The media’s coverage, and semantics, of gun violence

Re: “The assault weapon attack on math,” Nov. 12 Jon Caldara column.

Jon Caldara jumped on the right-wing bandwagon in attacking the media, this time over its coverage of “assault rifles.” Sadly, Caldara utilizes the old “false equivalency” ruse to change the narrative when he tells us that assault-rifle attacks don’t deserve the ink they get. He conveniently ignores these facts: People reasonably expect that if they go outside during a storm, they may be hit by lightning; if they drive, they might be involved in an accident. When children go to school, when people go to the movies, to a nightclub or even to church, they don’t ex- pect to be gunned down by weapons that, unlike knives and hammers, exist for one reason: to kill as many as possible in the shortest amount of time. “Gun-racism”? Oh, please. Caldara’s pandering to the NRA and the gun industry attempts to normalize death and destruction. It’s not OK, and he should be ashamed. Frank Lampe, Lafayette

Just weeks after the shootings in Las Vegas, and mere days after those in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Jon Caldara spends much of his column lecturing us on the difference between semi- and fully automatic weapons. Oh, for the love of gun! As if the real crime in mass shootings that left 84 people dead and more than 500 injured is one of assault-rifle identity theft.

From the right to own a single-shot weapon — originally enshrined in our constitution for national defense purposes — to the semantic but otherwise indistinguishable difference between a fully and a semi-automatic rifle with a “bump stock,” my, how the gun-rights debate in this country has morphed. What’s next? How about “personhood” for guns? After all, if corporations can be persons with identities and rights distinct from the natural persons who own them, why not poor, misunderstood guns? Sam Walker, Denver