PUBLIC FORUM : CRITIC OF TRIGGER LOCKS HAS ANTI-GUN AGENDA.

The carpings of Kristen Rand criticizing the firearms industry for voluntarily equipping firearms with child safety locking devices appear to be those of a zealot who refuses to take ``yes'' for an answer (``Children are losers in gun makers' trigger-lock offer,'' Opinions, Oct. 15).

Until the president's news conference on Oct. 8, her organization was all for such devices. But when President Clinton recognized the firearms manufacturers for such safety efforts (we began using such devices 10 years ago without fanfare), to her group they have suddenly become useless.

She also criticized Sturm, Ruger for its voluntary safety efforts regarding our ``old model'' (1953-72) single-action revolver. Over 1.5 million of these guns have been in use for decades by millions of shooters with billions of cartridges safely fired. Their accident rate is less than .06 of 1 percent.

Nevertheless, we voluntarily developed and patented a new single-action safety mechanism in 1973, long before ``product liability'' lawsuits became fashionable.

What Rand's article makes clear is that no safety efforts will satisfy her extremist group, and their goal is elimination of firearms cloaked in the guise of ``child safety.'' The industry, together with the efforts of thousands of volunteer safety instructors, are the ones actually doing something to successfully promote firearms safety.

- Stephen L. Sanetti

Vice president, general counsel

Strum, Ruger & Co., Inc.

Southport, Conn.

Hollywood encounter club

I am in full agreement with the East Hollywood Neighborhood Watch group that is engaged in a battle with the Los Angeles City Board of Zoning Appeals and Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg.

Members of the neighborhood group fighting to close down the men's sexual encounter club situated illegally in their own residential area should be protected by the laws that were implemented to keep such establishments from locating themselves there in the first place.

It is deplorable to think that, although ordinances are in effect that prohibit these places so close to homes and an elementary school, Goldberg believes she and her causes are above the law. It seems evident that she is allowing her own sexual orientation to dictate her policy to support something that is blatantly opposed to the law.

Wasn't Goldberg one of our school board members a few years ago? It's quite interesting to see just where her allegiance has been all along. So much for caring and protecting the interests of the children of this city. Her personal agenda is more clear than ever.

- Jeff and Jane Gordon

West Hills

Anti-panhandling law

There is no constitutional amendment regarding the rights of panhandlers who get in your face and demand money (``Judge blocks L.A. panhandling law,'' Daily News, Oct. 31). That's not in the First Amendment under free speech.

If the American Civil Liberties Union and this dictatorial judge think that the Constitution owes them a living, then let them pay the moochers' fare to Washington, D.C.

- Benjamin R. Laufer

Sherman Oaks

Reducing railway deaths

How many more railway deaths must there be before someone comes to the conclusion that there is a problem? Certainly blame can be thrown around in all directions, the hobos walking on the tracks, the joggers wearing headsets, the kids who apparently didn't hear the train, the stalled vehicles, etc.

The fact is when this many people die there is a problem. Railroad tracks should be isolated, fenced or walled or something. Additionally, sensors should be mandatory at all crossings, warning the train operator of a blockage on the track. When activated the train should have to stop.

In the European countries, in which I have used the rail service, the tracks are totally fenced. Why? Even the freeways in the Los Angeles area are fenced. Why? Can you imagine the carnage that would result if they were not? We have reintroduced a centuries old system without attempting to adapt it to operate safely in a modern, populated environment. Somebody listen, it is dangerous.

- William H. Brady

Reseda

Recently, two little girls were killed by a Metrolink commuter train while their mother slept in a nearby apartment.

As a mother who loves her own children beyond words that can amply describe my devotion, I am sincerely sorry for that woman's catastrophic loss. But slumber is not an acceptable reason for not protecting your kids from their annihilation.

If you live a stone's throw from railroad tracks, and you have youngsters, then you make sure you don't nod off indiscriminately, and you have a deadbolt lock installed inside your door, thus further preventing your tots from elopement.

