To the editor: Tuesday's front-page piece ("A violent culmination," June 10) on the Bonnie-and-Clyde-style Las Vegas libertarian killers Jerad Miller and Amanda Woodruff is accurate are far as it goes. But it leaves perhaps the most interesting question about this latest round of gun carnage unasked, uninvestigated and, of course, unanswered: How did a convicted felon get hold of not just one gun but several?
Why is it so easy to get a gun and go on a
Leigh Clark, Granada Hills
To the editor: Near the end of your article on the Las Vegas shootings, you mention Joseph Robert Wilcox, who pulled out a concealed weapon and confronted Jerad Miller at the Wal-Mart.
As I read this part of the article, I wondered what gun advocates who promote the fallacy that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun would say about that. Wilcox may have believed this idea and might have wanted to be a hero, but now he is dead after having been shot by a bad guy.
Gun advocates think they know how any scenario involving guns will play out. They don't.
Unfortunately, this part of the story will not even be part of the conversation. It is to our country's detriment that it won't be.
Nancy Zaman, Los Angeles
To the editor: The Times smears libertarianism by associating it with the Millers, the deranged couple who killed two Las Vegas cops and a civilian.
The Times reports that Jerad Miller “had apparently been fantasizing about a libertarian armed revolution.” Just for the record, as a political philosophy, libertarianism stands for laissez-faire capitalism and an aggressive government role in fighting crime and violence, including killing police officers.
The Millers were not libertarians; they were psychopaths.
Al Ramrus, Pacific Palisades
To the editor: The politicians' angry cries against the release of five
Those politicians refuse to defy their sponsor, the
Ruth Palanker, Los Angeles