I was struck by the absurdity of the Tribune Editorial Board admonishing the governor and mayor regarding the Labor Day weekend violence with its smarmy “Chicago’s gunmen did not get Pritzker and Johnson’s memo” editorial (Sept. 3). No one truly believes “all is well” in Chicago as the nation’s third largest city struggles mightily with the ongoing plague of the ages that crime is.
The board notes that stemming such violence “takes local police and prosecutorial expertise, as aided by data and intervention experts” and then adds, “We lament that no one in Trump’s administration has the guts to see this and say it out loud.” Really? The board laments it? That’s it? How about providing us, the public, with some good journalism that looks at both the data and the recent and threatened cuts that these intervention programs have experienced — and what it might mean for us? The board’s own words: “Violence intervention gets results.”
The Tribune has often published informative, multipage stories (such as a recent one on the Calumet River Basin) that go a long way to informing us. Am I stretching a bit by expecting such from the editorial board on this subject?
Go ahead and take your shots at the governor and mayor for all that is not well, but please provide us with information we can use as we struggle to understand the complex dynamics of crime and how to fight it in this “best freaking city in the world.”
— Jack Pfingston, Woodridge
Federal overreach
The first question is: Does Chicago need help combating crime? The answer is yes. One shooting per weekend is one too many. We welcome help. The second question is: Do we allow a president to violate our 236-year-old Constitution and 150 years of established law to “help” Chicago? The answer is no.
Our Constitution has been brilliantly successful in limiting the power of the federal government to those powers specifically enumerated in that document. All other rights are reserved for the states. If we allow the executive branch to violate these long-standing principles, then what is next? What is the next reason to usurp our state’s rights?
It is not just liberals who should be loudly opposing President Donald Trump’s actions. Conservatives, who have traditionally been wary of overinvolvement by the government, especially the federal government, should be leading the charge in objecting to a militarized police force in our city, regardless of whether the troops are there to help or not.
— Karen Conti, Chicago
I have questions
For those in Chicago who want the National Guard deployed in Chicago, I have a few questions. First, how long will they be here? When there is no crime left? Will they be arresting gang members, drug dealers, people with expired license plates, sandwich throwers? If they are looking for immigrants in our country illegally, will they be stopping people on the street or in schools or going house to house to make sure they “get all the bad hombres”?
And once they leave (if they leave), is it the assumption that Chicago will be totally crime-free, and will I need to show proof of citizenship to confirm that I am a legal resident?
And finally, to those in the Guard who have no choice but to follow orders, I am sorry you have to leave your families and friends to participate in this fascist nightmare.
— Susan Dwyer-Marshall, Chicago
Guns the issue
The editorial about Chicago and Illinois missing the “violence memo” is interesting but somehow misses the central point.
Every act of gun violence has one thing in common. The guns. And that is not a local issue; it’s national.
Want to see the slaughter stop? Do something about the guns. Get them under control, and we will see the full impact of community-based crime reduction efforts.
Until then? The slaughter continues.
— Ray Boyer, Evanston
Lee Goodman, along with other activists, protests outside the Domestic Violence Courthouse in Chicago where Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers had been seen Sept. 4, 2025. (Antonio Perez/Chicago Tribune)
Path to citizenship
A Sept. 4 article (“Immigration advocates: Information is a lifeline”) states, “For many, legalization is out of reach because of the complexity of immigration law, costs and policies.” Yet, I know immigrants who have successfully become citizens. I have watched the events unfold with little fanfare. These immigrants from African and Hispanic nations do not have problems with the “complexity” because they are doing things the legal way.
My church includes a large Hispanic contingent with its own Spanish-language service. Many of these people have advanced degrees and are navigating the immigration system with alacrity. Tell the readers what is costly and complex about these immigrants obtaining legal status so that readers can more effectively advocate for these people. If they can start businesses, a process through which I am going, they can achieve citizenship.
It’s a frustrating process at times, but worth the effort.
— Ira Schafer, Bourbonnais, Illinois
Immigrant sweeps
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem says President Donald Trump is removing murderers, rapists, robbers and other assorted bad guys from the United States. But that isn’t who they are picking up. They are picking up restaurant workers and home health care workers, lawn care and agricultural workers, people who clean rooms in hotels, factory workers and day laborers, and others who have just come to the U.S. to escape conditions at home and build a better life for their children.
If these sweeps catch a murderer or rapist, it is strictly coincidental. The majority of people are simply here on asylum requests or overstaying a visa or are otherwise protected while their immigration cases proceed through hearings and court proceedings. They are trying to comply with the law, but the administration in its zeal to remove immigrants has violated their rights and ours.
It’s time to change the policies that are harming all of us.
— Frank L. Schneider, Chicago
Illinois is wealthy
A recent letter to the editor laments that Illinois is a “donor” state (“Responding to threat,” Sept. 2), meaning that it contributes more to the federal government via taxes than it receives in returned benefits. This writer is echoing statements from previous commentators and state and local Democratic government officials. The implication is that the state “deserves” more revenue from the federal government to help address issues within the state of Illinois.
These government officials, as well as most progressives, also pontificate that the “wealthy” should pay their “fair share” in taxes. The implication is that wealthy individuals should contribute more money than they have been contributing. Shouldn’t this also apply to the states?
Illinois is ranked in the top 10% of states with the highest gross domestic product. By almost any standard, Illinois is wealthy. Shouldn’t Illinois be paying its fair share and be a donor state, not a receiver state?
Why do Illinois politicians and progressives lament the balance of payments? Shouldn’t they be expected to help less fortunate states just as they expect wealthy individuals to pay more?
— Scott P. Lauder, Webster, Wisconsin
Concealed carry
The recent editorial supporting the 7th U.S. Circuit Court’s ruling against concealed carry on public transit misses the mark on both constitutional rights and public safety (“Federal appellate judges thankfully rule the ‘L’ is no place for gunpacking riders,” Sept. 4).
The Second Amendment exists to ensure that law-abiding citizens can defend themselves, even in crowded or confined spaces. To treat buses and trains as “sensitive” places stretches history and precedent and risks eroding rights through judicial creativity rather than clear constitutional grounding.
Equally concerning is the assumption that banning lawful concealed carry makes transit safer. Chicago’s “L” is already plagued by robberies, assaults and violent crime. Criminals who ignore gun laws will not be deterred by a prohibition sign on the CTA. Also, another question is: Where can people on the trains go for help when in a distressed situation, since there are no police on trains? There is nowhere to go. Maybe sending in the National Guard isn’t the worst idea.
The Tribune Editorial Board’s scenario of passengers recklessly brandishing firearms ignores reality. States that allow concealed carry on public transit have not descended into the chaos the editorial imagines.
Finally, this ban disproportionately impacts those who rely on transit most — everyday Chicagoans who cannot afford to drive or who live in high-crime areas. They deserve the same right to self-defense as suburban drivers or residents of safer neighborhoods.
Improving transit safety through better policing, cameras and funding is essential, but it should complement — not replace — the right of individuals to protect themselves. “Gun-free zones” only create defenseless zones for law-abiding citizens, while criminals carry on as usual.
— Conor Faut, Chicago
Make it ‘all of us’
I disagree with Larry Craig on multiple points (“Acknowledge God again,” Sept. 3).
He suggests that Americans are free because we have guns and that Europe was ruled by kings because it did not. Perhaps he has not heard the news that the European kings no longer rule and that Europeans are much, much freer from the threat of being shot than Americans are. I believe that the Second Amendment would read differently if the Founding Fathers had known that weapons would arrive that would give one person the firepower of a Colonial platoon.
He writes that “we already have laws against killing people, so laws against guns will have limited value.” The flaw in that logic is that we know that the places that outlaw both killing and guns are getting much better results in terms of their citizens staying alive.
I should acknowledge current context and add that those results do not come from draconian actions like, oh, I don’t know, posting troops on city street corners?
Craig’s statement reminded me of the often-repeated (because there are so many mass killings) headline from the satirical newspaper The Onion:
“‘No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.”
He writes that the only solution to mass killings is “to acknowledge God again.” Note that he specified the God of the Bible. The Gods of other religions or my conception of a God that I am modest enough to assume has not made me a significant part of a divine plan would not do.
The Founding Fathers knew of the decades of religious wars in Europe. Some were old enough to have been aware of the Scottish attempt to put a Catholic on Britain’s throne in 1745. I believe that they intended to spare Americans similar experiences when they declared that there would be no governmental religious preference expressed.
I behave in a civilized fashion because it is the right thing to do rather than because of expectation of a post-life reward. We are in a sorry state if the golden rule only works when backed by divine retribution.
Religion can create an “us” and a “them” where there should only be “all of us.” Teach empathy. Educate people in understanding the effects of what they do on others. This will work on believers in any religion or none.
— Curt Fredrikson, Mokena, Illinois
Tone-deaf opinion
It disturbed me greatly to read Larry Craig’s letter advising that we need to “acknowledge God again and to bring the Bible back into our public schools” as a way to combat gun violence. This is one of the most tone-deaf opinions that I’ve ever read.
The two children who died and the 21 other children and adults who were injured in the shooting at Annunciation church in Minneapolis were literally praying when the shooting happened. At a church with a Catholic school attached to it. But the problem is that public schools don’t include God, the Bible and the Ten Commandments?
Whether people have a moral compass or not has zero to do with their belief in God or if they’ve read the Bible or follow the Ten Commandments. A moral compass is a choice and has zero to do with religion.
— Jeanne Jarosz, New Lenox
1791 rifles only
Another mass shooting. There will be calls for gun control. There will be pushback on Second Amendment grounds. Yada yada yada.
Yes, guns don’t shoot people; people shoot people. But the framers of the Second Amendment could not imagine a way to shoot off hundreds of rounds in a few seconds. Yes, people kill people, but rapid-fire weapons make it unfathomably easier to do so.
I understand both sides, and I have a solution.
For reference, an AR-15-style rifle (modified with a bump stock) can fire upwards of 300 rounds in a minute and has an effective range that easily exceeds the boundaries of a school lunchroom/auditorium/classroom. Let’s see how brave shooters are using a one-shot musket that takes upward of 30 seconds to reload. No, the answer to the gun problem is not “red flag” laws or enhanced mental health screenings or the quixotic task of undoing the Second Amendment.
Everyone, I mean everyone, should be required to not only own a gun but also to carry it at all times. Wait, I’m not through. That gun should be a musket, no more technologically advanced than what was available to the public on the day the Second Amendment was ratified.
Let’s, once and for all, empower the Second Amendment by limiting personal firearms to those available in 1791.
— Stuart Linderman, Wilmette
Note to readers: We often hear from our readers about why you love Chicago in the summer. Fall offers pleasures and treasured memories, too. We invite you to share what you love about fall or the memories that come to mind when autumn arrives. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to letters@chicagotribune.com. Be sure to include your full name, your city/town and your phone number.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/09/08/letters-090825-chicago-crime-national-guard/
