Breaking News

Letter to the editor

By Nick Allen

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Just days ago, 33 students were killed in a tragic shooting at Virginia Tech.

I’ve spent almost no time in Virginia, nor do I know a single student who attends the university. I do know that they all woke up for class on the morning of April 16th just as you and I did. Groggy from the lack of sleep the night before, just like you and me, they dressed. Future doctors, businessmen, architects, social workers and engineers; they were simply living the only tragedy they should’ve had to: Monday morning. None of them should have become the headline on countless newspapers worldwide. Not on April 16th, 2007. These students should have been on the front page of the April 16, 2017 paper as Nobel Laureates or Pritzker Prize winners.

Why must awful tragedies like the University of Texas-Austin of 1966, and Columbine High School of 1999 be remembered by equally terrible events like Virginia Tech of 2007? Why must we always have the hindsight in knowing that events like this could be avoided?

Though not a gun owner, I myself have shot a 9mm Beretta handgun and, believe me, it is not used to kill pheasant or deer. It is used to kill people. Students like you and me that didn’t need to die so long before their time. Something beyond a week’s coverage on CNN and a half-hearted apology from the NRA needs to be done to fix the gun problem in this country. There is no reason for these guns to fall into any hands, let alone the wrong ones. There must be change, or April 16th’s Hokies may be tomorrow’s Jayhawks.

Nick Allen

Boulder, Colo. sophomore

Comments

snood (anonymous) says...

I couldn't agree more.

April 19, 2007 at 1:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mthompson (anonymous) says...

While I am loathe to exploit this catastrophe for the purpose of political grandstanding, I believe comments like those from Mr. Allen need to be addressed.

Laws that restrict gun ownership only affect those citizens from whom society has nothing to fear in the first place. By definition, a criminal is someone who breaks the law. Surely Mr. Allen would not argue that an individual who intends to commit mass murder will be deterred by virtue of the fact that his weapon of choice is illegal.

In fact, the VA Tech campus already has a policy of strict gun control (the kind most anti-gun groups would laud as "strong and sensible"). Although law-abiding residents of Virginia may carry a concealed firearm for personal protection after meeting the statutory requirements, the campus prohibits these licensed individuals from exercising their rights on the property. The results of this "safety" initiative are now horribly apparent: the violent psychopath opted to disregard the rules, and the law-abiding members of the VA Tech community were stripped of the means with which to defend themselves. The only person who was made safe was the criminal, who had no fear of encountering an armed victim or bystander.

Mr. Allen also opines that a Beretta 9 mm is not suitable for hunting, and then suggests implicitly that citizens therefore have no need to own one. This is a dangerous argument, and it is one with which any self-respecting American should take grave issue. Whether or not someone else believes I "need" to exercise a Constitutional right is irrelevant. Provided I am not using my guns to harm someone else, why I choose to own them is nobody else's business. Would the people who advocate holding the Second Amendment to these rigorous, arbitrary standards support doing the same thing with the other Amendments? Nowhere in the Second Amendment is the word hunting mentioned. However politically incorrect it may sound, privately owned firearms are there to protect the people from foreign aggression, and even more importantly, domestic oppression. Giving the government a monopoly on the use of force will only ensure that we forfeit other rights in years to come. This has happened repeatedly over the course of history.

These remarks are not intended to be callous or insensitive, but restricting the rights of lawful citizens in the hope that it might prevent madmen from violating our laws in the future is short-sighted and naive.

April 19, 2007 at 9:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

llama726 (anonymous) says...

It's not really short-sighted or naive. Look at England, one of the nations with the lower percentages of gun violence- they exert a lot tougher laws on firearms than we do in the US.

"Provided I am not using my guns to harm someone else, why I choose to own them is nobody else's business. Would the people who advocate holding the Second Amendment to these rigorous, arbitrary standards support doing the same thing with the other Amendments? Nowhere in the Second Amendment is the word hunting mentioned. However politically incorrect it may sound, privately owned firearms are there to protect the people from foreign aggression, and even more importantly, domestic oppression."

