11/3 Readers write

The second measure, a “red flag law,” would allow authorities to seize firearms from “those who pose a threat of violence.” Great idea, but who exactly would determine who those folks are? The shooter in Maine was on police radar as “mentally unstable” and made threats, yet his firearms weren’t seized.

The last measure, laws requiring gun owners to store their firearms securely, is a commonsense safeguard, but how do “authorities” effectively monitor compliance with this law?

In this case, it appears that politicians, once again, want to appear to be doing something, but the actual implementation and effect of what they propose is sorely lacking.

FRANK MANFRE, SMYRNA

Gun buyback programs have little effect on crime

What does the Nov. 1 letter writer of “Dems should set example by surrendering firearms first” have against Democrats, as he suggests they give up the self-protection of owning a gun?

He asserts that “commonsense gun control measures have little realistic chance of passage,” so he offers a non-commonsensical one. How does such backward thinking as gun buybacks continue to enter the gun debate?

First, the writer shows no sense of who is committing gun violence, as he twice targets (hope that doesn’t trigger anyone) “responsible citizens” to voluntarily give up their guns (beginning with Democrats). Responsible citizens aren’t the problem -- irresponsible people and criminals are and they aren’t giving up their guns. Especially when “responsible citizens” are volunteering to be sitting ducks. And second, gun buyback programs have little-to-no impact on crime statistics.

Furthermore, the writer’s claim that “every gun removed would help reduce gun violence” is ludicrous on its face, as that would mean every gun surrendered would have been used for gun violence.

GREGORY MARSHALL, MARIETTA