Readers Write: Gun regulation

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

•••

Lethal violence inflicted on innocents is a serious problem. We need to do better at finding solutions. While guns are often used in such atrocities, “gun control” alone won’t be the solution. In fact, it could exacerbate matters.

Prohibition of alcohol was tried in the U.S. It resulted in crime and violence as a black market developed for alcohol. It didn’t solve the problem; it made it worse. Our ability to control illegal drugs with laws is abysmal.

There are over 400 million guns owned by U.S. citizens. They can’t be “controlled” short of draconian government confiscation. Vanishingly few of these guns are ever used for violent or even illegal acts. Guns are the implements used by bad actors, but they are not the problem. The root cause of our wave of lethal violence is our inability or unwillingness to detect and deal with mental illness that involves willingness and desire to kill.

There were plenty of warning signs with the Annunciation killer, but nobody took any action. We have a red-flag law in Minnesota, but it wasn’t invoked here. It could and should have been.

There is no easy answer. Emotional and sensational “gun control” rhetoric by politicians hasn’t helped in the past and won’t help now or in the future. Critical thinking is necessary. We need to seek and implement solutions that can actually work. That includes enforcing laws already on the books, but it will take more than that.

•••

Rob Doar, in his Aug. 30 commentary (“What will and won’t work as a response to mass shootings”), cites the work of the Violence Project as support for his assertions. He correctly cited the discussion of mental health issues. He conveniently left out this from the Violence Project: “Research suggests that banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines could significantly reduce mass shootings and deaths.”

Doar appears to propose that the only solution is “mental health.” I am a licensed psychologist. I am not speaking for the entire mental health treatment community but rather as an individual whose entire professional career has included supporting people through more mass shootings than I can even count. I welcome policies that would provide wider, equitable access to mental health treatment for every person who needs and wants it — not just in Minnesota but around the world. It is profoundly wrong to simply say that mental health treatment “stops” the issue of mass shootings across our nation. That is not to say that we don’t try to get people help; however, it does mean that we need to be honest about the process. People cannot be forced to do the work of therapy or treatment. Mental health treatment is not a magical event — it requires the time, financial resources and willingness of the person in treatment.

Doar seems to be unwilling to consider any type of policy that includes sensible limits to access to weapons or ammunition. Weapons and ammunition that are designed to unleash the most carnage in the least amount of time have no place in a civil society. This is not the same thing as a ban on firearms. While I welcome his statements that demonizing communities and equating mental illness with violence are ineffectual, I invite him to begin to consider more deeply that there must be changes to the access to the kinds of weapons and ammunition that are used over and over again in these kinds of attacks.

I believe we are called to consider the complex kinds of decisions that need to be made. This is not a time for either/or conversations. It is a time for both/and conversations. Yes, let’s enact policies and funding to support the well-being of people, and let’s enact policies that project constitutional rights while also recognizing the need to do what we can to help reduce the incidence of mass shootings.

•••

I agree with Doar that is time to “choose a different path.” This is the second community I have called home to be directly affected by a school shooting. Every school shooting is more devastating than the last because it means we have failed.

I found Doar’s commentary incredibly insulting to all effected by gun violence. His main argument against an assault weapons ban and comprehensive universal background checks is that they are not 100% effective. If a law or action can prevent even a few deaths, isn’t it worth pursuing? Is the ease of buying a gun worth the lives of children?

Gun control measures remain the obvious first step in tackling gun violence. No one is claiming they are foolproof, but they are a start. The Star Tribune reported that 116 spent rifle rounds were found at Annunciation Church. What responsible gun owner needs to be able to fire 116 rounds in minutes? Shouldn’t we want this to be a difficult thing to do?

Yes, the shooter purchased these weapons legally. So perhaps the question that could lead to a solution is: Why was it so easy for the shooter to purchase three guns recently and legally? Why were the weapons used in this crime available in the first place?

Linnea Lopez, Minneapolis

•••

Doar’s recent commentary suggests that increased regulations on guns are a nonstarter. Instead, he proposes “hardening soft targets” with “layered security.” Sounds simple enough. Based on the locations where mass shootings have recently occurred, we will only need to deploy those increased security measures at churches, synagogues, schools, colleges, grocery stores, workplaces, parks, basketball tournaments, apartment buildings, nightclubs, bowling alleys, military bases(!), gas stations, liquor stores, grocery stores, movie theaters, block parties, restaurants and private residences. But maybe Doar is right that tightening regulations on the sale of certain guns and ammunition would be far too complicated and onerous.

Joseph Schattauer Paille, Minneapolis

•••

There is no cure for a sociopathic personality. Providing “safe, judgement-free places” would not have saved those children.

Jim Piga, Mendota Heights

•••

If 98% of mass shooters are men, I would feel a lot safer if guns were taken away from men than if they were taken away from transgender people. The math doesn’t lie.

Karen Barstad, Minneapolis

Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature need to stop playing politics and get serious about addressing mass shootings. Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson criticized Gov. Tim Walz for not “consulting legislative leaders” when planning to call a special session on gun legislation (“Special session on guns expected,” Aug. 30). Johnson, what do you need to be consulted on? All mature adults know that the special session would be to address mass shootings; are you among that cohort? Do we need to hold your hand and walk you through this as if we were teaching elementary students how to read and write? I’m sure you could visit with the elementary students at Annunciation and they could spell out the need for a special session to address mass shootings with traumatic clarity.

Sen. Johnson and the rest of the Republicans in the Legislature, get serious and pass laws with the aim to eliminate these horrific tragedies. This means mental health resourcing, police resourcing, school resourcing and, yes, banning assault weapons.