More or less restrictions?

I take exception to the lead in the article [``Bill would ease gun control but shut loophole on imported parts''] June 27, ``Although Americans unfailingly tell pollsters they want more gun control, the steady pressure on Washington has come from the opposite side.'' In fact, gun control polls tend to reflect the point of view of the organization which commissions them. The article ignores the most important polls -- the great number of ballots in which Americans have been invited to restrict gun use and ownership. From Massachusetts to California, the voters have turned such measures down. William G. Dennis Kelso, Wash.

Curtis J. Sitomer's ``Sifting out pornography from free speech'' (July 11) brings up many points concerning the care needed in protecting constitutional rights while protecting the public from purveyors of pornography. The article states that feminist groups feel ``they should be allowed to bring suit against purveyors of books, movies, and videotapes that debase women.'' One point that has failed to be covered is how such materials debase men as well. When both men and women realize the harm of accepting [pornographic] views of each other, then all will join together to control the sales of materials that debase all of humanity. Debra J. Corry Alexandria, Va.

The editorial conclusion in ``OPEC -- and the world's energy future'' (July 10) disappointed me. Your analysis of the short life of oil surpluses and declining prices is correct. While demand will grow, the production of non-OPEC nations will probably decline. But where OPEC members combine to control the quantity and price of oil when US antitrust laws restrict such collusion domestically appears unprincipled. Elliott A. Cohen Pomona, N.Y.

Letters are welcome. Only a selection can be published and none individually acknowledged. All are subject to condensation. Please address letters to ``readers write.''