To the editor: It is absolutely heartbreaking that two Palm Springs police officers were killed this weekend. There's certainly nothing anyone can say to ease the pain for everyone who knew them. ("Suspect in Palm Springs police killings had body armor and high-capacity magazines, authorities say," Oct. 9)
I would like to ask a question: Why does any private citizen need body armor, which police say the accused killer was wearing? Regulating the purchase of body armor makes more sense than tracking guns and ammunition.
I would think that a giant red flag should go up when a regular Joe or Josephine wants to buy body armor as opposed to a few hundred rounds to pop off at the target range.
Nick Orchard, Long Beach
To the editor: The suspected Palm Springs shooter was barred from owning firearms because he was a convicted felon? His rifle had an "extended magazine"?
Are you telling us that California's highly restrictive gun laws don't work? Does this mean that Proposition 63 — which would expand those laws — probably won't work?
John Hazlet, Pasadena