I agree with the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association that Minnesota should not legalize silencers.
The silencer manufacturers' association is a main proponent of this bill, and it makes two mutually exclusive, unsubstantiated claims:
One, it claims without any medical data to back the assertion, that silencers are effective in protecting hearing. (It admits that shooters would still need to use ear protection.) Two, it claims, without evidence, that silencers' effect on the sound of a gunshot is so insignificant that it would not affect Minneapolis' crime-fighting Shot Spotter technology, which relies on sound to pinpoint the source of a gunshot.
The manufacturers would like us to forget the history of silencers' use to commit murder and get away with it. That is why the federal government began regulating silencers in 1934. The gun lobby is engaged in a state-by-state campaign to make the devices easier to get, opening new markets for itself without regard for public safety. The Legislature should reject H.F. 1434.
Joan Peterson, Duluth
The writer is president of Protect Minnesota: Working to End Gun Violence.
WAGES
If comparisons are in order, let's make them complete
Anytime there's a discussion about minimum wage and pay inequity, one side will always bring up the example of CEO pay ("You probably don't need to be reminded, but … comparisons," Readers Write, March 26). In this case, the writer compares the hourly wage of a waitperson with the compensation of the CEOs of Ecolab and Ameriprise Financial.
Now, please do not think that I am belittling a waitperson. But his or her job is to get the correct food order to the customer in a timely fashion.