Picture, if you will, one leg of a three-legged stool striving to hold up the full weight of a seated person by itself. That's the image that came to mind when I read the May 26 Star Tribune article "Gun carnage rises, but answer elusive." In the article, several sources assigned responsibility for solving the problem of escalating gun violence to the Minneapolis Police Department.
In and of itself, the best policing will never be sufficient to solve the complex problem of urban gun violence. In addition to law enforcement, we need to invest significant resources in addressing persistent social, educational and economic disparities in communities of color. And we need stronger, more comprehensive gun laws.
A 2013 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine showed that states with the most gun laws have the lowest rates of death by gun violence, both suicides and homicides. Multiple recent reports on urban gun violence specifically have shown that strong gun laws, when combined with sustained community investment and effective law enforcement, can decrease entrenched urban gun violence by as much as 42 percent. The laws most associated with decreases in gun homicides include criminal background checks before all gun sales, mandated reporting of lost and stolen guns, permit-to-purchase laws, increased oversight of licensed dealers to prevent trafficking, and tougher penalties for straw buyers. Minnesota law is insufficient in all these respects.
We expect a lot from law enforcement, as well we should. But it is both unfair and futile to expect the Minneapolis Police Department, or any police department, to carry the weight of urban gun violence alone. Sustained community engagement and common-sense gun legislation are the two missing legs of the stool. Until we commit to addressing these deficits, we can expect to topple over amid the flying bullets.
The Rev. Nancy Nord Bence, St. Paul
The writer is executive director of Protect Minnesota, an advocacy organization.
HILLARY CLINTON'S E-MAILS
'Aren't there bigger questions?' indeed! Where to begin …
A May 26 letter writer asks: "Aren't there bigger questions?" regarding Hillary Clinton's personal e-mail account for work — as if she were secretary of the PTA. The answer is yes. Here are a couple big ones:
Have sensitive communications been hacked and used as blackmail or to harm the U.S.? How has your international collection of funds for your charity affected your responsibilities as secretary of state? When you were first asked for these e-mails, why did you make two different efforts to scrub everything first? Where are the Benghazi-related documents?
The inspector general has found that (at a minimum) Clinton's use of private e-mail for public business was "not an appropriate method" of preserving documents and that her practices failed to comply with department policies meant to ensure that federal records laws are followed.