Tony Blair was talking about Martin McGuinness after his death (Report, 22 March). One is reputed to have killed people without legal justification – murder. One arranged the deaths of people with legal justification – invading Iraq.

Is the lesson of the lives of Blair and McGuinness (and countless other examples) that we should take to violence, in whatever cause appears to us to be justified? Even the American Declaration of Independence states: “It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Isn’t the logic of their lives and speeches that they would welcome the even greater killing that would ensue, should we follow their examples and flock to their causes?

Lauded as these politicians are now, people who did not follow their example can feel and seem stupid. However, Blair and McGuinness’s actions are an unjust usurping of the power of death. Instead of following their example or lauding them, we should call out this psychopathy underlying our societies for what it is.

Billions of people have peaceful and just lives and do not succumb to the temptations of violence. Their lives pass unremarked. These peaceful people will continue to struggle, in the words on the Universal Pilgrim statue in Southernhay, Exeter, for a “tolerant, equal, humane and peaceful world” without resorting to the seductive claims of “justified” violence, however little value society and history places on such work and however little their lives are marked.

Michael McGuffie

Wellington, Somerset

• Martin McGuinness said he “didn’t care how history would judge him” and was “happy to let others decide his place in history”. With that invitation let us judge him as a political and public figure. Many tributes are being paid to him as a peacemaker, but it could also be said that in his past he was a warmaker – that we would not need a peace process at all if his kind were not around.

Certainly, that would be the standpoint of many victims of IRA violence killed or executed during the Troubles – which have yet to end fully, with murderous assaults still being made by the IRA. There were occasions when journalists put provocative questions to McGuinness and got chilling answers when his guard was not up, when Sinn Féin was not as skilled in diplomacy and prevarication as it is today.

His numerous refusals to condemn loss of life as a result of terrorism were justified on political grounds. Benchmark quotes – he would “never give up his code of honour to the IRA” and “the cutting edge of the IRA” would deliver freedom – reverberate to this day. The IRA delivered nothing but murder, war and mayhem.

We have all the freedom we need for everyday living whether the border is there or not. Bringing about a united Ireland is not going to give us anything extra in the way of freedom. It is not freedom Sinn Féin wants in any case: it is triumph over the British. Hardline republicans had no option after the big bombing campaign failed but to reach for the ballot box or face imprisonment and political isolation. McGuinness was undoubtedly a central figure when these decisions were made, but those decisions were made out of necessity.

He will also be remembered as a controversial figure who took the decision to withdraw from the Northern Ireland executive and bring it down. His legacy could turn out to be reversing the democratic progress made under the Good Friday agreement.

McGuinness was a man with a chequered past. He should not be looked on as a herald of peace, but as someone who had to accept the inevitability of change or admit defeat.

Maurice Fitzgerald

Shanbally, County Cork, Ireland

• It is not surprising that the many comments about Martin McGuinness made by British political figures, such as Sir John Major, dwell on the difference between the young IRA commander and the older man who paved the way for peace in Northern Ireland. One could be forgiven for thinking that the young McGuinness was a psychopathic killer quite unrelated to the older, wiser “man of peace”. Major actually said that the older McGuinness “atoned” for the many “unforgivable” crimes of his youth.

But in reality there was not such a difference between the young man and the older man. What is being left out of the narrative is the role played by successive British governments in creating the conditions that bred violence in Northern Ireland – the discrimination suffered by generations of nationalists and Catholics in Northern Ireland in jobs, housing, policing and even voting rights. The young McGuinness was deeply motivated by the injustice he witnessed on a daily basis while growing up in Derry.

Joseph Fitzpatrick

Ilkley, West Yorkshire

• How did Martin McGuinness morph from a “terrorist” to a “statesman”? Part of the answer seems to be that he had concluded that the IRA’s armed struggle could not be won, and equally that the British government’s armed suppression was also ultimately futile. So talks were the only way forward. One can only conclude from this that the bombings, executions et al up to that point were also futile and wrong, and it is a shame that he did not come out completely, say so, and apologise fully to the victims and their families. In that way his legacy would have been far less ambivalent, and the memory of McGuinness the statesman more assured.

Ian Bartlett

East Molesey, Surrey

• Although Martin McGuinness was undeniably part of the violent struggle in Northern Ireland and was involved in many atrocities, it is also undeniable that he was integral in the peace process. I wonder how far the Good Friday agreement would have progressed with the likes of Norman Tebbit in control.

Part of any peace process is forgiveness and reconciliation. I agree this is not easy and takes work, work that McGuinness took on. I am sure in common with many, his confession was made. We should all try to forgive, but that does not mean forget. Anyone who has lost or had a loved one hurt by violence will know that hate is a destructive emotion and that forgiveness helps you carry on.

Christina Green

Whitton, Middlesex

• Alastair Campbell (22 March) notes that Martin McGuinness was a big football fan but unaccountably fails to mention his love of cricket. A Guardian interview in 2012 detailed his interest in the game from his youth, although whether or not he appreciated the digging in for the long haul approach of Geoffrey Boycott was not mentioned.

Keith Flett

London

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters