Opinion: Instead of taking away our guns, why not arm law-abiding citizens as protection from an attack?

To the editor: The Times Editorial Board again mistakenly focuses on one instrument use to commit violence — firearms — rather than the underlying causes of violence. It seems doubtful that absent a firearm, those who decide to commit suicide would not find other means, and many of the U.S. homicides committed using firearms occur in a few high-crime areas of large cities. (“Trump obsesses over terrorism but ignores the bigger threat: Access to firearms,” editorial, June 7)

As the tragic attack last weekend in London reminds us, other means exist beside firearms for terrorists and other criminals to commit heinous acts.

I suggest the editorial board and the state Legislature focus on a different but related subject: whether we would be safer in California by issuing concealed carry permits to law-abiding citizens who pass background checks and are qualified by proper training or experience in the use of firearms.

The images of defenseless people being mowed down in London, Paris, San Bernardino, Newtown and elsewhere are horrific and inescapable. They keep reminding me of the harm that could have been avoided if a qualified person with a firearm were present to stop the carnage.

Robert C. Wright, San Diego

..

To the editor: Your editorial correctly highlights the gun problem we have, and the recent spate of killings is not only a reflection of too many guns in the wrong hands, but also a signal that our politicians have allowed us to view this carnage as the norm.

Although the events in London and Paris recently have highlighted the evil of Islamist terrorism, the absence of guns minimized carnage. Using knives or hammers to kill in countries where guns are hard to come by is exponentially more difficult than the ease of shooting someone.

Our politicians need to be lobbied incessantly on this issue.

David Radden, Venice

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook