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

•••

Matthew Yglesias argues that the vast majority of gun purchasers don't commit mass shootings ("Getting tough on guns means getting tough on crime," June 2). That's beside the point: The vast majority of car travelers not wearing seat belts don't get hurt. The vast majority of people driving drunk don't get caught, don't cause a crash and don't injure or kill someone. The vast majority of unlocked houses are not entered by thieves or burglars.

We don't make laws just because a vast majority of people are causing harm; we make laws intending to prevent the harm caused by only some.

Bill Karns, Minneapolis

•••

In my view, most of our reactions to the mass shootings reported in the media are at best stopgap measures that vary from the inane, such as arming teachers, to the more reasonable, such as background checks, but at the very same time we also take up these measures to avoid having to face the real issues, one of which was pointed out by James Densley and Jillian Peterson in a commentary last month, "that mass shooters walk a common route to violence through early childhood trauma."

Why do we ignore this piece of empirical data? For the simple reason that it implicates all of us, and we would much rather blame these murders on someone else or some cause that is unlikely to affect us so we can forget about the killings and continue our lives as before. We also want to avoid the onus of coming to terms with the responsibility we all share for some individuals in our society being unable, through little or no fault of their own, to acquire the basic constituents of a decent life: meaningful work, education, health coverage and a home of one's own, because the inequity of this problem seems infinitely large and unsolvable. Again, I'm talking about the basic requirements that we, as a society, are fully capable of providing for our entire population!

Perhaps this goal is unreachable for us at this time, but the first step is always to face the issue head on and suffer the pain and grief of realization, and undoubtedly the feelings of helplessness that would be encountered.

John Robertson, Minneapolis

•••

While we argue about various means of restricting guns, here's an idea: Regulate body armor. Strictly limit its sale and use to law enforcement and our military. What possible reason is there for any civilian to wear such ridiculous garb, except to give some sense of macho invincibility? Strip the bulletproof protection away, and you expose a vulnerable coward who might think again before going into some public place, guns blazing.

David Pederson, Minnetrista

•••

The first part of tackling the gun control issue is to convince the gun backers that the Democrats aren't going to "take away their guns." How misinformed and stupid! If the census wasn't difficult enough to get cooperation on, can you imagine asking people to just load their guns in a bucket? Do you think anyone would want that job? It's just a slogan to raise money and get political support. Democrats — stop letting the Republicans have control of that narrative. That's stupid, too!

Casey Zimmerman, Plymouth

•••

D.J. Tice's commentary "High court crossfire looms on abortion, guns" (Opinion Exchange, June 4) contains interesting historical perspectives and comparisons between gun and abortion controversies.

One glaring difference between guns and abortion is that abortion is a health care decision, and an especially personal and private matter. Interestingly, many people who have opposed COVID-19 vaccinations use the same "my body, my choice" argument that is the foundation of pro-choice advocacy.

Meanwhile, guns are anything but "private." They are explosive, dangerous and, in our society, too often used to threaten, intimidate and kill. Even if we agree with Tice's reading of the Second Amendment, that it "guarantees an individual law-abiding American a basic right to possess a practical self-defense firearm," how "practical" is an AR-15, a weapon of war?

I always ponder the "law-abiding" descriptor. Everyone is "law-abiding" until they aren't. One is "law-abiding" until one runs a stop sign, smokes in an airline bathroom or pulls out an AR-15 and shoots multiple schoolchildren, concertgoers, shoppers, church members, etc. We have laws about not running stop signs and not smoking on planes. It seems reasonable we would also have a law about not owning assault weapons. And given the numerous mass shootings in America, we should likewise ban high-capacity magazines, require background checks for all gun sales and enable police to remove firearms from individuals who have demonstrated that they present an imminent threat to others (red-flag laws). These commonsense measures would go a long way to ensuring that the possession of a firearm for self-defense is indeed "practical."

Louis Asher, Vadnais Heights

I was taken aback at the letter about violence against children published in the June 6 Star Tribune that seems to support abortion because some children will be abused and mistreated ("Rates will increase when Roe falls"). The writer gives three possible outcomes for a child's life, none of which are positive, asking that we consider what the fetus, the child in the womb, would prefer.

Her logic is flawed. First, we do not know what will happen during anyone's life, not even our own. To presume only negative outcomes and to choose death is like the person who spends their life looking down so they don't trip on any cracks in the sidewalk. That person misses all the sunrises, sunsets and beautiful moments in between. Second, adoption is an option that does not seem to get enough consideration. Third, to say that an abused child would have been better off if they were never born is to say that their life was worthless. I suspect that the friends and family of Eli Hart, those who loved him and that he loved back, would disagree with that notion. I apologize to Eli's family if the use of his name brings any pain to them.

Leo H. Martin, Minneapolis

Can we please stop going after Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey? ("Step up, Mayor Frey," Readers Write, June 7.) Honestly, I get tired of the attacks from the far left against him. One far left group last year actually insisted Frey was on the same level as former President Donald Trump.

Frey has not stated that the Human Rights Department report was false. However, the city has the right to look for more specifics and clarity on accusations and to push back if the department does not provide concrete evidence. Just saying the report is true, like the letter did, is sadly not good enough, even though the writer is probably correct. In order to move forward on proposals for reform, there has to be really solid evidence to the claims that the report makes. It might be frustrating, but it is the truth. Finally, Frey was elected using ranked-choice voting, so any complaints about Frey winning with less than 50% stems from the election system and not Frey himself.

Therefore, I insist the far-left stop going after Frey and please go after someone else. Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen, perhaps?

William Cory Labovitch, South St. Paul

•••

The Star Tribune editorial on June 7 would have been more accurate if it was titled, "Help (very much) needed: Better citizens" instead of "Better cops." If there are not better citizens, where will the "principled young men and women" the editorial calls for be found? Better products, in all areas of life, come from better ingredients.

Dave Toner, Brooklyn Park