Editor:
I am writing in response to Ed Stevenson's Oct. 24 column, "If cops need guns, so do I."
Consider for a moment Stevenson's argument on firearms: Police have the right to carry guns, their right to carry guns comes from the people, we are the people, therefore we have the right to carry guns.
Let's see how his line of argument would apply elsewhere. President Bush has the right to veto a bill, his right to veto a bill comes from the people-we are the people, so therefore, we have the right to veto a bill.
An exaggerated example, but one I think that makes my point. Clearly, we have people within our society who, by some form of consent, perform particular functions that entitle them to certain privileges-police carry guns, firemen carry axes, presidents veto bills.
What Stevenson fails to address in his argument is that with those entitlements come responsibilities that I'm certain he'd rather not have to deal with. Police carry guns because we've asked them to place themselves in dangerous circumstances to protect the community from violent crime.
Can they prevent crime? No more than a doctor can prevent sickness. Stevenson's fallacy of argument, however, is the least offensive part of his column.
Full of oversimplification, vague reference and appeals to hypothetical consequence, his piece is distracting noise that shifts attention away from real issues surrounding crime prevention.
Criminal activity decreases when a community is socially and economically unified, not when they are fractured by paranoia and a fear of the "other" (I'm curious to know who the "big guy" with a gun is).
Saying that the answer to crime is to give everyone a gun is like saying the answer to hunger is to give everyone a fish. Guns don't promote safety-they reaffirm a violent society.
If Stevenson is genuinely interested in making his community, and his campus, a safer place, he should get involved in organizations that actively address real issues-not just noisy rhetoric.
Daniel Patterson
Senior, English