An outdated amendment is what you hide behind. We respect this amendment but desire to butcher the consititution to ban gay marriage. The US is full of hypocrites.

April 19, 2007 at 6:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mthompson (anonymous) says...

Proponents of gun control often point to an England as an example of a developed nation that has transformed itself into a gun-free utopia via the enactment of restrictive laws.

The facts, however, suggest otherwise.

England enacted its comprehensive handgun ban in 1996. In 1997, handguns were used 2,648 offenses in that nation. In 2000, the number had risen by 40% - to 3,685.

England has historically always had lower rates of violent crime than in the United States, even long before enacting gun control measures there. In 1900, the homicide rate hovered between 1.0 and 1.5 per 100,000. The present homicide rate in England is 1.4 per 100,000. It is a fallacy to suggest that the nation's relatively lower homicide rate is due to the handgun ban. As an aside, in Switzerland, a country with even more widespread ownership of guns than America, the rate is 1.2 per 100,000.

English authorities consistently underreport crime involving guns. In England, a crime is only counted as a gun crime if a conviction is won. In the United States, all crime involving guns, even unsolved crimes, are included in the data.

In 2001, England saw a 28% increase in robberies, a 4% increase in murders, and a 14% increase in rape.

Claiming that England enjoys less crime because of its gun control laws is simply untrue.

You also provide no evidence in support of your second assertion. What is it that makes the Second Amendment "outdated"? How does my desire to exercise a Constitutional right unimpeded mean that I'm hiding behind something?

I'm also puzzled by your implication that I'm a hypocrite. I happen to oppose any attempt by the government to ban gay marriage (although this has nothing to do with the topic at hand). If you're so concerned about the Constitution being butchered, then your eagerness to dismantle the Bill of Rights is equally puzzling.

April 19, 2007 at 7:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

nmallen (anonymous) says...

I agree with the fact that 99+ percent of lawful gun owners use them responsibly, but is it worth the social cost to society for these massacres to happen on occasion, so that the law abiding citizens may target shoot with these weapons? Secondly, your facts on the increase of gun related deaths in England may be correct, but the fact remains that firearm related homicides in England happen at a rate of .12 deaths per 100,000, whereas in the United States that number is 4.08 deaths per 100,000--34 times higher. Lastly, you think that allowing all students to carry concealed weapons to class is the solution for prevention of this? That argument is like suggesting every nation in the world build a massive nuclear arsenal, so that nuclear war may be avoided. Foolish, no?

April 19, 2007 at 8:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mthompson (anonymous) says...

Generalizing that the primary reason people own guns is to target shoot is analogous to saying that the main reason we have the First Amendment is so that newspapers can publish articles about sporting events. An armed population serves as a check on the government, and it is the final safeguard against tyranny.

I concede the point that England has an overall lower rate of violent crime than America. However, the data I posted suggests that the discrepancy has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. I'm not a sociologist, but it seems like inadequate parenting, poor educational opportunities, and poverty are broader causes of the problems that many people so swiftly attribute to gun ownership.

I'm not advocating that all students carry a gun at all times, but that students who have received a permit to legally carry be permitted to do so when and where they wish.

Requirements vary amongst the 48 states that recognize the right to carry, but in Virginia, an applicant must be at least 21 years old, successfully complete a firearms safety course, complete an application, submit a photo ID, and pass a criminal background check.

Individuals who choose to undergo this process are, as a population, far more law-abiding than the general public. People who choose to legally carry a firearm do so in order to have a means of defending themselves in a life-threatening emergency. It isn't about being a vigilante or acting tough.

While we'll never know what might have happened if some of Cho's victims had been armed, the available data indicates that criminals prefer targeting people who can't shoot back.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime reports, states that forbide or severely limit the legal carrying of firearms have, on average, a 49% higher homicide rate, a 58% higher robbery rate, a 15% higher aggravated assault rate, and a 26% higher overall rate of violent crime.

The VA Tech campus was a "gun free zone" until someone decided to break the law and bring a gun onto the campus in order to kill people. It took the authorities over 2 hours to intervene. People should have the right to take responsibility for their own safety. If some feel safer not carrying a gun, that is their prerogative. However, prohibiting everyone from doing so only serves to create a safe working environment for violent criminals.

Although I suspect your comment about nuclear weapons was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, it actually raises a very good point. During the Cold War, the US and Russia both stockpiled vast arsenals of nuclear weapons. This evolved into a political doctrine known as MAD - or mutually assured destruction. Both nations knew that if they initiated an attack against the other, an equally devastating counterattack would ensure the annihilation of both powers. The result was no nuclear war.

April 19, 2007 at 9:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jjmabaseb (anonymous) says...

I would like to respond to the constitutional arguments posed by Mthompson. I do admit that I may be somewhat biased to Mr. Allen's position because Mr. Allen is in fact my brother.

I take issue with Mthompson's assertion that the 2nd Amendment provides for unrestrained gun use by the citizenry.

The entire text of the 2d Amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As a law student, I revere this nation's constitution. However, while the 2d Amendment may be a number of things, it is not particularly well written. I believe that the NRA and those who take similar positions with regards to gun ownership seem to remove the entire 1st clause of the amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Surely one who argues that constitutional rights deserve the utmost protection would not see it prudent to ignore significant portions of constitutional text in order to support their own political positions? You must take the good with the bad.

I do not claim to know the true meaning of the 2d amendment. Courts have struggled with its interpretation for decades. However, it surely cannot mean that citizens are entiled to unregulated gun ownership when the words "well regulated" appear in the very text of the amendment.

I agree that tragedies such as this should not be used to stake out political positions. However, it is important for the people of this country to find a way to prevent something like this from ever happening again.

April 19, 2007 at 10:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

christianallen (anonymous) says...

That is a good letter.

April 20, 2007 at 12:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mthompson (anonymous) says...

Regarding the Constitutional issues posed jjmabaseb, I believe that last month's ruling by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals helps clarify some of the possibly ambiguity.

Interestingly enough, this ruling came about as a result of the handgun ban Washington DC has imposed on its residents since 1976. In spite of being "handgun free" for 30 years, the city frequently has the highest murder rate as well as total number of murders of any city in the nation.

The court ruled that the handgun ban was unconstitutional, and they offered a lengthy opinion and analysis of the text of the Second Amendment. Because the opinion is over 70 pages long, I will not reproduce it here. However, for those who are interested, the full text is available on-line:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/c...

(The discussion of "a well-regulated militia" begins on page 29)

April 20, 2007 at 8:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

OlCoach (anonymous) says...

One of the statements I see repeated most often in objection to concealed carry by college students on campus, is that college students aren't reponsible enough, drink too much, etc.

My question is this: if college students are so irresponsible, why is it that those who have already qualified for concealed carry aren't showing all this irresponsibility OFF CAMPUS? Why haven't they committed all this mayhem where they are allowed to carry?

Similarly, why is it thought that the instant a law-abiding citizen completes the process of obtaining a concealed carry permit so that he/she might better defend the family, that person becomes a threat to society and "blood will run in the streets"?

What "1st clause" in the 2nd Amendment? There is only one simple subject and one simple predicate: rights (ss) shall be infringed (sp- "not" is an adverb). Everything else is a modifier of some sort, except that 1st group of words, "A well regulated militia..." And that's the whole problem...it's just kinda hanging out there, with no grammatical function in the sentence. "militia" has no verb..."being necessary," etc., is just a particpial phrase with its own modifiers.

So, grammatically, anyway, there is no doubt as to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment: RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...period!!!

I like to think the true meaning is, "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now we have a grammatically correct sentence and its meaning is clear!

