Responses to My Article

I've had a lot of responses to my article that was printed in 3 separate newspapers (News Tribune, The Daily, and the Seattle PI). They printed 3 letters that were a direct response to my article. I also had a fellow University of Washington student respond to my article with one of her own. I'll post them here in their entirety.



Letters to the Editor
WEAPONS AT UW


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Campus full of gun-toting students won't make it safer

This is response to Matthew Thomas Cornwall's Monday letter. Having a campus full of gun-toting students will not make the University of Washington campus safer. The very idea is absurd. To use a simile with car safety: Air bags occasionally suffocate and kill people when activated. But far more lives are saved by air bags than die because of them. But because there are cases of accidental death from air bags, no one would suggest manufacturing cars without them.

Countries that have strict gun control laws and outright handgun bans have a fraction of the gun-related violence compared with the United States. More guns make situations more dangerous. That is obvious. Cornwall is far more likely to die driving his car to campus than to be assaulted by a gun-wielding lunatic on campus.

If the gun is really for safety reasons, it would make more sense for Cornwall to give up driving and worry less about villains on campus. Even if he did have a gun when assaulted, that does not necessary mean his life would have been spared.

John Whitmore
Maple Valley

Having more guns doesn't equal less shooting

Matthew Thomas Cornwall makes the tired claim that "violent crimes involving guns are not carried out by responsible, registered gun owners." Let's leave out the "responsible" part for a moment and look at "registered." Seung-Hui Cho was a registered gun owner, who purchased his two firearms via legal means. And the alleged shooter at Folklife managed to purchase one in a legal way. If you want to talk about "responsible" gun owners, then describe what makes someone responsible -- someone who doesn't use his gun in a violent crime? I don't have a firearm, and have never committed a violent crime -- so that makes me a responsible ... what, exactly?

To quote the FBI: "Among handgun homicides, only ... 2.3 percent ... were classified as justifiable homicides by civilians."

If you own a handgun, you are three times more likely to either kill or be killed by a member of your own household than in homes where there are no guns present.

When do more guns somehow equal less shooting?

Here's a thought: Maybe if we weren't afraid of everyone, we wouldn't think it necessary to purchase handguns. Why is it, in the most advanced industrial society on Earth, we kill each other in such numbers?

I prefer that we have more places where guns are banned. Keep campuses free of weapons, legal or otherwise. And yes, I'm a naïve liberal.

Sten Ryason
Seattle

State law does not require registration

I found Mathew Thomas Cornwall's letter one of the most clearly written on the subject of guns on college campuses that I have read in a long time. I agree with nearly every thing said. I am curious about one thing, though.

Cornwall states that he owns a "registered handgun." Washington state law does not require the registry of any handgun, so with whom is his firearm registered?

Dene Leach
Kent

Advocating vigilantism won’t increase safety

ASHLEY FENT Puyallup
Published: May 31st, 2008 12:00 AM
“Students with guns could save lives” (Insight, 5-25).

As a fellow student at the University of Washington, I find Matthew Thomas Cornwall’s “solution” to violence extremely troubling.

First, for someone so concerned for his own safety, he completely fails to mention university services like Husky NightWalk, which provides a police escort for those afraid for their safety. These services are not perfect, but if student safety is truly a concern, Cornwall should work with the UW police to improve these programs rather than advocate student vigilantism.

Second, his proposed “safety” measures make campus unsafe for many students who feel that guns facilitate violence. Like many universities, UW has been working to increase safety precautions in the wake of violent campus crimes. The time and money that would be required for university officials to ensure that weapons are properly registered would be better spent on campuswide programs to protect all students.

There are many alternatives to arming students: walking with friends, calling for a police escort, taking self-defense classes that provide strategies for avoiding conflict. And while working together for a safer campus, we must also address more pervasive forms of violence in this society – the violence of racism, sexism and heterosexism, the violence of war and the violence of poverty.

This is a response to her article from an avid News Tribune reader:

Ashley, you’re a little fuzzy on vigilantism. A vigilante is someone who illegally usurps the powers of law enforcement and judges. A legally armed citizen is someone exercising a constitutional right for self defense in total accordance with federal, state and local laws (even if the worst happens and they are forced to take a life).
Matt most likely can’t see the sense in paying taxes for a man who has a gun and has been trained in how and when to use it to protect him (part time, on campus) when he can buy a gun, a permit, and training in how and when to use it and have protection 24/7 nearly everywhere in the state (without a 15 minute response time).
You aren’t complaining about the armed citizens like Matt that you walk past every day off campus. What profound transformation occurs when they step on campus that makes them dangerous despite years of safe carry? What is the difference between walking past Matt on the sidewalk and sitting with him in a lecture hall - except that (under the current rules) if some madman were to open fire on the street, Matt would be armed and could try to stop him (either succeeding and saving your life or at least drawing fire and making your escape easier), whereas if the madman showed up in class all Matt could do is die beside you. Matt isn't demanding that you exercise your right to self defense, he's asking permission to exercise his right.
The actual level of safety on campus is what’s important, not the perception of safety of a group of students who can ignore pertinent facts like the successful history of campus carry in Utah and Colorado, the insignificant crime rates of carry permit holders or the reduction of violent crime in every state that passes carry laws.
The state already handles permits (with background checks and fingerprints) and registration, everything needed except a UW memo and paper for copies of permits in student and teacher files.
Matt offered a solution to a problem, and I’ll give you the same chance.
How, exactly, would anything you’ve mentioned have kept you alive if you were in that VT classroom when Cho entered?