Readers React: Does someone have to die to be counted as a victim in a mass shooting?

To the editor: If statistics gurus are trying to get a realistic figure of the numbers of mass shootings occurring anywhere, there seems to be a sensible and reasonable number of issues which need consideration. (“Has the U.S. had 4 mass shootings this year or 353? Estimates vary that much,” Dec. 4)

• A shooting is a shooting; whether someone is killed or merely injured should not be a criterion for consideration.
• The establishment of a number of four to consider a shooting “mass” could be agreed upon, but three would probably more realistic.
• To exclude gang shootings from this category boggles the mind.

There are already countless “good guys with guns” who have prevented few mass shootings but have certainly added to the number of accidental shootings and have inadvertently supplied weapons to the “bad guys.”

Personally, I would do just fine without the 2nd Amendment or the National Rifle Assn.

Lawrence Berk, Ventura

..

To the editor: In our discussion of guns and mass shootings, there is no mention of the preamble of the Constitution, which states that one of the document’s main purposes is to “insure the domestic tranquillity.”

Now that we have mass killings in our grade schools, high schools, colleges, churches, shopping malls, theaters and offices, we no longer have domestic tranquillity in the United States. The fault lies with the president, Congress and the Supreme Court, which have failed to keep their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

I don’t have any answers, but I have a plea to our leaders in government: Find a way to reconcile the Constitution’s goal of domestic tranquillity with our 2nd Amendment freedom of gun ownership to return this country to being a safe place to live. Please, do your job.

Rod Simenz, Mission Viejo

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook