TO THE EDITOR:
I find that people who advocate for “gun rights” tend to have a really interesting picture of reality. Do you really think, given a situation where someone tries to break into your home, or tries to rob you on the street, pulling a gun on that individual and initiating a firefight is the best way to deal with the situation?
If a person is violent enough to carry a weapon with intent to use it, then how does matching that aggressiveness with additional aggressiveness make for a better situation? The counter retort that guns somehow give criminals “a mental sense,” or some kind of “tingling in the force” that there is a firm defense close by sounds just as ridiculous. Overall, what kind of society are we advocating for? A society that instigates violence with more violence or a country that realizes by legally endorsing the ownership of guns we are sending a strong implicit message their use is also acceptable.
I applaud Katie Noonan’s insight (“More guns won’t solve the campus’ safety issues,” Mar. 30). Laws are written for good reason, but they have a historical and social context. Just as we have amended our Bill of Rights to better reflect the times, so too should we amend the outdated laws written in times where revolution was in the air and wild animals still roamed through American backyards. Making weapons less available may not completely eliminate gun violence, but it will certainly lessen the more prolific and preventable danger of accidental gun injury.
Michael Foote
Senior
Biology and Philosophy
