The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

71° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

Mailbag: Feb. 10

This isn’t the wild west anymore

In reading the paper Feb. 4, I was disturbed by the apparent level of support for the recently introduced senate bill involving guns on campus. Proponents say that the ability to carry a gun on campus will make them safer, that it will allow them to protect themselves from others carrying weapons. I have three points to make on the matter. The first is that proponents of the bill assume that on a campus where many people are carrying weapons, scenarios involving those weapons will all be of the “”us vs. them,”” “”good vs. evil”” kind. They assume it will play out like this; a “”bad”” person will pull out a gun, the “”good”” people will see, be prepared, and “”silence”” them with their guns. More likely I think it would lead to several people pulling out guns and an ensuing shootout with, no doubt, many screaming, frantically running bystanders in the area. Are these people who will be protecting us trained as are, let’s say, the police, to deal with a situation like this?

No, of course not.  There would be innocent casualties, probably caused by both sides of the shooting. Second, what happens when other gun-carriers or the police do show up? They’ll arrive to find several people firing at each other and not know who the instigator was. Soon you have police and several different students firing at each other. How then is that resolved? I’ll tell you. In the end, the police will either get all parties to drop their weapons, or all parties will be shot … yes, this includes the “”good”” people. Sounds like the plan is working so far. Third, in the case of commonplace on campus fights, have you ever known people involved in such things to use reason and judgment?  

No, people lose control of their judgment when adrenaline and anger reach such levels. This is why people end up getting punched in the face, or stabbed with pencils or injured by whatever weapon is available at the time. If people are carrying guns, that will become the weapon that is available. There’s no arguing that if people have guns, they will be used more often. Even in the so-called “”wild west”” you had to check your gun at the door when entering a social situation. Parties, bars, etc. Maybe because gunfights were more commonplace, people recognized the need to separate those guns from social situations. We are so far removed from that type of society that the reasons for these precautions seem to have been forgotten by some. The legislature of our state is trying, step by step, to revert us to a more primitive time. They have or are trying to allow guns in bars, schools, workplaces and into out national parks. As far as my co-workers and I are concerned, these people have no sense of reason, logic, or common sense and it is really discouraging to see the same kind of thinking in a place like the UA.

Matthew Hart

Doctoral student, philosophy

 

Put down the guns, Rambo

No one has ever claimed that the Second Amendment coverage ends at a campus because police and other security forces (a well-regulated militia) are the ones protected by the Second Amendment. “”A Well Regulated Militia”” being the key section. I’m sure that everyone thinks of himself or herself as a could-be Rambo, able to get up and fight back no matter the circumstances as long as they have a weapon in their hands but in reality, no. No one is Rambo, and having a gun doesn’t make you any safer or more able to defend yourself. If everyone has a gun, you might believe that someone with a gun won’t open fire. Basically, you’ll be just as off-guard when those criminals decide to start shooting.

Dylan Leischow

Economics senior

 

Pass the Doritos and technology

Tom Knauer’s Feb. 9 article, “”How the iPad and Junk Food Could Save UA’s Budget Crisis”” gave a brilliant look at how the state and university can actually get some money, while helping consumers make better choices. After all, cheap junk food and redundant products are seemingly common in the United States. A larger tax on extraneous technology and unhealthy food would undoubtedly cause a shift towards healthier food and smarter consumer choices.

For those of you opposing taxes, I must question your logic. After all, how is a tax increase of about 10 cents going to hurt you financially? What is wrong with giving to your country? Take care of the society you live in, and it will take care of you.

Tom Knauer is definitely onto something. A healthier and more financially smart citizenry is exactly what we need, along with more money for the state and the universities. Thank you for your inspiration, Tom.

Gregory Gonzales

philosophy freshman

More to Discover
Activate Search