Letters to the Editor: Mass shooters’ minds are poisoned. Address that before gun control

Gilroy shooting
A woman visits a makeshit memorial for victims of the mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival.
(Los Angeles Times)

To the editor: The L.A. Times Editorial Board writes about the Gilroy mass shooting: “The inevitable debates after Gilroy will touch on the usual themes. It wasn’t the gun, it was the poison in the man’s mind. There’s some truth to that, given that firearms are inanimate objects. But without a firearm, the man couldn’t have shot anyone.”

I agree that it takes a firearm to kill people as easily as the Gilroy shooter did. But the real issue is who or what poisoned this person’s mind?

I believe there are too many so-called activists running around this country who are affecting young vulnerable minds. Without such activism, there probably would not have been a poisoning of the mind.


The statement that guns do not kill people, people kill people, is true. The gun cannot pull its own trigger.

Firearms like the assault rifle used in Gilroy should not be sold on the retail market, as such weapons ought to be for military use only. But if the rhetoric from extremists can somehow be toned down without violating their 1st Amendment rights, it would certainly help.

John T. Kirages, Arcadia


To the editor: The right to bear arms was included in the 2nd Amendment specifically to support a “well regulated militia” by the founders, who were opposed to the creation and maintenance of a standing army.

The existence of the U.S. armed forces, the most powerful military in history, makes this ludicrously obsolete.

The 2nd Amendment is now only used to justify practitioners of blood sports who needlessly kill the few remaining wild animals on the planet and to provide weapons for criminals and lunatics. It is time for it to be repealed.


John Sherwood, Topanga


To the editor: California has some of the toughest gun-control laws in the country. However, it restricts only the rights of law-abiding citizens who would not misuse their guns, but does nothing to stop criminals.

As the state attorney general noted, the weapon used by the shooter cannot be sold in or imported into California, and there is the very strong likelihood that he violated California law, on top of the crime of homicide.

If California’s gun laws will not stop criminals from possessing firearms, what good are they?

James Fedalen, Calabasas