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

•••

Perhaps I have watched one too many episodes of shows like "Law and Order," but I can't help but believing that you are asking for trouble when you announce you have a high-valued item, like a gun, on your bedside table or easily accessible throughout your home, office and/or barn. And yet this is exactly what so many members of the Minnesota House and Senate did when they argued that having to lock up their guns would leave them vulnerable to crime. Some went on to state they likely would not notice their gun was missing, and so a requirement to report the theft within 48 hours was unfairly onerous.

Honest to gosh, people, by publicly refusing to lock up your guns and making it clear you may or may not even bother to report a theft in a timely fashion, you have all but sent out invitations to rob your house. I understand your desire to keep yourself and those you love safe, but by having unlocked guns in the house you have increased the chance of having them stolen or, worse, being used against you. Please reconsider. I know there are gun safes that can be opened with just your thumbprint. They are quick and easy for a gun owner to access and will keep you and everyone who visits your house safer.

Nika Davies, Apple Valley

•••

A bill passed by the Minnesota House would make it a crime to store, keep or leave a firearm anywhere unless it is unloaded and equipped with a locking device or locked in firearm storage or gunroom. I just wonder how the House envisions enforcing this law. Is it legislators' future intent to form a new branch of police? Maybe call it the Firearms Storage Enforcement Department. Would these officers then be doing early-morning home raids to arrest persons not following the letter of the law and to confiscate an improperly stored .22? How about the criminals, of which we have no shortage? How would this law affect the storage of their often-stolen weapons? As per usual government process, this is a law that the criminal would not abide and that which would burden law-abiding people.

Bruce Granger, West Concord, Minn.

•••

Question: When is a law-abiding gun owner not a law-abiding gun owner? Answer: When they commit a crime with a gun. Any gun owner, even if they were law-abiding, can become a criminal the moment they use their weapon to commit an illegal act. Yes, a gun is dangerous in anybody's hands.

Wayne Martin, Plymouth

WILDFIRE SMOKE

Ick. Keep climate in mind this fall.

I had time to sit down and write a letter this morning because my outdoor plans on this gorgeous spring day were canceled. One whiff of the charred atmosphere beyond my front door told me everything I need to know.

The smoky haze is disappointing and inconvenient for me, but it's dangerous for others who have to work or commute outside for any length of time. Continued exposure to throat-burning particle pollution can exacerbate respiratory disease and increase the risk of heart attack, stroke and lung cancer. Anyone who's been in Minnesota a few years knows that last summer's repeated bouts of smoky air from raging wildfires were off the charts. This summer may or may not be as bad, but those of us who have been here a few decades know the trend is growing worse.

It's the same with so many other trends driven by climate change: stronger storms, punishing floods, heat stroke and death as temperature records are continually shattered, shrinking reservoirs, farmland crusting over after aquifers run dry, dying forests, loss of harvests as marine life migrates or perishes, on and on. We are the proverbial frogs slowly roasting in our planetary pot.

Of the two major candidates running for U.S. president, one has invested in renewable energy and tightened air pollution standards while working to reverse deforestation, end fossil fuel subsidies and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The other has asked oil industry executives for a billion-dollar campaign contribution, vowing to immediately reverse dozens of environmental rules and policies. We all know who is who. Reversing climate change is a thorny task that requires the cooperation of many nations. We can't control what other countries do, but we vote here. The United States can either lead in solving the problem, or it can drag its feet.

Are we smart enough to jump out of the pot before we fry? For the love of God, country and planet Earth, please remember these smoky days and all the other blossoming tragedies when you mark your ballot this fall.

Jeff Naylor, Minneapolis

SPORTS

On fandom

Friday's Wolves performance was an absolute disgrace, but the fans were even worse! We ain't won zip, zero, zilch! This team lives for the present, not season hype! To all you folks glued to your seats, get loud. This isn't a snoozefest, it's the freaking playoffs! Act like it, you ain't at a symphony!

Remember after the Nuggets got swept at home? All that national media praise after doubting us all year? My biggest fear was it'd inflate our egos and make them forget nothing's been won.

A team and its fans are only as good as their last play, not the last headlines. The Nuggets are champs for a reason, they fought through everything to get here. They'd be angry about this showing, not hiding from the challenge.

But what truly shocked me? The deafening silence from the Wolves faithful! Stuck in their seats, checking phones like their Amazon packages were about to self-destruct. The problem with these sky-high playoff ticket prices? You get fans who think they're at the opera. I saw more noise during KG's return than the whole of Game 3.

We haven't seen a second-round playoff game in ages! Get up and roar your lungs out. If the opera is more your speed, donate those tickets to kids who truly care. Then you can be home for your precious packages and enjoy the quiet comfort of your couch.

Ken Bradley, Red Wing, Minn.

•••

The more things change, the more things stay the same. I'm sitting at the cabin listening to the Twins game on WCCO AM Radio, just like I did in 1961 during the Twins' first season. There were only occasional TV broadcasts back then, more than this season. Then, listening was via a small but very high-tech transistor radio. Now it's via Audacy on my iPhone. Back then it was Ray Scott and Halsey Hall, one of the best and most entertaining radio broadcast duos ever. Today it's an extremely knowledgeable Kris Atteberry and any number of capable and experienced color commentators. Even though I would prefer watching the game, the beauty of no television is that I can do other things outdoors while listening, not having to focus on watching the tube. I kind of like this radio thing, especially at the cabin.

In 1961 I kept the boxscore just as I would if I were at the game with a Twins program. I don't do that anymore, partly because I've forgotten how, partly because there are so many statistics that radio and TV provide that a boxscore doesn't show and partly because I simply want to enjoy listening to the game while sitting on the deck enjoying a beer — which I wasn't able to do in 1961. I hope the powers that be can get the TV broadcast back but, until they do, I'm simply enjoying listening to Twins baseball in the summertime.

Mike Thornton, Plymouth