Nothing wrong to dream of a world without guns

Re: “Capitol protest was feckless and bizarrely racialized,” June 11 commentary

Krista Kafer’s essay on the recent capitol protest was not helpful.

While promoting the argument that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” she doesn’t acknowledge that gun enthusiasts have opposed red flag laws, proposals to close background check loopholes and safe gun storage laws that would help keep guns away from those people whose possession of guns places the public in danger: criminals, the mentally ill and youth.

She criticizes the threeday waiting period to purchase guns — which provides a cooling- off period and an opportunity to allow background checks to be completed. She thinks raising the minimum age for obtaining a firearm — which would ensure that mature individuals are making decisions on the proper and safe use of deadly weapons — is bad. She gives a thumbs- down to stopping the proliferation of “build- your- own” gun kits that allow dangerous people to evade firearms restrictions, and she thinks it wrong to allow victims to sue gun manufacturers and dealers when they recklessly allow guns to illegally flow to dangerous people through straw purchases or knowingly produce guns that are unnecessarily dangerous.

The fact that the protesters were white, when it is people of color who are disproportionately responsible for and victims of violent assaults with firearms, does not make the protest racist.

Finally, while it obviously would be unconstitutional to ban all firearms, there is nothing wrong with people peacefully advocating for a new world without guns to keep our children safe.

— Charles Silverman, Denver

Krista Kafer hit the nail on the head. Politicians want to show they are doing something about perceived gun violence, but they choose not to legislate against those who commit such violence. So, they legislate against the criminals’ weapons. Then they scratch their collective rear ends when their anti- weapons legislation changes nothing. Consider the contradiction of the change in age for gun purchase:

One can work for the government at age 17 by joining the army. The government sends one to camp to sharpen one’s skills. The government issues an automatic weapon and teaches one how to use it to kill people. The government sends one somewhere in the world and orders one to kill people in the name of the government. The more one kills, the more rewards one gets, including medals to pin on one’s clothes.

One fulfills their two- year commitment to the government and returns home to find the crime rate has risen significantly. For protection, one believes purchasing a firearm is appropriate. At the gun store, one is told they cannot legally purchase a firearm for protection because they are too young. Under age 21, killing for the government is acceptable, but protecting oneself is not.

— Llewellyn Haden, Denver

People with guns kill people. People without guns have a lot harder time killing people. Voters in Colorado have been taking their thoughts and prayers to the ballot box and will continue to do so because commonsense gun control laws save lives.

— Cindy Robertson, Denver

The problem is the person. Krista Kafer’s rant against the Here 4 the Kids gun reform protest is an unconscionable defense of guns and exemplifies her ideology. She conflates guns and their inherent dangers with vehicles, food, furniture, etc. This view lacks discernment and attempts to create a false equivalency as though guns are as harmless as French fries. This is not funny.

To call a firearm an inanimate object is an over- simplification and willfully ignores its deadly potential, lethal portability and realworld agency. The postHeller view of the Second Amendment is a grave problem for society. Since the Heller opinion was handed down by the Supreme Court in 2008, guns and gun deaths have surged in tandem. The Heller opinion ignores the original intent of the preservation of the Militia, while the phrase “to bear arms” is an antiquated military reference to military involvement or action, not the right to self- protection.

The labeling of gun owners as ” law- abiding” is somehow an attempt to sanctify them and confer upon them a special status. We are all law- abiding. Legislation enacted this year by Colorado is also there to protect “law- abiding” gun owners from gun violence and making poor, deadly decisions. Noticeably absent is a lack of ideas for gun safety unless you consider returning fire as a gun safety tactic. Looking for the root causes of gun violence and focusing on the family has its merits but somehow implies we need to fix people to make it safer for guns. So please do something meaningful to decrease the homicide rate, stop protecting guns, protect people and support gun reform.

— Leonard Juliano, Arvada