If there is one thing that upsets me about American society today, it's how poor we have become in regards to our own written and spoken language. There is one word that is constantly spelled incorrectly and can alter the entire meaning of a particular sentence or paragraph. Of course the reader can distinguish the correct version based on reading experience, but the writer needs to be held accountable for not knowing their own language.
The words that I'm specifically talking about are "your" and "you're". If you don't understand what each word means and what context it is used, I suggest you start reading more. I see it all of the time in text messages, emails, blogs, etc. A recent study on CNN stated that incorrect spellings and grammar in text messages, emails, and on blogs doesn't not transpose or reflect a person's actual ability, or inability, to spell or how intelligent they are. I don't believe this...not in the least bit. I have seen it and I know many of you have seen it...our country has embraced ignorance.
If you truly don't care whether your grammar is accurate or not, you have done more than disappoint me. Your actions reflect upon your teachers, your parents, yourself, your loved ones, and most importantly American society. How is the rest of the world supposed to respect us and take us seriosly when our own citizens misspell words and use incorrect grammar? When we pay more attention to blonde airheads in Hollywood than to our own Executive Branch of government? It sickens me to even be associated with people who are "fine" or "cool" with being ignorant. If you think that spelling and grammar are small problems you're gravely mistaken.
When you drive down the road you might see signs for businesses and certain advertisers. The replacement of the letter "s" by the letter "z" is one of the worst examples in recent times (Good Times VS Good TIMEZ). We are setting poor examples to young, vulnerable children that misspelling words is not only cool, but lucrative as well. It has a much bigger impact than you may possibly fathom.
I was playing basketball with this young 18, 19 year old kid. He had a tattoo that immediately grabbed my attention. I asked him, "What's Geto? Is that a name of a lost friend or something"?
He responded, "What? Hell nah man! Do you know how to spell"?
I then asked him, "What does it mean"?
"You can't read? It says geto (ghetto)," he snapped back.
"Well, if that's what it's supposed to say, it doesn't. It's spelled wrong. Ghetto has an "H" after the "G"".
He responded, "No it doesn't. Hey, Darrell! Come over here! This guy thinks that my tat is spelled wrong. Tell me, what does that say"? as he points to his tattoo.
"It says GHETTO baby! Hell yeah! What? This dude can't read"? laughed Darrell.
I looked for someone who appeared to have a brain and I asked them to read it aloud for me. It was some guy from the exercise bikes and he read it like I did, "Geto? What the hell is a GETO"?
"Wait, what? Are you guys sure"? he said.
"Yeah man. I'm sorry bro, but your tattoo is spelled wrong. Wow. You paid for that"? I asked.
"Yeah, I did. I told him to write GHETTO on my arm and told him what style of lettering to use. Damn man. Are you sure it's spelled wrong"? he asked.
"Yeah man. Sorry," I responded.
You see what I mean? I was ridiculed and laughed at because I knew the actual spelling of a very simple word and this guy didn't. Why do we ridicule intelligence and embrace stupidity? Some of you might say that this is not a real problem and that I shouldn't worry. I'm sorry, but I disagree. For as advanced as we are for a country, we have failed to properly and accurately educate ourselves. Knowledge and information is everywhere. It is available to almost every person in the United States; there is no excuse for lack of an educated citizenry.
As Americans, we need to quit making excuses for mistakes and shortcomings and we need to man up. Admit fault and correct that fault so that it doesn't happen again. We need to correct each other irregardless of how it makes the other person feel. They'll be a better person for it, trust me. Stop ignoring problems simply to "be nice". If you care about this country and the people living here, you need to encourage people to take responsibility for their actions. Ignorance is not bliss; it is the failure as a society to properly educate one another. If you care about this country as much as I do you'll decide to take action. Being indifferent merely adds to the problem.
Showing posts with label Guns University Washington Seattle Gun Control Ron Paul Election Obama Clinton Pacifist WWII War Economics Constitution United States Primary Hate Greed Racist Sexist Love George Carlin Tony Snow Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guns University Washington Seattle Gun Control Ron Paul Election Obama Clinton Pacifist WWII War Economics Constitution United States Primary Hate Greed Racist Sexist Love George Carlin Tony Snow Bush. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
"I Hate Politics!"