April 21, 2007 at 11:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

jjmabaseb (anonymous) says...

I would concede that a fair reading of the 2nd amendment is "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Doesn't the logical implication of this mean that members of a well regulated militia should be able to keep and bear arms?

Was Seung-Hui Cho a well regulated militia? Were Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold well regulated militias? I think not.

Furthermore, the First Amendment seems to give unlimited protection to freedom of speech -- "Congress shall make no law..." And there is no mention whatsoever about anything being "well regulated" (whatever that means) in the First Amendment. But free speech can be abriged when speech poses "a clear and present danger" (Schenck v. US) or "is likely to incite imminent lawless action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio) or when speech constitutes a "true threat" (Watts v. US). So why is it that some argue that the 2d amendment gives an absolute, unrestrained right to own a gun?

April 21, 2007 at 4:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mthompson (anonymous) says...

Again, read over the Parker decision.

At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, all able-bodied white males between 17 and 45 were considered "the militia" - whether they were actively participating in militia duties or not.

The purpose of a well-armed civilian population was to ensure that when citizens were called upon to serve, they would already have some semblance of preparation and training, as well as already being rudimentarily equipped.

The Parker decision goes into this in far greater detail.

I would suggest that "shall not be infringed" is an equally stringent stipulation as "Congress shall make no law". I also am not persuaded by people who insist that waiting periods, fees, and banning entire classes of firearms due to cosmetic features does not constitue an infringement.

I have no problem tempering the unrestrained exercise of the Second Amendment to mirror the interpretations of the First Amendment that you posted. For instance, my right to keep and bear arms can be abridged if I go around killing innocent people.

April 22, 2007 at 8:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

KevinAllen (anonymous) says...

The Parker decision is the minority view of the Courts regarding the debate between the "individual rights" and the "collective rights" interpretations of the Second Amendment. The latter interpretation- that the right to bear arms guarantees the right of the people to maintain state militias- has been widely accepted by the federal courts. In that regard, the Ninth Circuit analysis adopting the "collective rights" model in Silveira v. Lockyer certainly is as compelling as Parker. If en banc review is granted in the Parker case, the panel decision there will of course be withdrawn.

As to the individual rights model, former Chief Justice Warren Burger described it (not very judiciously) "as one of the greatest pieces of fraud... on the American public by special interests groups that I've ever seen in my lifetime." I don't share that view, but it seems apparent that the individual rights advocates should concede (as the court does in Parker) that the "militia" to which the asserted private ownership right bears a relation must be a collective body designed to act in concert. The social need for arming such collective private bodies is not apparent in today's world (unless we believe that arming street gangs is helpful). Thus, the argument for the individual rights model appears to be built (at least today) on a fictional foundation. A corollary fictional foundation- again, at least in today's times- upon which it is built is the assertion that private gun ownership is the "final safeguard against tyranny." That argument might be applicable to a state national guard that decided not to fight in Iraq anymore, against the wishes of a "tyrannical" federal government. At least that state guard might have the firepower to get its way. But to apply the argument to collective private bodies is to suggest that vigilante groups, in order to preserve their ability to overthrow the government when necessary, are entitled under the Second Amendment to own and utilize all of the "arms" necessary to do so- including five hundred pound bombs, bazookas, warplanes and the like.

Instead, let's discuss the real world in which 32 college students are brutally murdered. Even under the individual rights model- and certainly as conceded in Parker- significant regulation of firearms is undeniably permissible. It is somewhat smug to suggest that the only permissible regulation in the area of gun rights is to punish the killers after they have killed with a semi-automatic weapon (as opposed to the "modern day equivalent of the colonial pistol" at issue in Parker, id. at 53), when these weapons are so easily accessable and are designed to kill so many people at once. Only punishing the killer is too late for those who have died, too late for their families and friends, too late for the witnesses who must relive what they saw for the rest of their lives, and does too little to recognize the social costs to society when these events occur.

April 23, 2007 at 6:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement