prevalent then as they are now. The only difference is that they are just not as hidden, censored or ignored, as they once were.

Let's face it. The game of life has not changed - just the way in which the rules are applied, or are being enforced. The past does not hold the answer to our salvation. We just need to take that small step back, and use wisdom when applying the rules, so that our technological advancement doesn't overshadow our humanity, just compliments it.

- Dawne Rust-Goracy

Van Nuys

Grand Canyon flights

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around, does it make a sound? Or more to the point, if nobody can visit and enjoy the Grand Canyon because cars and aircraft are banned, is it still spectacular?

Don't forget the vast new ``wilderness'' areas that are off-limits to children, the elderly, the handicapped - in fact anyone not physically able to backpack through them. And why does it take so much tax money to maintain such a preserve in a ``natural, untouched'' state?

I recently visited the Grand Canyon. There was a convenient, landscaped parking lot right by an observation point and dozens of people were enjoying the awesome view. Plenty of airspace is available for the occasional plane to cruise by - it's a real big canyon.

We must allow easy enjoyment of such public treasures. It's foolish to think that ``saving it for future generations'' must involve keeping current generations out. Perhaps it's time to get rid of the current crop of loonies trying to ``manage'' these lands.

- David R. Gee

Van Nuys

`Its purpose is death'

As with so many things in Los Angeles, from a distance the stealth bomber that flew above the Tournament of Roses parade appeared as an image of technological beauty. A wave of oohs and ahs erupted from the crowd, only to come to a quiet halt as the realization that its ``beauty'' is only on the surface and its purpose is death.

- Beth Boniface 

West Hills

Voters were right on monorail

Regarding ``Valley east-west project plagued by derailments'' by Nathan Brogin, Viewpoint, Dec. 15:

The advisory vote in 1990 supported the freeway alignment over the subway for three common-sense reasons. It was a billion dollars less to build, it would have been operational in only six years and it would have provided a regional system serving the entire San Fernando Valley, from North Hollywood to Warner Center and also permitted a link with Ventura County.

Subsequent studies have shown that even the less expensive option would be at-grade within the freeway. This is now being explored by a private consortium and presentation to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board is expected in the spring.

Meanwhile, the subway-at-any-cost mentality of some of the San Fernando Valley's political leadership continues to shortchange the people who live and work there.

If the common-sense vote of the people had been implemented aggressively after 1990, a monorail would now be serving the Valley from one end to the other.

- Michael D. Antonovich

Supervisor, 5th District

Los Angeles County

Marijuana editorial rebutted

Voters in California, as well as several other states, have the right to celebrate democracy through the plebiscite. Too frequently, measures have been put on the ballot by wealthy and powerful business or labor groups and backed up with lots of money. Bureaucracies have acted likewise. These highly organized advocates of special interest have sullied the process.

The real outrage occurs when voters act in place of a timid or spiteful Legislature, only to have their decision nullified by a judge or bureaucrat. Democracy is the process by which voters govern themselves and it is entirely proper. Biased judges and bureaucrats show contempt for democracy itself, when they routinely nullify popular decisions.

It was therefore disappointing, but not surprising, to see ``Marijuana conflict'' in your Jan. 2 issue - disappointing, because ``Marijuana conflict'' suggests voters cannot be trusted to act in place of all-knowing politicians and bureaucrats, issues of federal law not withstanding. That's not surprising, because I've not yet encountered a drug warrior who wasn't a practitioner of arbitrary judgment with tunnel vision.

We have some very important issues coming up regarding the makeup of our schools and city government. Every argument you used in ``Marijuana conflict'' can, and no doubt will, be twisted and used by advocates of the status quo to oppose any meaningful reform.

Remember, we lost the right to reconfigure this city 20 years ago to well-organized groups with a vested interest in the existing power structure. Their argument was then, as yours was in ``Marijuana conflict,'' that voters cannot be trusted.

- Wes Thorsten

Reseda