YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections


Triggering a strong response

October 21, 2009

Re "Targeting gun shows," Editorial, Oct. 16

Thank you for your excellent editorial concerning gun-show "loopholes."

There is definitely a need for federal legislation similar to California's laws. The gun lobby should not dictate policy in Congress. Please keep saying what needs to be said.

Ruth Rosen

Santa Monica


Yet another gun-control editorial. I am not surprised; your paper can be counted on to support any and all gun-control proposals.

Unfortunately, like all other gun-control laws, it will not reduce crime because criminals do not obey laws.

Gun-control laws only penalize law-abiding citizens.

Jim Dodd

San Diego


Closing the gun-show loophole is a necessary step to keeping guns out of the hands of those who we can all agree should not own deadly weapons.

Likewise, I feel it is our responsibility to make sure that law enforcement personnel -- who put their lives on the line for us every day -- have the tools they need to arrest the guilty. The ability to trace a gun, new or old, is probably the most important step in that process.

There are numerous tasks that we are asked to perform daily to promote public safety -- some as simple as stopping at a red light. Making guns and gun ownership safer is something we should all be willing to support.

Bill Martinez

Los Angeles


Well, you've done it.

After years of haranguing from my father and brother, I've decided to join the NRA.

A collector of antique rifles from both world wars, I've resisted joining the NRA because I didn't have much interest in its strategy and tactics. To be fair, The Times' editorial staff has recently written a positive editorial on an upcoming Supreme Court 2nd Amendment ownership-rights case. Thank you for that. But I can't reconcile the tone of this editorial, with its naked aggression for those same rights, with your previous editorial. The obvious conclusion is that you wish to duplicate California's onerous gun laws across the nation. We of the lunatic fringe respectfully disagree.

David Pohlod

Woodland Hills

Los Angeles Times Articles