I love discussing politics. Whether I'm on break at work, at school, with a group of friends, on a date, having dinner, or standing in line for something, I love discussing politics. I have come in to contact with a few people who claim that they "hate politics". I always tell them that politics is, in fact, everything that goes on in your life. Hating politics is, in my view, a lazy excuse for not paying attention to things of important matter. If you go to the gas station to fuel up, the price of that gasoline and the taxes on your Sobe drink are all determined by politics. If you legally get married, politics played a part in your tax filing status and your tax exemptions. If you go to a park or a state park, politics plays a role as to what rules exist on that land, how much, if at all, it costs to enter, and whether that land exists or not. You see, politics just isn't what you see on CSPAN or observe on your local city council channel. Politics is "the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy". Governmental policy, in actuality, is everything that occurs in your daily life whether you like to admit it or not. If you buy a house and some property, you have to vote whether to approve higher taxes on your property to fund a new local library, a new school or school improvements, and are directly influenced by the increasing/decreasing value of your property. Politics is everywhere. So, with that being said, why do people hate discussing it and avoid the subject altogether? Well, to me, it's an issue of how much someone knows. I'll admit that I'm not the person to discuss botany with or how many square feet of material is needed for the production of a pair of jeans or a dress. However, those things are merely hobbies and not something that affects a vast number of people. Politics is something that exists for everyone and, therefore, affects everyone along some line. Here is where I come to my main argument. Feeling uncomfortable/non-interest while discussing politics means you haven't done your responsibility as a citizen. People complain about the price of gas, the price of food, etc. and yet do nothing to improve the situation. I can't explain why some people gripe and complain, yet do nothing about it. People complain that life is hard and that things are getting more and more expensive. Yet, I fail to see many of these people making decisions that would either help their situation or improve their overall quality of life.
Politics plays a role in your life whether you like it or not. I have no respect for people who avoid getting involved and merely complain about things as a means to their end. If I'm at a table eating a meal and the subject of politics comes up, I listen and, when I can, provide a response. If someone proposes a change of subject, that should be denied by others at the table. Political discussion is very important to the bettering of society and the future of this country. It's crucial that people start paying attention and learning as much as they possibly can about as many subjects as they possibly can.
I propose this solution: The hardest part is the start of your ambition to get involved in any political discussion. Start by merely listening. Listen to each person's point of view and listen to other people's responses or criticisms. This will allow you to see at least two different sides to the story and allow you to start developing your own point of view. A lot of the subjects covered during discussions are merely rhetorical. Stating a particular point, whatever it may be, can be persuaded with evidence. This is where research and reading come into play. I remember how difficult the Israeli-Palestinian situation was and how much I hated hearing people talk about it. However, all it took on my part was listening and a steady balance of reading current events and the history of the conflict. It all starts with listening.
Listening is the most important thing that you can do. The feeling of discomfort will happen, but it will happen less and less the more you learn and engage with discussions with other people. Nobody can hop onto a bicycle for the first time and ride without some struggle. This is a part of life and learning. You will slowly develop a level of comfort about certain subjects and may become bored or uninterested. This is where you can move on to another subject or propose the changing of the discussion subject. This will allow other people to discuss alternatives or a subject that they might know less about than you. Here is where you can influence other people and make an impression on them.
The process of learning never ends and is strengthened by people exchanging ideas and facts with each other.
What if someone refuses to discuss a topic? This is where listening is most important. If someone says that the current discussion of religion is making them uncomfortable, simply and nicely ask them, "Why"? Sometimes allowing someone to discuss their reasons for being uncomfortable towards a particular subject will allow them to get more comfortable with discussing the subject. After listening to them, state how much you appreciate their input. Approach your response with caution and try to strengthen what they said while, at the same time, formulating your own response. The most important thing that you must remember is to make the conversation as positive and constructive as possible. This possibility of this person engaging in discussions in the future relies on how well you handle what they say and how you respond.
You see, political discussion is extremely important for all people. Many people refuse to engage in it because of a lack of general knowledge on the subject, their discomfort of debating, or for fear of being proven wrong. These are many of the humps that I have had to overcome and it was a long and grueling process. However, it was only grueling for me because I choose to learn as much as I possibly could about as much as I could. This probably wasn't the best thing to do, but it allowed me to feel comfortable in almost all possible discussions.
Discussing Britney Spears, Pitt and Jolie's baby, etc. may pass time, but does nothing to improve the state of the world or your intellectual capacity. In actuality, it's rather quite regressive to your overall intellectual level. This is why I refuse to watch television. Sure, it helps to pass time and to entertain you, but its entire future and level of success depends on every one's continued and increased attention. This, in reality, decreases the time that could be devoting towards your family or to improving your intellectual capacity. I want you to learn as much as you possibly can and I feel that it is important for me to help you in that path. I would like to help out as many people as I possibly can and I understand what many of you are going through.
It is commonly known that the discussion of politics and religion are dangerous grounds to walk on at work and in the beginning of a relationship. However, I feel that it could be easily improved if people were able to accept some else's point of view while being able to state their own. This is one of the many reasons that the freedom of speech exists. Formulated ideas come from discussion and the challenging of one's own point of view. Challenging a view or belief can lead to a solution and the overall improvement of that person's life. There are drawbacks to this.
Not everything said is truthful and is merely rhetorical. That is why it is important to advance your level of understanding so that you can challenge another person's view. This will require you to read news and information that you may not typically agree with.
With the accessibility of information in this day in age, it is a sorry excuse to not know what is important. Sometimes doing what makes you happy and what you enjoy isn't beneficial to you or society. The progression of humankind relies on the ability of the people to expand their intellectual capacity, to challenge themselves, and to meet and exceed expectations. There is no excuse for not becoming an integral part of society and being a part of the motivating force behind its change. The future is not guaranteed...we must earn it by constantly challenging ourselves and doing what we can to improve the overall state of the world. Thank you and I urge you to get involved.
Politics plays a role in your life whether you like it or not. I have no respect for people who avoid getting involved and merely complain about things as a means to their end. If I'm at a table eating a meal and the subject of politics comes up, I listen and, when I can, provide a response. If someone proposes a change of subject, that should be denied by others at the table. Political discussion is very important to the bettering of society and the future of this country. It's crucial that people start paying attention and learning as much as they possibly can about as many subjects as they possibly can.
I propose this solution: The hardest part is the start of your ambition to get involved in any political discussion. Start by merely listening. Listen to each person's point of view and listen to other people's responses or criticisms. This will allow you to see at least two different sides to the story and allow you to start developing your own point of view. A lot of the subjects covered during discussions are merely rhetorical. Stating a particular point, whatever it may be, can be persuaded with evidence. This is where research and reading come into play. I remember how difficult the Israeli-Palestinian situation was and how much I hated hearing people talk about it. However, all it took on my part was listening and a steady balance of reading current events and the history of the conflict. It all starts with listening.
Listening is the most important thing that you can do. The feeling of discomfort will happen, but it will happen less and less the more you learn and engage with discussions with other people. Nobody can hop onto a bicycle for the first time and ride without some struggle. This is a part of life and learning. You will slowly develop a level of comfort about certain subjects and may become bored or uninterested. This is where you can move on to another subject or propose the changing of the discussion subject. This will allow other people to discuss alternatives or a subject that they might know less about than you. Here is where you can influence other people and make an impression on them.
The process of learning never ends and is strengthened by people exchanging ideas and facts with each other.
What if someone refuses to discuss a topic? This is where listening is most important. If someone says that the current discussion of religion is making them uncomfortable, simply and nicely ask them, "Why"? Sometimes allowing someone to discuss their reasons for being uncomfortable towards a particular subject will allow them to get more comfortable with discussing the subject. After listening to them, state how much you appreciate their input. Approach your response with caution and try to strengthen what they said while, at the same time, formulating your own response. The most important thing that you must remember is to make the conversation as positive and constructive as possible. This possibility of this person engaging in discussions in the future relies on how well you handle what they say and how you respond.
You see, political discussion is extremely important for all people. Many people refuse to engage in it because of a lack of general knowledge on the subject, their discomfort of debating, or for fear of being proven wrong. These are many of the humps that I have had to overcome and it was a long and grueling process. However, it was only grueling for me because I choose to learn as much as I possibly could about as much as I could. This probably wasn't the best thing to do, but it allowed me to feel comfortable in almost all possible discussions.
Discussing Britney Spears, Pitt and Jolie's baby, etc. may pass time, but does nothing to improve the state of the world or your intellectual capacity. In actuality, it's rather quite regressive to your overall intellectual level. This is why I refuse to watch television. Sure, it helps to pass time and to entertain you, but its entire future and level of success depends on every one's continued and increased attention. This, in reality, decreases the time that could be devoting towards your family or to improving your intellectual capacity. I want you to learn as much as you possibly can and I feel that it is important for me to help you in that path. I would like to help out as many people as I possibly can and I understand what many of you are going through.
It is commonly known that the discussion of politics and religion are dangerous grounds to walk on at work and in the beginning of a relationship. However, I feel that it could be easily improved if people were able to accept some else's point of view while being able to state their own. This is one of the many reasons that the freedom of speech exists. Formulated ideas come from discussion and the challenging of one's own point of view. Challenging a view or belief can lead to a solution and the overall improvement of that person's life. There are drawbacks to this.
Not everything said is truthful and is merely rhetorical. That is why it is important to advance your level of understanding so that you can challenge another person's view. This will require you to read news and information that you may not typically agree with.
With the accessibility of information in this day in age, it is a sorry excuse to not know what is important. Sometimes doing what makes you happy and what you enjoy isn't beneficial to you or society. The progression of humankind relies on the ability of the people to expand their intellectual capacity, to challenge themselves, and to meet and exceed expectations. There is no excuse for not becoming an integral part of society and being a part of the motivating force behind its change. The future is not guaranteed...we must earn it by constantly challenging ourselves and doing what we can to improve the overall state of the world. Thank you and I urge you to get involved.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Yet More Criticism
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer took my article and cut it down into the length of a "letter to the editor". In doing so, they removed the basic argument that I was trying to convey. My goal for writing this article was to persuade the University of Washington to consider changing their policy on concealed weapons on campus. However, they changed and manipulated it to the point where my letter made me appear as an overly-sensitive gun owner. I have written letters to the Seattle PI in the past and have had no complaints...until now. In the past, I wrote letters praising the Muckleshoot Tribe, urging the necessity of political focus towards global climate change, voter apathy, helping the Mexican economy, and my lack of faith in the available political candidates for the next presidential election. My views, in the items I just described, were a bit leftist. Apparently, the Seattle PI praises these types of views and gladly prints them. However, I do not consider myself a leftist-thinking individual and my article concerning concealed weapons on campus supports the fact that I am an individual who has a vast array of political beliefs. It is very difficult to place me into a certain political party or a certain sterotypical political group. After the events that have transpired I have no other choice but to believe that the Seattle PI does not print letters or articles that differ from their own political beliefs. However, they do print letters or articles from readers that have been manipulated with the hope of making conservative political views seem illogical, far-fetched, and open for public criticism. In doing so, the Seattle PI prints multiple letters to the editor criticizing the conservative letter or article, thus strengthening their own personal and unbalanced, liberal views. It wasn't until my article (printed in its entirety by the News Tribune and the University of Washington's THE DAILY...both extremely appreciated by me) was cut down into the length of a "letter to the editor" and manipulated to change the overall direction of the article, that I truly realized the true political nastiness that certain media outlets embrace and practice. How many letters did the Seattle PI receive that supported my views and wanted to let others know about this particular issue? We'll never know. The reason is simple: the Seattle PI only prints letters differing from their own political views with hopes of the "manipulated" letter angering their liberal readers and motivating them to write responses that belittle and reject the conservative views that they truly despise. I always used to scoff at the notion made by right-wing politicos that the media was, in fact, liberal or at least leftist thinking. I now understand this particular argument. The good thing about this is that I am not a leftist thinker, nor am I a conservative thinker. I embrace both sides and construct arguments that I feel represent the vast number of Americans who feel alienated by certain media outlets that openly embrace and display their right or left wing political views. What we have here is a clear example of distortion and manipulation by a historically proven newspaper supposedly not associated with either right or left-wing political views. This action speaks loudly to me and many others like myself who have experienced criticism and political thrashings due to unfair and unprofessional manipulations of the truth and political views. Below is yet another letter to the Seattle PI in opposition to my manipulated article.
Possessing a weapon will not keep you safe
The beliefs of Matthew Cornwall about allowing students to carry guns on college campuses are erroneous and dangerous (Monday letter).
Many believe that possessing a gun will keep them safe. Statistics generally prove the opposite. Unless you are trained in the use of deadly force, usually military or police kill-or-be-killed training, chances are you will have your own weapon used against you. That happens because you either hesitate, giving the assailant the advantage, or you pull the weapon and issue a threat instead of just shooting. Either scenario can get you killed by your own gun.
Add to that the real possibility of being prosecuted for murder if you can't prove self-defense or being sued for wrongful death by the victim's family or sued by the victim for injuries if you don't kill him. It happens every day.
Use of non-lethal weapons, such as pepper spray, give you a better chance for surviving an attack. Pepper spray will drop an attacker in his tracks; guns don't always stop an attacker before he can hurt you.
Dave Keizur
Renton
Possessing a weapon will not keep you safe
The beliefs of Matthew Cornwall about allowing students to carry guns on college campuses are erroneous and dangerous (Monday letter).
Many believe that possessing a gun will keep them safe. Statistics generally prove the opposite. Unless you are trained in the use of deadly force, usually military or police kill-or-be-killed training, chances are you will have your own weapon used against you. That happens because you either hesitate, giving the assailant the advantage, or you pull the weapon and issue a threat instead of just shooting. Either scenario can get you killed by your own gun.
Add to that the real possibility of being prosecuted for murder if you can't prove self-defense or being sued for wrongful death by the victim's family or sued by the victim for injuries if you don't kill him. It happens every day.
Use of non-lethal weapons, such as pepper spray, give you a better chance for surviving an attack. Pepper spray will drop an attacker in his tracks; guns don't always stop an attacker before he can hurt you.
Dave Keizur
Renton
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
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?
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?
Monday, May 26, 2008
Lowering the Drinking Age
I am posting a video that discusses the possibility of 7 states lowering the age to consume alcohol. I will post a poll to the right that will ask whether or not the United States should lower the drinking age. I hope to get some participation with this ongoing debate.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
My Article
I had my article printed in the Sunday, May 25th News Tribune. Please feel free to pick up a copy, read it, and comment based on your own personal views. I have included a copy of the article below.
Tacoma, WA - Sunday, May 25, 2008
Students with guns could save lives
MATTHEW THOMAS CORNWALL
Last updated: May 25th, 2008 01:25 AM (PDT)
I’m a junior at the University of Washington in Seattle. I also possess a concealed weapons permit and own a registered handgun.
With the tragedy at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University still fresh in my head, I cannot help but feel the need to protect myself.
Seung-Hui Cho succeeded in his mission to kill as many people as he possibly could – 33 to be exact, including himself.
He understood that he would be the only student with a gun and that he had plenty of time to act before the police were to arrive.
Let’s say, in hindsight, that students had been allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus.
If Cho had been fully aware that he wouldn’t be the only student with a gun, would he have chosen to act? Would this have been enough to prevent the deaths of 32 innocent students and professors last April?
The University of Washington send e-mails to students letting them know whenever a violent crime takes place anywhere near the campus. As much as this is appreciated, it does nothing to deter or prevent these acts of crime from taking place.
In April a weeklong protest called the Empty Holster Protest took place on campus. This was an attempt to urge university officials to change the current laws forbidding students to carry even licensed weapons on campus. Nothing changed.
