The Press MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1975. Protecting the President

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33966, 6 October 1975, Page 14

The Press MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1975. Protecting the President

Americans of all political hues are now deeply concerned for the safety of their President. Two attempts in recent weeks to shoot President Ford have aroused anger and they have also exposed deep-seated fears that, no matter how tight the security net may be drawn in public or semi-public Presidential appearances, a would-be assassin will somehow manage to get close enough to attempt to kill. Not surprisingly, the law controlling the purchase and carrying of pistols is again under scrutiny. A Gallup poll in June disclosed that more than twothirds of the American people would welcome the compulsory registration of all firearms. It also produced evidence, however, that while such a law would be generally welcomed in the eastern states and the large cities, it would be vigorously opposed in the South and West. To that extent, the problem seems to become one of how to change attitudes. The reported 320 threats to Mr Ford’s life in the first 20 days of Sentember cannot be attributed to sensationcraving writers. Some of them would have to be regarded as real, setting the Secret Service agents an almost hopeless task of detection and investigation. At the core of the problem lies the question of limiting the President’s public appearances and making times and venues known beforehand. Mr Ford feels—understandably—that he must go on meeting the people. But he wants these occasions to be subject to “prudent and practical means": one of the requirements would undoubtedly be no more spur-of-the-moment mingling w-ith crowds. Against ♦his, it is argued that political leaders get a feeling of uplift from friendly or affectionate crowd greetings. That is why the practice goes on: and, if it is to continue, an appearance could be so predictable as to increase markedly an assassin’s chances of getting close enough to kill. An increase in the number of Secret Service agents as has been proposed, would allow more of them to surround the President on every public occasion. But it might not stop a person with a gun still getting near enough to shoot. It is alarming, also, to learn that the last attacker had a gun taken from her by security police the day before she tried to kill Mr Ford. She was not detained: she merely got another gun and was on the spot outside the President’s hotel in San Francisco. Absolute safety is no doubt unattainable, when regard is had for the aberrations or mental twists of would-be killers. Two points seem to emerge clearly from concerned debate on Presidential safety in the United States. One is that, without grave trespass on constitutional liberties, top-ranking public figures cannot, with reasonable safety, have close contact with people in the mass. The other is that stricter gun control, no matter how rigorously enforced, will not in itself ensure the adequate protection of public men.