Readers Write: Gun regulation, Minneapolis crime and homelessness, Charlie Kirk

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Although he intended the opposite, anti-gun-regulation activist Rob Doar actually made a good case for banning assault rifles in a state Senate committee hearing (“Parents call for action on guns,” Sept. 16).

“There’s no background check that can detect someone’s internal crisis,” Doar said.

That is true. So please tell me: Why, for the love of God, must we hand out high-powered, mass-killing weapons to any 19-, 22- or 24-year-old who simply hasn’t had enough time yet to kill anyone or to be committed for mental health treatment? I’ve been asking this question since Sutherland Springs, since Parkland, since El Paso, since Uvalde, and on and on and right up to today.

And Republicans still have no good answer.

Anne Hamre, Roseville

I have a few questions for the community and legislative members who advocate for increased school security and mental health spending instead of gun and ammunition control:

While you spend years figuring all this out, let’s pass gun and ammunition control. My gut tells me it’ll start working faster than the six-plus years it will take to bring the mental health piece to fruition.

Joan Baumgart, Robbinsdale

•••

Here we are again, caught up in this familiar little joust over the slaughter of our children.

Tell you what, here’s an off-the-wall solution: Instead of just banning some guns, or just identifying and treating likely perps’ mental illness, or just thinking and praying, why don’t we do all three!

That’s right, instead of this repugnant notion that somehow we might do too much to protect our kids, why don’t we do it all!

Done! Both sides claim victory. And the real winners — our children and grandchildren — reclaim the innocence we all say we want for them.

Jeffrey Willius, Minneapolis

Recently the Star Tribune published a commentary where a Minneapolis family described the horror of realizing their 6-year-old had stuck themselves with a discarded needle on their front lawn (“An open letter to Mayor Jacob Frey on the state of Minneapolis,” Strib Voices, Sept. 15). A witness to (another) Minneapolis mass shooting related how he hurried his family inside “to hide until the bullets stopped” (“12 shot in Minneapolis in the span of 12 hours,” Sept. 16). I get the appeal to living in a city; I lived in northeast Minneapolis for 20 years. But once it became apparent that Minneapolis was no longer safe for my children, and city leadership had no desire to make it safer, we moved out. Sure, we miss biking to our favorite brewery. But if you have to dodge needles and bullets on the way there, is it worth it?

•••

We can all agree that we have a drug issue in our city. It has always been an problem from way back as far as I can remember. How to deal with it? It’s true that the issue has changed because of encampments. The writers of “An open letter to Mayor Jacob Frey on the state of Minneapolis” advocate for letting these encampments remain and that the city should give sanitary and water resources, peace monitors and social services to the inhabitants. If this were implemented, we know that these encampments would become permanent. You cannot set up these services using government manpower and funds for short periods of time.

The writers also advocate for a committee (!) of many shareholders to hold forth on solutions. I have seen how committees have worked lately in Minneapolis. George Floyd Square is still unresolved after many years of committee meetings. We cannot let drug dealers have free rein in our city, leaving the majority of people afraid and cowering. There are ways to deal with drug addiction, but allowing homeless encampments on public land is not one of them.

Ann Van Ryswyk, Minneapolis

In recent weeks, our nation has been shaken to its core. The assassination of Charlie Kirk, regardless of one’s political beliefs, has left a dark stain on the fabric of America. Political violence is never justified. When it erupts, it threatens not only individuals but also the very principles of free expression, debate and self-government that define this country.

This act of violence is not just about one man — it is about all of us. When an American can be targeted and killed for political identity, values or following, it signals a breakdown in the social contract that binds us together as one people. We cannot normalize this, and sadly, so many are. We cannot allow such hatred to be excused or justified.

I had the privilege of meeting Kirk a few times. He was an inspiration — full of conviction and vast political knowledge. He challenged us to think, to debate, to wrestle with ideas. He spoke of faith, of capitalism and of conservatism with passion. Whether one agreed with him or not, he embodied the spirit of dialogue. A father, a husband, an inspiration.

We must call out violence unequivocally, stand for civility and recommit ourselves to the belief that disagreement is not destruction. Debate is not war.

The path forward must be grounded in courage, restraint, faith and respect for human life. If we fail to teach that civil debate is vital to a free society, the stain of these weeks will only grow darker in the years ahead.

Jackson Purfeerst, Crosslake, Minn.

After Kirk’s assassination, Trump administration officials vowed to use “every resource” of the federal government to target left-leaning groups they claim promote violence.

Yet this is the same administration that pardoned more than 1,500 Jan. 6 participants, including members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, organizations widely recognized as extremist, antigovernment and willing to use intimidation and violence for political ends.

The double standard is clear. Violence is violence, regardless of ideology. When one side is punished and the other rewarded, the message isn’t justice, it’s partisanship.

If we truly want to reduce political violence, we must hold all groups accountable to the same rules. Anything less only fuels the very division we claim to oppose.