I like to spend my after-class hours in the library reading and doing research. I usually don’t leave the library until 1 or 2 in the morning, and when I do it’s a one-mile walk home in the dark. If I own a registered handgun and possess a concealed weapons permit, I should have the right to protect myself as I see fit.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that I get shot and robbed after leaving the library early one morning. I could have protected myself but was unable to do so because the University of Washington does not allow weapons on campus.
Would the university accept the blame, knowing that I could have protected myself but wasn’t allowed to? Couldn’t because of its policy on weapons?
If a student carrying a licensed weapon had stopped Seung-Hui Cho’s killing spree, would the student carrying the handgun be punished or heralded as a hero?
Violent crimes involving guns are rarely carried out by responsible registered gun owners.
In fact, concealed weapons permit holders are five times less likely to commit a gun-related crime, according to the Journal of Legal Studies.
However, because we feel the need to protect ourselves we are viewed as gun-toting, right-wing nuts. This assumption couldn’t be further from the truth.
Criminals successfully attack citizens because many of them refuse to protect themselves and easily give in to a criminal’s demands.
If more responsible citizens were to carry handguns, it would lower crime rates drastically.
By not protecting ourselves we are enabling criminals.
Is the University of Washington willing to empower its students in order to prevent another massacre like Columbine, Virginia Tech or Northern Illinois? Or its leaders willing to gamble their reputation on the ignorance of their trust?
Matthew Thomas Cornwall is a Puyallup High School graduate.
Originally published: May 25th, 2008 01:25 AM (PDT
Tacoma, WA - Sunday, May 25, 2008
Students with guns could save lives
MATTHEW THOMAS CORNWALL
Last updated: May 25th, 2008 01:25 AM (PDT)
I’m a junior at the University of Washington in Seattle. I also possess a concealed weapons permit and own a registered handgun.
With the tragedy at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University still fresh in my head, I cannot help but feel the need to protect myself.
Seung-Hui Cho succeeded in his mission to kill as many people as he possibly could – 33 to be exact, including himself.
He understood that he would be the only student with a gun and that he had plenty of time to act before the police were to arrive.
Let’s say, in hindsight, that students had been allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus.
If Cho had been fully aware that he wouldn’t be the only student with a gun, would he have chosen to act? Would this have been enough to prevent the deaths of 32 innocent students and professors last April?
The University of Washington send e-mails to students letting them know whenever a violent crime takes place anywhere near the campus. As much as this is appreciated, it does nothing to deter or prevent these acts of crime from taking place.
In April a weeklong protest called the Empty Holster Protest took place on campus. This was an attempt to urge university officials to change the current laws forbidding students to carry even licensed weapons on campus. Nothing changed.
I like to spend my after-class hours in the library reading and doing research. I usually don’t leave the library until 1 or 2 in the morning, and when I do it’s a one-mile walk home in the dark. If I own a registered handgun and possess a concealed weapons permit, I should have the right to protect myself as I see fit.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that I get shot and robbed after leaving the library early one morning. I could have protected myself but was unable to do so because the University of Washington does not allow weapons on campus.
Would the university accept the blame, knowing that I could have protected myself but wasn’t allowed to? Couldn’t because of its policy on weapons?
If a student carrying a licensed weapon had stopped Seung-Hui Cho’s killing spree, would the student carrying the handgun be punished or heralded as a hero?
Violent crimes involving guns are rarely carried out by responsible registered gun owners.
In fact, concealed weapons permit holders are five times less likely to commit a gun-related crime, according to the Journal of Legal Studies.
However, because we feel the need to protect ourselves we are viewed as gun-toting, right-wing nuts. This assumption couldn’t be further from the truth.
Criminals successfully attack citizens because many of them refuse to protect themselves and easily give in to a criminal’s demands.
If more responsible citizens were to carry handguns, it would lower crime rates drastically.
By not protecting ourselves we are enabling criminals.
Is the University of Washington willing to empower its students in order to prevent another massacre like Columbine, Virginia Tech or Northern Illinois? Or its leaders willing to gamble their reputation on the ignorance of their trust?
Matthew Thomas Cornwall is a Puyallup High School graduate.
Originally published: May 25th, 2008 01:25 AM (PDT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)