More guns aren’t a comforting thought
“Let’s remain rational and give people the power to
protect themselves,” Schwartz says in response to the gun
control frenzy following the sniper shootings. (Viewpoint, Oct. 21)
I have, but one question: how would you protect yourself from a
sniper even if you had a hand gun?
One can’t see a sniper in the first place so it
wouldn’t matter how armed you are. A sniper is a shooter who
remains concealed.
While Schwartz recognizes the possibility of media-induced
hysteria and misplaced blame in the wake of the sniper shootings,
he failed to see that his own pro-gun stance was a conclusion in
search of evidence. He egregiously used these recent tragedies and
out-of-context statistics to support the claim people should be
able to defend themselves. I wouldn’t feel any safer carrying
a gun around campus, and the thought that everyone else could be
carrying one is even more disturbing.
Theodore Jahng First-year, undeclared
NRA doesn’t endorse murderers
Exactly what is Jason Liu trying to imply in his Oct. 21
editorial cartoon?
Is he trying to say all serial killers who use firearms are
members of the NRA? Is he trying to say the NRA officially or
unofficially sanctions or endorses the use of firearms to commit
serial murder? Is he trying to say the ranks of NRA membership
consist of gun-toting psychopath killers?
I sure hope not. Liu’s cartoon smacks of ignorance, and
unfortunately, his closed-minded assessment of the sniper attacks
is typical of those who wish to approach the issue of gun control
in the United States.
I feel it is important to remind people like Liu of two
important points. It is not the gun that does the killing, but the
person pulling the trigger. The gun is no more responsible for the
death of those innocent people than your pencil is for misspelling
words. Secondly, serial and mass murder has been accomplished
without the aid of firearms for hundreds of years. Killers such as
the Hillside Strangler, and the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackers
accomplished their ends without the aid of firearms.
Our constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not a
constitutional right to murder. Organizations like the NRA exist in
order to protect this right and do not serve to encourage murder.
It is too bad Mr. Liu decided to shame himself by taking a cheap
shot at an organization whose members are, on the whole, peaceful
and law-abiding citizens.
David Walden Fourth-year, history
Removing kiosk a big mistake
While I feel it was a complete waste of $75,000 to install the
vending kiosks, I am opposed to spending another $25,000 to get rid
of them, for a number of reasons.
First, construction on this campus has never been subject to
democratic vote. I don’t recall being consulted about
building Lot 4 or the new medical complex. And even if it were, the
time for such endeavors should have been before the $75,000 was
spent, not now.
Secondly, the “aesthetics of an area” have never
been subject to democratic vote. If so, we are talking about a
kiosk at Bunche Hall, a building with zero or negative aesthetic
value; and if we are talking about aesthetics, there are a few
other buildings around here that I’d like to propose be torn
down as being even bigger aesthetic offenses.
Dean Scott Waugh met with faculty to discuss the offending
kiosks, but not with the graduate students who had requested it in
the first place. The decision to remove the kiosks was thus made as
arbitrarily and unilaterally as the decision to install them in the
first place. Furthermore, the kiosks were an attempt to respond to
the needs of graduate students, a laudable action in my opinion and
more important than aesthetics.
In a period of severe budget problems, given the kiosks are
already there and presumably generating income (I assume that in
keeping with the economic behavior of other sales activities on
this campus, the machines sell items at a healthy profit), I see no
reason to spend even more money to get rid of them. I’m sure
our department, at least, could use the $25,000.
Corey Hollis Graduate Student