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

•••

Thank you for May 29 article on John Thompson ("After accident, fame brought new burdens"). He and I have never met, but our stories are very much connected.

On that January day in 1992, I was lying on a gurney at North Memorial prepped for an emergency appendectomy. My wife was worried that my surgery was taking way too long. It was only in recovery that we were told that the delay was because both operating rooms were used to reattach both arms on a teenager from North Dakota who was injured in a farm accident.

That article brought back those memories and happiness that both of us survived. We often thought about John Thompson and how he was doing.

James Glover, Woodbury

In "2 cities throw wrench into rail extension" (June 12), I was disappointed to read Hennepin County Commissioner Irene Fernando, who represents me, claim: "There are many residents who support transit and the recommended route, along with some who do not." The phrasing of this suggests that the Lyn Park residents who are concerned about negative impact of light rail on the safety and livability of the neighborhood are "anti-light rail," or anti-transit.

This is inaccurate. Many of us currently use transit regularly, and we already have good access to bus service. I have not heard anyone in our neighborhood say we were opposed to the Blue Line extension. We are only opposed to one of the proposed routes that runs from Plymouth to Broadway via Lyndale Avenue.

Eva Young, Minneapolis

A June 12 letter writer ("Can't underplay a person's choices") states that the Star Tribune's homage to Winston Boogie Smith Jr., a Black man killed by U.S. marshals in Minneapolis in 2021, "troubled" him. He goes on to recount Smith's criminal record, history of threats against law enforcement, and failure to comply with the police on the day of his death. He then asks: "In light of all that, who could argue that the show of force by law enforcement that day was unjustified?"

I could. It's a law enforcement officer's job to protect the community. Officers are paid and (supposedly) trained to keep people safe. Yes, Winston Smith pulled out a gun, but the law enforcers have several weapons at their disposal. They can tase, pepper spray, or even shoot to injure rather than kill, but time and time again, we see that they don't. We are supposed to put our trust in the police, but if they can't use weapons without killing people, what makes them more qualified to have them than anyone else?

The letter writer also claims again and again that it's Smith's own choices that led to his murder. That his death was "inevitable" because of what he chose to do. That really says something about our law enforcement. If you are a Black man who commits crimes, your death by police is inevitable.

Jayna Kavathekar, Shoreview

In response to the June 12 commentary by Richard Greelis ("How would we ban assault weapons, anyway?"):

Thank you for further educating me on the AR-15 and other semi-automatic weapons. I didn't know that "hundreds of thousands" of hunters use them for hunting, in the writer's case for hunting pheasants.

I haven't been around hunters since my childhood, when my father hunted pheasants with a shotgun. After he used that shotgun to kill himself, my two teenaged brothers used their BB guns to hunt squirrels and rabbits to help my mother support the family.

Since then, living in this "gun-loving nation," I've grown to hate guns and have never allowed them in my house. Thank you for giving me the idea of trying to find out how many of us U.S. citizens actually love guns.

You enumerate the supposed obstacles to putting an effective weapons ban in place.

I'm sure all House members and senators have effective staff who can write a bill listing all types of weapons that should be banned. Hunters can become newly aware of the sportsmanship of using "only" regular hunting guns again.

Last, I take issue with your calling the heartfelt statement "for God's sake, do something!" histrionics.

Helen Hunter, St. Paul

•••

The commentary written by Dr. Mary Tschida and signed by 453 female physicians ("We physicians call for the following gun legislation without delay," June 12) raises some important points about gun ownership and death from gunshot injuries.

It is true that guns do not kill people, but people use guns to kill people. There have been a number of studies published about the relationship between gun ownership and gun-related deaths in the United States. The research studies show that having a gun in the home increases the risk of someone in the home dying from a gunshot as a homicide, a suicide or an accident. This is especially true if the gun is not properly stored. Research also has shown that people who use a gun to defend themselves from an intruder are more likely to be shot than people who just run away and call police.

Surveys of public opinion show that the majority of Americans believe they are safer if they own a gun. We need to get out the message that guns put owners at greater risk from gunshot wounds and death than are non-owners. Once people see how dangerous guns are to owners, their resistance to gun control is likely to decrease.

Dr. Martin Urberg, Edina

The writer is a retired physician.

Kudos to the Star Tribune for its recent coverage of the 50th anniversary of Title IX, including a list of the "most memorable Minnesota girls of Title IX sports era."

I was a high school sophomore in 1972 when Title IX was enacted. Reading through the list of the athletes of that time was a somewhat bittersweet journey down memory lane. Bittersweet because, although I enjoyed the benefits of participation in interscholastic sports for one year, I had so wished opportunities to play had come sooner.

In 1974 while a senior in high school, I was part of a group of 30 girl track athletes who attended a school board meeting where discussion of sports budgets was on the agenda. We were aware that the board was considering the addition of one new interscholastic sport for boys (soccer) with a budget higher than the total amount of funding for five girls "intramural" sports. We arrived at the meeting in track uniform after a late practice and sat on the floor directly in front of the board members. Our sheer presence and our numbers challenged some of them who continued to bump discussion of "our" agenda item later into the evening. As the night wore on, some parents arrived to bring their kids home. Most of us stayed. So did our parents.

When it was our time to address the board, a teacher attending the meeting shouted at us and interrupted our presentation. At one point, he even grabbed the back of one girls' shirt trying to get her to sit down and "stop talking." The next morning, while entering the high school, a group of us were met at the door by a different teacher who tried to get us to understand — "You don't know what you are talking about."

So, as I read through your list, I thought about these girls who fought for opportunities in sports that they themselves would never have an opportunity to experience. These are my "most memorable Minnesota girl athletes." There were so many. Please include them at the top of your list.

Judy Hoy, Plymouth