Metrolink is now talking about building a protective device around the tracks. I applaud Metrolink for its well-intentioned efforts, but it will never bring those girls back nor is it a realistic solution. Is there a protective seal around street curbs so as to avert children from getting hit by cars?

It is our obligation as parents to be the protective seals that prevent our children from disaster.

We need to spend less money on lawsuits that only scapegoat the real issue, and more money on developing better living skills and life choices, especially for those young moms and dads who are more at risk for falling asleep at the wheel of responsibility.

- Diana Sevanian

Stevenson Ranch 

Hahn answers editorial

You published an editorial Oct. 27 (``Running scared?'') in which you criticized the city attorney's policy of settling some claims and lawsuits against the city; questioned if we were effectively representing our ``clients at City Hall''; and endorsed the idea of removing the office of city attorney from direct accountability to the citizens by making it an appointed, rather than elected, position.

First, as the elected city attorney, the clients I represent are taxpayers of this city who have to foot the bill for litigation against the city. Those you refer to as my ``clients at City Hall'' are public servants who are doing their job representing those taxpayers, just like I do.

Sometimes, when these employees are negligent or fail to do their jobs properly, claims and lawsuits result. It then becomes my job to make the best of a bad situation and provide what legal and financial protection I can to the public treasury.

Because verdicts can't be predicted, sometimes it is in the best interest of the taxpayers to seek the certainty of a fair settlement in a case that could be far worse if we left it up to a jury.

Ever since the Rodney King beating incident, there has been a trend by jurors to simply not believe police officers. That is a fact of life our trial attorneys face in these difficult cases.

It is imperative for the city attorney to remain directly accountable to the voters of this city, and not owe his or her loyalty to some appointive authority at City Hall.

- James K. Hahn

City attorney

Los Angeles

Saving endangered species 

We are bulldozing 150,000 cubic yards of everything in our path, sand, rock, gravel, weeds, brush, trash and heavens knows what else. Clear the wash. Prevent flooding. Three cheers for the decision to prevent loss of life and property - it probably should be an ongoing event anyway.

However, a question remains: Was any endangered anything also removed or did the greater need of the people prevail? As an aside, I have always personally wondered by what process we calculated the negative or positive effect upon society when we posture ourselves in the endangered protection effort.

A golf course in the Tujunga Wash took 10 years to be denied because it theoretically threatened some endangered whatever. A business that selectively removes rock and gravel from Tujunga Wash, as others do, is not allowed to earn a living in this manner. Was it removing anything endangered or changing the water course?

Upon being cleared, the mighty wash will continue to perform its task of guiding Mother Nature. Neither the golf course nor the gatherer of rock and gravel would have challenged the wash in its protective roll.

How we as a city address and apply the total implications raised by these three not-so-isolated uses of land in our comprehensive land-use scenarios is food for thought.

- Howard S. Raphael

Sherman Oaks

Facing the facts

In response to Roger Sorensen's letter, ``Senator should face the facts'' (Public Forum, Oct. 28):

I am wondering why he, or anyone for that matter, would think that ``a heavy dose of facts'' would alter Sen. Dianne Feinstein's stance one iota on any subject he cares to name. What possible difference could facts make? Why should facts deter the good senator and her liberal coven from the path of feel-good failure they have followed for nearly half a century?

- John McFadyen

Winnetka

Does L.A. address lift status?

I just had to respond to a letter in your Oct. 30 edition under ``Secession viewpoints.'' It was a very well-written letter, a rallying letter that gives heart to people who love L.A.

But when I read how the writer returns to the Midwest each year to visit, and how no one knows the San Fernando Valley, but they sure know L.A., I thought ``so what?'' Who cares? Why should he care?

Why on Earth would saying you were from L.A. give you status? When I first told my sister, a retired schoolteacher, that Montrose was in L.A. County, she replied: ``Oh, God, no

Where the riots were?''

She listed a lot of negatives that never would have come to her if she had first seen Montrose and Glendale.

- Stan Bass

Montrose