On readers' comments on gun control: When David Shaw writes of the "entitlement society" that "begs for government to keep them safe," I wonder if he is referring to the families of the Newtown victims; or the families of the Aurora, Colorado, theater tragedy; or the families of the 30 people who are killed by gun violence each day in the US.

The fact is that laws have an impact, and we citizens of the US have a say in the type of country we wish to live in. Gun advocates' idea that the only thing stopping the US government from enslaving or committing genocide on its own people is a few people with AR-15s would be laughable if it wasn't a core belief of the gun-rights lobby.

Opponents to gun-safety legislation attempt to use a slippery-slope argument in which any legislation is equivalent to an outright ban or confiscation. An outright ban on all guns is in violation of the Second Amendment, but regulation including mandatory background checks, limited magazine capacity, and an arms registry are all constitutional as deemed in the Supreme Court case DC vs. Heller and the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.

Kenyatta Dacosta fails to mention the vast majority of countries with stricter gun laws that haven't experienced any form of enslavement or government-sponsored genocide (England, Australia, Canada, France, Norway, etc.). Regulations put forth in recent months would constitute only a minimal inconvenience for the lawful gun owner, whereas curtailing guns in the hands of people who should not have them and limiting the damage that mass shooters can inflict have real-world consequences that would save the lives of hundreds of Americans.

It is time to take an adult approach to this issue and not accept the status quo of 11,000 gun deaths per year as the price we pay for lax gun regulation.