Readers Write: Gun rights, domestic violence, nondisclosure agreements

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

•••

Putting aside the “God-given right” to bear arms point for the purposes of this letter, I genuinely appreciate state Rep. Drew Roach’s attempts to be the rare Republican at least willing to discuss the gun-control issue logically and sincerely (“Guns, rights and real solutions,” Strib Voices, Oct. 30). He loses me, though, when he says one of the ways to solve this issue is to “protect law-abiding citizens’ rights while fully enforcing existing laws against those who misuse guns.”

While that sounds nice at face value, what he and every other right-leaning individual misses with this stance is that at one time or another, literally anyone who has ever intentionally shot someone else with a gun was once a law-abiding citizen. As soon as they shot someone, they were no longer in that group. There is no regulatory process, no waiting period, no forms to fill out, nothing at all required to make the shift from law-abiding to lawbreaking, because of course, why would there be? Sometimes people plan to shoot others, other times these are spur-of-the-moment, emotional reactions that maybe they wish to take back.

Whatever causes them to make that shift, they make it, and because of how indefensibly rigid the conservative stance is against acknowledging that fact, guns are widely, widely available for pretty much anyone to very easily obtain in any quantity they wish. Those guns are then theirs to do with as they wish, even if they wish to stop being the proverbial “law-abiding citizen.”

Until the allegedly “pro-life” political party acknowledges this simple fact of reality, countless people will continue to die when they could have lived. We can talk about mental health treatment and rebuilding families and all of that as much as the right wing wishes; there are valid points to be made there.

But the largest source of the problem will remain the fact that while it may not be fair to the majority of gun owners who always stay in the “law-abiding” category, senseless deaths of people of every age, gender, race and ethnicity will continue to occur as long as these lethal weapons continue to be so incredibly, abundantly, easily available.

•••

I always find it interesting how gun rights advocates like Roach and other recent letter writers dance around the gun violence issue in order to move the focus away from guns (“The 2nd Amendment is not about hobbies,” Oct. 22). No one is arguing that various social and cultural efforts such as strengthening families and mental health supports won’t reduce violence. But those are long-term measures that typically don’t get funded by the party advocating for gun rights.

The Violence Prevention Project Research Center, housed at Hamline University but with a national footprint, has an in-depth database of more than 200 mass shootings. One of its findings is that mass shootings using assault-style weapons result in far more casualties compared with those using other guns, and that “banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines could significantly reduce mass shootings and deaths.” As the researchers wrote in a September Star Tribune commentary, data point to a “Swiss cheese model: Multiple, imperfect layers of prevention that, together, reduce risk. ... Ignoring [gun policy] leaves a gaping hole” in the prevention sandwich.

But gun rights people won’t consider the obvious layer. They’re all about freedom and rights of law-abiding individuals — by which they mean gun-owners. Where’s the concern for law-abiding, innocent children’s freedom and rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if they happen to be mass-shooting victims?

Gun-rights people, apparently including all Republican legislators, can dance around the issue as much as they want, but it doesn’t obscure the fact that they value the right of individuals to own assault-style weapons — hardly necessary for self-defense — more than the safety of children. That is an extreme position, and I would be dancing, too, if trying to defend it.

I was dismayed to read another article about system failure to handle a domestic violence case resulting in a killing (“Death exposes Mpls. policing gap,” Oct. 30). Twenty-five years ago I was the deputy Minneapolis city attorney in charge of the Criminal Division. At that time, we took strong steps to eliminate the gaps cited in the article. We worked to establish a domestic violence court to handle these cases with urgency. We worked to develop the risk assessment cited in the article. We placed a domestic violence advocate within the Police Department. We took many steps to close the gaps that lead to domestic violence homicides. Retired MPD Assistant Chief Kris Arneson, quoted in the article, played a leading role in these efforts. I agree with her that alarm bells should have been going off in this case.

It is also important to note that gaps are exacerbated by the lack of police resources. A lack of resources causes police to focus on emergency response at the cost of investigations. Investigation is where complex cases get solved.

Domestic violence cases are the most preventable homicides. Leaders must not allow divisions between their agencies to affect the appropriate handling of these cases. We have known what works to prevent domestic violence homicides for 25 years. We need to invest and sustain the necessary resources to undertake those efforts.

Joan C. Peterson, Grand Rapids, Minn.

The writer is a former deputy Minneapolis city attorney in charge of the Criminal Division.

Despite this one recent example, the use of NDAs by developers during discussions with local economic authorities has been common practice across a host of industries in the site selection process. And for good reason.

These agreements shield confidential business information and strategic details from competitors, and they protect against speculation regarding land, resources and core services. Far from being a tool to limit transparency, NDAs are a crucial mechanism — especially in highly competitive industries — that allow for productive, forthright discussions with local officials.

Importantly, NDAs do not negate regulatory approvals, zoning requirements, or public notices and hearings, all of which must be satisfied before projects can move forward. Whether for data centers, manufacturing plants or other industrial facilities, all development projects will still face scrutiny by local officials and their constituents.

Ultimately, it is up to the community to weigh the economic benefits of these projects against the perceived costs. However, jeopardizing the ability of companies to protect their confidential business information would have a chilling economic impact on investments and jobs across our state.

Steve Minn, Minneapolis