Argument irresponsible
Stephen Carroll
freshman
In Monday's issue of The Observer, Anna Barbour wrote a column calling gun control a wasted argument. I started reading with an open mind, thinking there might be a well-reasoned argument somewhere but what I found was senseless dribble from a gun nut.
The article ended with Barbour saying, "Once everyone has a PFA [gun], walking around with it slung over his or her shoulder, life will be so much more pleasant."
All through the article I was looking for some redeeming value to it but I found nothing. I was expecting the end to say something like: "This is what I would expect someone against gun control to say and they are all blabbering morons." Unfortunately, I found no such thing. I have never heard of someone taking such an extreme view toward anti-gun legislation.
So my mom and dad should send me to school packing an uzi just to protect me from my fellow classmates? Heck, lets give guns to five-year-olds who don't know better. If they shoot themselves its sad, but hey, at least they are protected from everyone else who packs.
Lets make guns available to the mentally ill, criminals and kids who want to shoot up schools. Who cares if there is another Columbine? I don't mind seeing 15 of my classmates die while pleading for my own life.
In case you didn't notice, that last paragraph was full of obvious sarcasm toward Barbour's viewpoint. This is exactly the sort of world she advocated when she wrote this piece because she advocated guns be available to anyone and everyone.
You might wonder where my statistics are to back up my claims that having more availability to guns will be a threat to society. I think I really don't need any statistics since that last paragraph obviously sums up a lot of the problems with allowing anyone and everyone to have a gun.
This idea of giving guns to everyone so you can feel safe just because you know everyone packs is not exactly new. My dad told me of an episode of an old television show called "All in the Family." The main character was named Archie Bunker and he was probably television's first Homer Simpson. Archie said that a way to prevent airplane hijackings would be to give everyone a gun as they boarded the plane. This way, anyone thinking of hijacking the plane would think twice because they knew that everyone had a gun. Of course he was joking. I saw no hint of humor in Barbour's column.
This article was so irresponsible in its viewpoint that I also question the editorial decision to run the article. If the point of it was to start a conversation over gun control then it has accomplished its purpose but there are other less extreme and more responsible ways to start conversations.
No one denies that, as the author says, "it's a jungle out there" and crime does happen. Gun control as it exists today is far from perfect, but the solution is not to give guns to everyone. You might condemn me for pretty much slandering the author. The author might also consider this letter offensive. My response to that is that her viewpoint article was equally as offensive for displaying such a reckless disregard for human life by advocating the "let's give guns to all" view.
Gun control definitely has a place in this society because it prevents needless deaths from too many firearms being available to the wrong people. Advocating more guns is not the answer, preventing them from getting into the wrong hands is the answer. You might debate about which way to go about gun control but don't say that gun control is pointless. Try telling that to the parents of the students killed at Columbine. If the author really believes her own press then she would be able to do one thing: Look them in the eye, tell them that gun control is a "wasted argument," and see how far she would get.
Stephen Carroll
freshman
Knott Hall
April 9, 2001
All Viewpoint Stories for Thursday, April 12, 2001
