Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Many people justifiably abhor the Buffalo, N.Y., shooting. It's important to acknowledge that, obviously, 10 Black people died there. But even knowing that, I can't help but feel that the dehumanization of Payton Gendron, the perpetrator, is not helpful in the effort to end gun violence.

This may be hard for some to accept. But I believe that any person, with the right trauma or disorder and the right exposure to hateful rhetoric, can become a radicalized terrorist. I genuinely don't see Gendron as evil; rather, I view him with extreme pity and sorrow. I would argue that Gendron himself is also a victim of white supremacy here. The true perpetrators are the ones spreading these conspiracy theories online and motivating people to commit more acts of terrorism.

Gendron was merely a weapon in a greater proxy war between the alt-right and Black America. He deserves mental health and deradicalization treatment. Of course, he is very unlikely to receive those services. I hope that eventually, that might be possible.

Jackson Khatri, Edina

•••

In the wake of the Buffalo murders, James Densley and Jillian Peterson write an interesting commentary about mass killers ("Ideology is not what drives most mass killers," Opinion Exchange, May 17). They suggest that in most of the mass killings the motive is "unknown." They don't mention that killers' motives are often not released by law enforcement and that these are typically classified as "nonideological." Although it seems clear that any killer's motives are likely to be complex, nevertheless, the data show that patterns exist. The Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism has compiled data on extremist killings in the U.S. It found that "of the 443 people killed at the hands of extremists over the last 10 years, 333 (or 75%) were killed by right-wing extremists." Densely and Peterson note that traditional deterrence methods (armed security and harsh criminal sentences) are ineffective, and they offer some useful preventive strategies. However, understanding the patterns behind extremist murders can help direct actions by government and institutions to begin to take actions that will address our violence pandemic.

Gregory Pratt, Minneapolis

•••

As the governor's race takes shape with the GOP endorsement of Dr. Scott Jensen, the issue of gun control will soon be one of the top issues. Democrats blame the gun and want stricter controls. Republicans want the person to be held accountable.

A loaded firearm can sit on a table for 50 years and never hurt anyone. But it takes an irresponsible person to harm someone.

As one of the more than 2,000 attendees to the Republican State Convention, I can say that the Second Amendment was never in jeopardy from any of the six candidates. Between one of the nine ballots, Jensen explained that his brief foray into backing a gun control bill was meant to continue the conversation. He called it a rookie mistake. Jensen further stated that as governor, he would sign stand-your-ground and castle doctrine legislation. Yes, readers, the two parties have a clear delineation of philosophy on this and other issues.

Mass shootings are an enigma that psychologists cannot figure out. Rarely are the motives determined, as perpetrators are unfazed by prosecution and lengthy incarceration. They themselves are teetering on the edge of suicide. Proper attention to mental illness still alludes us as we search for solutions. We all must be vigilant to those around us. Many telegraph their thoughts and potential actions on social media platforms. While it remains a mystery, we must not give up on finding the answers and arriving at solutions. But what is clear is that the firearm is not at fault. The fundamental differences between the two parties will soon play out as we head into the November elections. Educate yourself on the truth and reject emotions.

Joe Polunc, Waconia

"States matter." ("Ruling would merely re-empower the people," Opinion Exchange, May 16.)

That kind of sounds like "states' rights," the phrase used to justify slavery, lynching, segregation, Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, and racism and sexism in general.

In America, states cannot vote to allow some people to own other people. This controversy was definitively settled in 1865. Likewise, states cannot vote to allow the government to control women's bodies. This controversy was definitively settled in 1973. These are the laws that make America great.

There are not two reasonable opinions on some issues: Any law allowing people to own or control the bodies of other people is unconstitutional, anti-democratic, immoral and un-American.

Nathan Viste-Ross, Minneapolis

•••

Since the unfortunate release of Justice Samuel Alito's written opinion regarding Roe v. Wade, there has been much heated debate between pro-life and pro-abortion factions. Several phrases and adages have been forthcoming. They include "My body, my choice" and "An embryo is not a human being." A local political leader commented that if Roe is terminated, it will lead to women becoming second-class citizens.

However, I believe we as a country and society have this issue all backward. Actually, both women and men have the ultimate control over their reproductive bodies and rights. As women and men engage in sexual activity with no desire to conceive a child, there are several forms of birth control that can and should be used to prevent a pregnancy. These forms include not only the pill and certain devices but natural family planning — and, oh yes, abstinence.

It is frustrating to think that human beings can't control their reproductive instincts that in many cases result in the creation of an unwanted human being. Sexual education from adolescence through the end of the fertility period needs to place more emphasis on control. Education and societal and political discussions need to be had to focus on reducing if not eliminating unwanted pregnancies. Then the need for abortion will be reduced to the point that we can end the unsettling 50-year debate of Roe v. Wade.

Mark S. Nowak, Wells, Minn.

•••

A May 17 letter writer ("Issue is societal, not criminal") believes my genitalia render me incapable of participating in the abortion debate. I disagree. A uterus is not a prerequisite to a thoughtful or empathetic position on the subject. Whatever my position on the issue, I am a member of this society with an interest in the outcome. All of us may be affected by abortion, whether as a prospective parent, family member or friend. These potential effects cover a lot of territory, including the potential injury to women forced into covert abortions or compelled to give birth to a child they are not prepared to care for. Men who may come to the question from a perfectly legitimate moral, ethical or religious perspective also are entitled to express that opinion.

The letter writer's approach does nothing to foster discussion of abortion's place in our society. To the contrary, it serves only to divert attention from the ultimate question, the degree of autonomy due women in regard to conception and a pregnancy. The ultimate answer to that question may affect many other rights arising out of our need and desire for autonomy in our lives.

James M. Hamilton, St. Paul

I've always considered the preamble to the Constitution to be our country's mission statement, the action-oriented statement declaring the purpose of the country to its citizenry.

My suspicion is that most people look to the preamble's nouns — justice, tranquility, defense, welfare, liberty — as the most important elements of this mission. I tend to view the verbs — to form, establish, insure, provide, promote, ordain — as the most important, largely because the only way to achieve these nouns is for our elected leaders to adopt more verb-like behavior.

Sadly, in our current polarized political climate both nouns and verbs are missing from our pursuit of a more perfect union.

Joseph Tilli, Wayzata