Readers Write: Annunciation Church shooting aftermath

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

To those who have spewed hatred and condemnation for Robin Westman’s mother and have indicated she “should have known” — my congratulations on being able to predict your children’s behavior, choices and actions even into their adulthood. To never have been surprised or devastated by something your child has done has you living in a truly magical world. May you continue to live without that surprise and devastation with the robots — oops — children you raise. And perhaps feel just a tad grateful. “There, but for the grace of God …”

Phebe Connolly, St. Paul

•••

The laws in society are meant to control behavior. They come with some level of accountability that holds an offender responsible. Since the horrific events unfolded at Annunciation Church there has been much written and spoken. Why didn’t the laws work? Because people chose to ignore clear signs. Who could imagine such a diabolical plan could be carried out against innocent children — in a church? I watched the suspected shooter’s two videos and read her comments. How could one person have so much hate? With such obvious and overt feelings, I ask: Who saw this and ignored the signs of mental illness? Who didn’t see the destroyed life of a young adult or wasn’t motivated to intervene? The “red flag law” was ready and waiting to be used — where were you?

I am not surprised that almost all the comments to date printed in the Readers Write section are directed at more gun control. This is the default setting for Democrats. Despite the fact that all three firearms were legally purchased, people still call for more laws. How did those who interacted with her — family, friends and coworkers, miss or ignore so many warning signs? The solution isn’t found in another gun law; it is found in a doctors office.

One writer asked: What do you tell a five-year-old? Tell them that some people get sick and if they don’t see a doctor bad things can happen. Maybe we ought to tell that to adults too!

Let’s not conflate misguided actions with optimal outcomes.

Joe Polunc, Waconia

•••

The unspeakable tragedies over the past three months, as well as the gang activity, is very sobering and should lead all of us of all political persuasions to advocate for gun control. I am a 75-year-old hunter and owner of multiple guns who has a conceal and carry permit. I never carry. The ability of people to buy and use assault rifles and armor-piercing ammunition needs to end. These weapons have no place in civilian society. I consider myself a political independent, and challenge any advocate for the legal purchase of these weapons designed for killing people in war to provide a rational case for them in these pages. I suspect my challenge will fall on deaf ears.

•••

Our current approach to gun regulation pits users against non-users. It creates resistance, distrust and stalemate. If we really want to make progress, we have to have buy-in from gun users. That will only happen if gun users have the biggest voice in how guns are regulated. There are several difficult, but necessary, steps to get buy-in from gun users.

First, we stop calling assault weapons guns. Guns are legitimate tools for hunting, an activity that predates the dawn of Homo sapiens. Hunting is hardwired into our gene pool and hunting with guns goes back to the 16th century.

Assault weapons are not hunting tools. Shooting game with an assault weapon destroys the meat or turns a trophy animal into a splattered carcass. Assault weapons have legitimate user groups. Active military personnel and SWAT teams are the most obvious. There may be others.

Next, we stop talking about gun control. It has the kind of authoritarian feel that scares legitimate users. Guns should be regulated, not controlled, and the regulations should come from hunters, police officers, game wardens, trap shooters and other users who want to preserve the right to own and use guns, but also want to reduce the human toll of reckless, uninformed or criminal users.

In both cases, regulations should come from users because proposals from non-users create suspicion and pushback. This is a normal human reaction. Consider, for example, how you would react to parenting advice from someone who has never raised a child.

Instead of telling gun owners how to reduce death and injury from gunshots, let them come up with solutions. They’ve done it before. Through a combination of regulation, education and enforcement, they’ve brought the number of injuries and deaths from hunting accidents down to a very low level. Give them a chance to do the same for other gun-related problems. For gun owners this is a double-edged sword. If they own the problem, they’d better come up with solutions. If they don’t, someone else will step in and make the decisions for them.

Doug Shidell, Minneapolis

•••

I appreciated the side-by-side placement of the Friday commentaries by Dr. Michael Arenson and assistant commentary editor Maggie Kelly (“A pediatrician’s reflections on the Annunciation shooting” and “America grieves again and again. Other countries act”). Arenson urges us to “Do what babies do,” and Kelly then urges us to do what adults do. The first calls us to homely personal actions of love and the second to public political action to ban assault weapons (for a start). The first speaks to our acknowledged mental health crisis, the second to the proliferation of deadly weapons all around us. Politicians seem to pick one or the other as causing mass killings, one or the other as the problem we need to do something about. Could we all please work on both? Hug your kids and call your legislators; do what babies do and then do what adults do.

•••

On Friday morning, I read online with tears in my eyes all of the Readers Write letters to the editor and all of the Opinion pieces devoted to the mass shooting at Annunciation Church. Then I printed them. All of them. And I also printed a couple more articles from the paper, especially the one about Democrats demanding tougher gun laws and Republicans balking and saying they will oppose any bills banning assault rifles.

I want to keep these articles going forward so I can reread them. Plus, I will highlight the names of the Democrats and Republicans mentioned so I can see at a glance who I will be supporting with my financial donations and who I will be opposing by financially supporting the candidates running against them. I know I have a lot more research to do going forward and I have the resolve to do it. Push has now come to shove for me.