European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - October 26, 1991, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Saturday october 26, 1991 the stars and stripes a Page 13 commentary Cynthia Tucker measure gunned Down by off target logic a guns done to kill people. People kill  persuaded by the apparently irresistible logic of that old cliche from the National Rifle association Congress last week backed away from a ban on assault Type weapons and on the High capacity clips and magazines those and other weapons often carry. Congress decided not to ban assault Type weapons or High capacity clips and magazines despite the fact that two semiautomatic pistols aimed by a madman to be sure loaded with High capacity magazines killed 24 people Ana wounded 27 others in Killeen Texas the Day before the debate. The gunman then killed himself. There is something going on Here that i do not understand. I do not understand Why american society insists on allowing civilians to carry weapons that Are raising the death count daily and that have no reasonable purpose off the Battlefield. The drive by shooting is now a weekly occurrence in Large american cities. The assault Type weapon is the gun of Choice for drug dealers. And still we resist the obvious. In Congress last week the a guns done to kill people do argument went like this a Lunatic Bent on venting his rage need not have a Giock 9mm semiautomatic pistol with a 17-shot Magazine or an Uzi semiautomatic. He can use a can of gasoline or a Shotgun to achieve the same ends. Well not quite. The toll taken by mass murderers is growing precisely because assault Type weapons and High capacity magazines and clips make the killing so much easier. The assault Type weapon reloads automatically without requiring Bolt action. The Glockl a 17-shot Magazine allows continuous pumping of 17 rounds before the gunman needs to reload. Tie new Magazine can be inserted in less than two seconds. Those weapons were manufactured Only for the efficient destruction of human beings. How can any Hunter Worth his or her Salt argue the need for such guns i grew up in Monroeville ala., surrounded by pickup trucks with gun Racks in an extended family of men who enjoyed nothing More than spending spectacular autumn weekends off in the Woods stalking assorted prey. My earliest memories of thanksgiving Holiday weekends Are filled with the sounds of men rising in the wee hours of the morning and the spectacle of their festive returns in the late afternoons if they were Lucky with their Quarry. I was the firstborn who dutifully trekked off into the Woods with her father armed with a .410 Shotgun to try to learn the rudiments of tracking Down Small furry animals. I was the frail 12-year-old who Learned the lesson painfully of the kick of a 12-gauge Shotgun. I am the daughter of a father whose greatest accomplishment in sport was the killing of a 10-Point Buck which remains mounted above the fireplace in my parents House. But my father never needed anything other than his 12-gauge, loaded with either double aught Buckshot or  i cannot imagine that an ak-47 would have brought my father More pleasure in the kill. In fact my father and his Hunting buddies who included his brother and brother in Law were so safety conscious they never allowed rifles in their Deer Hunting party. They were afraid the longer Range of a Rifle could too easily Lead the errant Marksman to shoot a person by Accident. They knew that people killed people. But they also knew that people were More Likely to kill people with certain kinds of guns. C the new York times w6kt-we Heepe to improve Oik ima6e with the 6un lobby <01991james j. Kilpatric parental leave Bill espouses bad principle in a Hundred varying situations most of us have heard the same defensive objection a a it a not the Money that counts. Its the principle of the  nine times out of 10, its the Money. In the continuing debate Over a parental leave Bill it truly is the principle that counts. Moreover in this controversy principle is the Only aspect Worth debating for the Bill faces a certain veto and a veto would be sustained. But the principle is indeed important. It merits reflection. By a voice vote oct. 2, the Senate passed the Dodd Bond Bill on family leave. The measure would not accomplish much of anything for employees but it would not impose unbearable burdens on employers either. This is not a bad Bill on its merits. It is a bad Bill on principle. Sen. Kit Bond r-mo., and sen. Christopher j. Dodd d-conn., have been working for years on a bipartisan Bill. Their final version would require employers to Grant up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year to employees meeting certain eligibility rules. The Bill is of limited application. It would not apply to companies having fewer than 50 employees. An estimated 95 percent of All employers thus would be exempted. The Benefit would be available Only to employees who had been on the payroll for at least 1,250 hours in the preceding year. An employer could refuse to Grant leave to his key people. The purpose of the unpaid leave is to permit the employee to nurture a Newborn or adopted child or to care for the serious illness of a member of the immediate family. In the nature of things the Secretary of labor would Issue rules and regulations. A study commission would measure costs and benefits. And so on. Proponents staunchly defend the Bill As a pro family Bill. The nuclear family is steadily disappearing. For Lack of a Loving family life Many youngsters go wrong. Boys turn to crime. Teen age girls get pregnant. This Bill would not strengthen every family but 12 weeks of i a to a it n it /4 c a m t a n n n 4 r d of a Leal 11 i a a leave said sen. Dan Coats r-ind., a would be a Good  proponents make other arguments. The general accounting office estimates that the typical Cost to a covered employer would be no More than $5.30 per employee per year. At any Given time Only one of every 275 workers Likely would be on family leave. The Benefit would boost individual morale and company Esprit. Sen. Bob Packwood r-ore., noted that his state has a Law mandating 12 weeks of unpaid parental leave. He said that 91 percent of affected employers in Oregon have had no difficulty with the Law. To these contentions sen. Orrin g. Hatch a Utah and other opponents respond As follows the Dodd Bond Bill is really a Yuppie Bill for yuppies Are the Only ones who could afford to go three months without a paycheck. The Bill would be meaningless for most workers. The Cost estimates Are largely conjectural but the costs would be significant. An employer who is compelled to pay for family leave will have less available for other benefits. In some immeasurable degree this added Cost of doing business would make . Firms less competitive in world markets. The big objection to the Dodd Bond Bill has nothing to do with economics. It has to do with Power and with the proper role of government. It has to do with Freedom. In principle a free marketplace should have a Large degree of Freedom. A free people should have abundant room to negotiate for themselves or to bargain through their unions. At the heart of this proposal is an ugly word compulsion. The covered employers would be compelled to provide this fringe Benefit whether their workers wanted it or not. To be sure the government has been imposing compulsory requirements on business for Many years. Employers must obey wage and hour Laws. They May not employ children. They must pay at least a minimum wage and maintain a Safe workplace. Employers must deduct taxes. They must engage in collective bargaining. Companies must not conspire to restrain Trade. The list is endless. Parental leave is one More thing but it is a different thing. Other Laws mandate uniform benefits for everyone. The Dodd Bond Bill would Benefit Only a select few. In order to Benefit these few All must be penalized. And the role of government As grand Nanny for us All would be expanded. My own thought is that government is big enough now. C Universal press Syndicate the opinions expressed in the columns and cartoons on this Page represent those of the authors and Are in no Way to be considered As representing the views of the stars and stripes or the United states government