Colorado attempts another misguided sin tax, this time on guns

Taxing the not-so-popular products

Re: “Prop KK is worth making your way down the ballot,” Sept. 27 commentary

It is so easy for liberals to tax law-abiding citizens if they don’t like the product. Domestic abuse victims need help? Tax the gun buyers. Why? Because guns may eventually be involved. How many domestic violence incidents occur because one or both parties are drunk? I would imagine many. Why not tax alcohol? Because liberals know they couldn’t convince the public to tax themselves to help. Just tax those who use, lawfully,  a not-so-popular product.

Jack Inderwish, Aurora

RTD fare to airport should at least be a bargain

I think that RTD’s airport fare price does not make sense. The kind of person who is willing to take the bus/train to the airport is also the kind of person who is willing to deal with the hassle of the shuttle lot at the airport.

The shuttle lot at the airport costs $8/day. For one person going on a three-day trip, the shuttle lot costs $24, and RTD round trip costs $20. The $4 savings does not seem like it makes up for the lack of convenience of RTD, given the pretty limited schedule. Probably most people traveling alone would not consider taking the bus until the trip is 4-5 days long.

This only gets worse for families. For two people, the break-even point is a five-day trip, when both options cost $40, and most people probably would not choose RTD until a trip of at least seven days. For four people, the break-even point is a 10-day trip.

This doesn’t account for other expenses that many people will have, like getting to/from the RTD stop, or parking at the RTD stop.

I assume that RTD’s airport service does not cost almost 4 times more to run than service to other parts of the city. If that assumption is correct, then RTD should consider lowering the cost of the airport fare so that it makes financial sense for more people to use it.

Steven E Strong, Lafayette

If nothing else, vote for younger generations

Re: “Hard to avoid regret in presidential election,” July 24 letter to the editor

I have a serious bone to pick with the reader who will not vote for either presidential candidate because, at age 82, it won’t affect him. I am 92 and, I can assure him it is vitally important to me. I have children, grandchildren, and a great-grandchild whose future is intensely important to me.

He frets about what sources to believe in order to make a decision. I strongly suggest he ignore “sources” and listen to the candidates. One speaks to retribution, dismantling 250 years of constitutional law, and tax breaks for the wealthy. I believe him! The other speaks to the middle class, women’s rights, voting rights, sensible gun control and above all, helping the middle class. I believe that, too. Neither can make this happen by themselves, but they are very open about their intentions.

Theo Davis, Phoenix

The personal decision of having children

With the recent focus by vice presidential candidate JD Vance on women not having children, let me express some doses of reality:

• Climate change is real, very real — 93 degrees in Denver in late September.

• Deadly hurricanes.