Guns on campus?
UA President Robert Shelton and taxpayer-funded lobbyist Greg Fahey must believe that something is in the air at the University of Arizona that would make concealed-carry weapons permit holders, who have never been problematic elsewhere in Pima County or the state, become a danger (“”Officials resist gun bill”” 1/30). And they must believe that grad students, faculty and 21-year-old undergrads are fundamentally different (at the) UA from those in Oregon or Utah, where concealed carry is allowed on campus. Either the UA is different and law-abiding gun owners become a danger here, or both men are na’ve and superstitious.
How dare Fahey spend our taxes lobbying against our rights and interests? The Arizona Constitution guarantees our right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, but such a right is meaningless for UA students and employees who would be faced with heavy fines (at least) if caught carrying to and from work! SCR 1009, which would end tax-funded lobbying and make him find honest work, can come none too soon.
Bennett Kalafut
physics grad student
Concealed-carry holders are ‘good guys’
In your Jan. 30 article, “”Officials resist gun bill,”” you quote Kate Ismeurt as saying “”I don’t see the place for weapons (on campus).”” I see no place for criminal violence, on campus or not. Weapons themselves are inanimate objects, and have no will of their own. When a violent crime occurs, there are usually just two people at the scene: the criminal and the victim. The police are rarely present at the time of the crime; no matter how fast the police are – and the UAPD is quite fast – they are still a reactive force that takes several minutes to arrive. Concealed weapon permit holders are “”the good guys”” and have proven themselves competent enough to carry in shopping malls, grocery stores and other public places.
Why should campus be any different? Is one’s right to self-defense any less when one crosses onto university property? Utah doesn’t think so – permit holders are allowed to carry on university grounds there, and I am aware of no incidents where permit holders misbehaved. “”Gun-free zones”” have been tried in many places, but are they effective? I think not. They serve only to keep the good guys out, while bad guys ignore them. Perhaps we should try something different, like allowing law-abiding citizens, who are trained, vetted and approved by the state, to protect themselves?
Pete Stephenson
physics junior
30 percent fewer lightbulbs in Gaza
What best describes the current situation in Gaza? Cruelty, a humanitarian crisis, genocide? Surely, as Yusra Tekbali asserted in Wednesday’s “”No light bulbs in Gaza – or in the heads of politicians,”” the United States should display its disapproval of Israel’s policies by implicitly or explicitly threatening to stop financial aid to Israel. After all, Israel is making the wrong choices and by flexing its muscles, the U.S. can convince Israel to make the right choices. Right? Maybe.
The intricacies of the situation seem more obscure by the moment. To be more precise, perhaps Tekbali should have titled her column “”30 percent fewer light bulbs in Gaza,”” but perhaps she did not want to betray the fact that even in such a moment of conflict, Israel is still gracious enough to give Gaza 70 percent of the electricity it usually gets. Indeed, the main problem in that area is the lack of fuel for Gaza’s power plant, which Hamas closed down. The fuel that some Palestinians claim Hamas takes for itself is, oddly enough, not accounted for by those with humanitarian concerns.
What are the other options? Military strikes against enemy targets that, regardless of tactical accuracy, would probably result in collateral damage? Wave a white flag and pray for peace, hoping that Gazans enamored with war against Israel will somehow be inspired to stop targeting innocents?
It seems odd that Tekbali’s rant about “”respect for human life”” displayed total lack of care for the lives of Israelis, so I pose the question here to the community: What would you do? If, say, Mexico was claiming ownership of Arizona and was purposefully sending rocket barrages at Tucson’s citizens and blowing them up, what would you do? If they would not accept any peace other than the return of America’s citizens to their places of origin in Europe and elsewhere, and continued their war against American civilians for decades, and elected a government sworn to the destruction of America, what would you do? I would think that, at the very least, a bit of an embargo wouldn’t be a bad idea.
Daniel Greenberg
political science junior
