Readers React:  Guns, guns and still more guns

To the editor: Columnist George Skelton says it so well: We have far more guns than we need (or want), and most states refuse to regulate their sale, distribution or ownership. (“The deadly equation: guns bring killings,” Column, Oct. 12) So we will continue to read about mass murders, mentally ill people taking innocent lives or ex-employees rampaging through their former workplaces and paranoid people shooting up schools and theaters.

Can Congress put a Band-Aid on the problem? Sure, but the gun lobby won’t allow it. So we muddle into the next century with the developed world’s highest gun death rate and no solution.

Sol Taylor, Studio City

..

To the editor: The column is a thorough statement on the state of gun violence in the U.S. The response will be predictable: “We cannot infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

In mass murders, shooters often use guns acquired legally. Of course, as soon as the mass murders begin, the shooter becomes a lawbreaker and a murderer. Those who die were the truly law-abiding citizens, but they are not with us to make that point.

Most deaths by gun violence each year are suicides. This too is murder, done by a sad guy with a gun acquired legally. Guns equal deaths; more guns means more deaths.

We need to stop listening to the National Rifle Assn. soundbites that help enrich the gun manufacturers after each mass shooting as people buy more guns. Rather, we need to act with reason and move toward having guns for hunting or sport but with many fewer guns available for murder.

Roger Sievers, Irvine

..

To the editor: The piece on gun control is telling.

Skelton calls for a “national ban on high-capacity magazines and universal background checks.” Unfortunately, that would not have prevented something like Sandy Hook, where a mother gave her mentally unstable son instruction and access to weapons.

So when those restrictions fail to produce results, he asserts his endgame: confiscation. I guess in his mind a constitutional right is of small consequence. I wonder how he would feel if the government eliminated freedom of the press in the name of safety, say when someone was uncomfortable with embarrassing coverage?

Miguel Rosales, Glendale

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook