Readers Write: Gun violence

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

•••

Thanks to Star Tribune Editorial Page Editor Scott Gillespie for shining some light on the moral and legislative failures of U.S. Reps. Tom Emmer, Michelle Fischbach and Pete Stauber relative to common-sense gun violence prevention ("Another massacre, another failure to lead," May 28). I hope citizens of the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth districts read Gillespie's well-reasoned article (or others like it), and seriously reflect on their representatives' culpable roles in fomenting gun violence, and vote them out on Nov. 8. On this very solvable problem, our state and nation desperately need more more reasonable, thoughtful, empathetic and humble voters.

Mark Ambroe, Minneapolis

•••

If you consider yourself a responsible gun owner, then maybe you think that the public debate about safety has little to do with you, but it certainly can have. If your child has a friend over to play and they find your gun in the nightstand, then it's about you. Or if a previously good-natured parent with dementia starts threatening the neighbors, then it could involve you. It could also be about you if your teen starts roaming the dark corners of internet chat sites and blurs the line between virtual and real.

There are several straightforward things that responsible gun owners can do right now to keep family members safe and guns from being stolen. First, we can keep guns secure in our homes. A simple gun lock helps. A gun safe is better. We can also keep unsecured guns out of our vehicles. Guns stolen from vehicles are the largest source of firearms used in crimes ("Gun Thefts from Cars: The Largest Source of Stolen Guns," Everytown for Gun Safety, 2022).

You may have experienced these constraints firsthand if you've ever tried to secure care for someone with dementia or mental illness. Many teachers, doctors, counselors and other professionals go above and beyond to find solutions for the families they serve. Way too often, however, families seeking help may be surprised to hear "sorry, our hands are tied" or "the closest bed is in another state."

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we devoted immense resources to safer air travel to eliminate one type of public threat — airplane hijacking. We need our representatives at every level to take our safety seriously and give it the resources it deserves. Minnesota legislators did make some progress this session, funding some key improvements in access to mental health care. There were also bills with provisions to help families pay for safe storage, but none made it out of committee this year.

Dawn Einwalter, St. Paul

•••

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly after a deadly mass murder the discussion of solutions becomes muddled and distorted. In the latest episode of mass violence, Texas politicians gave various and confusing details about the heroism of police and then the lack of it. The news carried more of who would show up at an NRA meeting, then switched to what the politicians said at the meeting, thus giving equal or greater coverage to NRA messaging than to President Joe Biden's messaging and creating a false sense of equivalence in the two approaches.

And these slaughters are occurring with single gunmen. At some point may there be a need to "harden" soft targets against attacks by two or more madmen acting in concert? With additional "hardening," will these same mad individuals simply change their methods? With a single point of entry, will a maliciously set fire simply kill more children in a different way — or bring them out into the open where they can be more easily picked off?

What about supermarkets and churches? Should they also be "hardened"? What about restaurants, movie theaters and nightclubs, as they have also been targets of mass murder?

In the end, the only thing that will truly be proven to have been hardened is the hearts and minds of politicians who vote against gun control.

Donald Narr, Crystal

•••

1) The only thing that is certain to stop "a bad person with a gun" is for that person not to have a gun in the first place. Period. Up to 90% of Americans support background checks.

2) Those "good people with guns" must be extensively trained and talented marksmen.

3) The "good people with guns" must be in the exact right place at the exact right time to stop the "bad person with a gun." The odds are slim.

4) The "good person with a gun" will need to shoot before the "bad person with a gun" shoots first. How does "the good person with a gun" identify the "bad person with a gun" before that first deadly shot is fired?

5) When the "bad person with a gun" shoots from a window (Las Vegas) or the upper level of a shopping mall or among a packed crowd (nightclubs, concerts), the "good person with a gun" will not be effective.

7) When "a bad person with gun" kills, gun sales increase, making gun manufacturers (and the NRA) richer. Enough of those profits benefit certain elected officials who place that money above God, country and our citizens, including children, whom they swore to serve. "A good person with a gun" isn't going to stop this.

The U.S. is on track to have 400 mass shootings this year (defined as at least four people shot — injured or killed). No other country in the world has this problem at this level. In all other countries similar to the U.S., no one, with or without mental health issues, has access to certain types of weapons.

Audrey Britton, Plymouth

•••

What do we want to move toward as a society — to work on unpredictable or predictable outcomes? Focus only on outcome.