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

•••

I'm a Vietnam War veteran and I disagree with the premise of the story "Protesters see Vietnam-era parallels" (front page, May 27). I think comparing the protests of today with the Vietnam War protests is an incredible stretch. I think the headline is sensationalist. A key and major difference between protests today and in the Vietnam War era is that young people then, especially young men, felt powerless over the draft. The draft at the time of Vietnam was a matter of life and death to many young men. I lived with that fear too. At the risk of being drafted with no choice in the matter, I enlisted in the Navy in 1972.

During that time a young man, if drafted, had basically two choices: Report for service or flee. Like most young men who were drafted, I chose service while others didn't. That war created scars for our country that I don't know will ever heal. So, reading a story about comparing protests of today with the Vietnam War protests gets my dander up. No protester today faces the threat of a draft, possible death or the decision to flee the country rather than report. During the Vietnam War, young people questioned the moral legitimacy of the war. They questioned why our country was involved in a war in Southeast Asia, a part of the world the average person was unfamiliar with. Protesters today do not face similar threats or issues.

Bob Doyle, Savage

SCHEELS CASE

No winners in this blame game

In the May 28 Minnesota Star Tribune I read a front-page story titled "Suit against Scheels over suicide can move forward." In it, we learn that a 19-year-old was handed a gun at a Scheels store that he loaded and used to commit suicide.

Now his mother is bringing a lawsuit of wrongful death and negligent entrustment against Scheels. But does that mean Scheels was responsible for the teen being suicidal in the first place? If the teen hadn't gotten his hands on the gun, is one to think he would not have found some other way to end his life? A very large number of young people commit suicide, and they don't all go to Scheels to do it. We need to look in the mirror and not look away to blame others. Most suicides have environmental reasons behind them.

This is a serious problem that will not be solved by suing a gun store.

Earl Faulkner Sr., Edina

•••

The tragic suicide of a 19-year-old inside the Eden Prairie Scheels is heartbreaking. As a community, we should have compassion for the grief his mother is enduring. But it's also deeply troubling that our legal system is allowing this case to proceed to trial and dragging it out until October 2026, enriching lawyers at the expense of taxpayers and consumers, and doing little to address the real issues behind such a tragedy.

What has happened to personal responsibility? If someone were to overdose on pills in a pharmacy or use a knife in a home goods store to end their life, would we rush to blame the retailer? The emotional weight of this case does not justify sidelining common sense.

This lawsuit seems driven less by justice and more by anti-gun sentiment. If the real goal is to debate gun policy, that belongs in the Legislature and not the courtroom.

We should also be asking difficult but necessary questions: What efforts were made to get this young man the help he needed? Responsibility in such tragic cases is complex, but targeting a retailer for legally stocking, showing or even selling a product is a slippery and misguided slope.

If we want to preserve our freedoms and resist blame culture, we must support businesses that operate within the law. Shop at Scheels today, not because you dismiss tragedy, but because you stand for reason.

Julie Rose, Champlin

"MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN"

Who put this guy in charge?

It's a fool's errand to expect consistency, honesty or decency from the Trump administration. But the recent recommendation removing healthy pregnant women and children from the list of those who should get a COVID-19 shot is especially hypocritical ("RFK Jr. says kids don't need COVID shot," front page, May 28). That recommendation is almost certain to mean that some people who want the shot for themselves or their children won't be able to afford it, because insurance companies are unlikely to pay for a shot for those not recommended to get it.

The hypocrisy comes when comparing that policy to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s statement about the measles vaccine. Kennedy says families should choose for themselves whether to get the measles vaccine, which has proved safe and effective. But there's no choice about the COVID shot for people who want it but can't afford it. This is yet another Trump administration decision that will do real harm to real people.

Steve Schild, Falcon Heights

•••

We may find it shocking that our health secretary has deemed our current youth the "sickest generation," despite all the health progress of recent decades in working to find disease cures and save lives with new technologies ("U.S. kids called 'sickest generation,' " May 23). He summarizes his argument with a long list of challenges for any attempt to improve this dire situation, even claiming overtreatment and overmedicating contributes to poor health, essentially claiming they do more harm than good. The body's natural immune system has served us well for thousands of years, but there comes a time for all of us when some medical intervention becomes the prudent option. However, too many antibiotics and medications could compromise our natural immunity.

The report did not address gun violence, and we should not overlook dangerous drug addictions and overdoses, social isolation, risky behaviors, harmful side effects of denied care or over-care, costly health insurance, lack of adequate parenting and the deterioration of many faith communities in our country. Finally, the possibility of evermore natural disasters, pollution, political chaos, potential for nuclear war, poverty and oppression all weigh heavy on the minds of our youth's future. There certainly is a lot of work to do for any improvements!

Michael Tillemans, Minneapolis

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

Talk about an overreaction

Freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution's Bill of Rights. As a ripe old American citizen, I am dismayed that the Trump administration is using protests on "elite" private university campuses such as Columbia and Harvard as the main rationale for disastrous attacks on these pillars of learning. Using the foreign student visa program and essential, scientific research funding as cudgels, it is cracking down when the protests basically involve arguments between two foreign entities (Israel and Palestine), not our own security or existence. What law is being broken that would allow such serious retribution? Is their elimination of foreign students consistent with their touting of a meritocratic society?

John C. Green, Duluth

•••

Our presidential administration through its disruptive, deeply hostile and inhospitable treatment of our Chinese students, friends and guests has taken another step down its path of aggressive provocation of the Chinese people ("Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the U.S. will begin revoking the visas of Chinese students," StarTribune.com, May 28). This administration excels at arousing and displaying hatred. It's not too hard to see where this is leading.

Peter Grant, Golden Valley