Editorial ‘misses target’

After reading the several reports and students’ claims debating the recent campus gun law bill, I am shocked at the ignorance that has reached the majority of the student body. While I recognize the sensitivity that surrounds this issue, I hope that students’ emotional interests will not continue to override their logic. In my experience, the most effective way to convey your point of view is to first acknowledge a clear understanding of the opposing position before proceeding to dispute it. The editorial (“”Campus gun bill aims for safety, misses target”” April 12) fails to use this rhetoric and thus falls short of reaching its potential to execute a respectable argument.

While it is understandable that permitting guns on campus may spark a fear in some students, it is possible that this fear is dominating their common sense — as fear so often does. “”When someone walks down the UA Mall with a gun on his or her hip, our hearts will beat faster … because what’s to stop him from walking up to a line of people outside of the Student Union Memorial Center and shooting them systematically with a gun?”” Do you truly believe that outlawing guns on campus would prevent this supposed gun-crazed lunatic from committing a mass genocide in the SUMC? It is fair to assume that if a murderer were marching into the union with a gun, a sign that says “”GUNS PROHIBITED”” is not going to make him turn around and leave.  

More specifically, in response to the article’s question, “”what’s to stop him from walking up to a line of people outside of the Student Union Memorial Center and shooting them systematically with a gun?””. Laws are passed with the assumption that people will follow them. This bill does not include a special clause soliciting impending criminals to finally get their vengeance. Shootings on campus already occur. If this “”gun-lover”” were to obey the law in the first place, he would not be committing murder.

Granting the students and faculty of this university their constitutional right to bear arms is not an invitation to attend a wild rampage of shoot-outs and murders. The government’s intention of passing this bill is to allow people to defend themselves. Whether you believe this to be the true intention or not, I would assume that the supposed majority of students who oppose this bill are not intending to rush out and purchase a gun to flaunt around campus because they are now simply free to do so. With that in mind, you can safely assume that the other estimated 20 percent in favor of this bill, are not eager, inhumane degenerates either.

— Brooke Austin DeVan, Psychology major

Personal protection or potential crisis

A few weeks ago, as I sat outside Brooklyn Pizza, on Fourth Avenue, I watched a stranger pass by me. She looked like a college student, no more than 20, taking an afternoon walk by herself. However, she caught me off guard by displaying a pistol on her waistband. In short jean shorts, a tight T-shirt and boots, she exemplified the unnecessary message of firearms in public areas, especially on university campuses.  

Questions about this girl circulated in my head. I could not find justification for her personal firearm on Fourth Avenue. The attire and gun demanded attention. The current gun laws trying to be passed, to allow students to carry gun on campus and or in certain designated areas, brings me to the same circulation of thoughts: What are the alternative necessities of carrying a personal firearm, besides to scare, injure or kill another person? I could not find any other purposes, which leads me to resent the idea that an educational environment, such as the University of Arizona, could benefit from the inauguration of these laws.

— Michelle Leonard, Architecture major