Letters to the Editor

Gun editorial exemplifies disturbing trend

Tuesday's editorial, "Gun makers should be liable for shootings," was a symptom of a disturbing trend in America. The idea that people should be held responsible for their actions is coming increasingly under attack. A few years ago, the New Orleans court would have thrown out this lawsuit against gun manufacturers. Now it is seen as a logical next step from the tobacco trial.

The tobacco lawsuits are a good parallel to the gun trial because the issue involved is essentially the same: both industries are being sued for selling dangerous products and are being held liable for the damage caused by them. Like the tobacco trial, this trial is an assault on the fundamental concept of individual responsibility. The liability of the people who actually smoked the cigarettes or pulled the triggers is considered irrelevant. Consider the logical results of this reasoning. Shall we hold manufacturers of cars with poor safety records responsible for the extra injuries their customers suffer? Shall we hold McDonald's liable for heart attacks? Shall we hold the fertilizer industry liable for Oklahoma City?

The scary thing is that these examples are not as far-fetched as they once were. There is already talk of going after the alcohol industry, and other industries cannot be far behind. If this trend continues, the result will be increased prices on anything even remotely dangerous, and every businessman in the country will live in fear of one of his products being declared unsafe and him being ruined by an enormous lawsuit.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. It is a cliche, but it is nonetheless true, and it needs to be remembered. When a crime is committed with a handgun, the solution is to arrest the person who committed the crime, not to sue the company that manufactured the gun.

Tim Lee,sophomore, Institute of Technology

Band objectifies women's bodies

We wonder why the Daily feels compelled to support a band that dehumanizes women. In the Oct. 29 issue of A&E, Amy Carlson reviewed "The Odd," a band known to be largely offensive to women. A band whose songs objectify women's bodies with titles like "Wet Pussy" and promote unsafe and violent streets with songs like "Street Fuck." There are so many excellent bands in the world and in the Twin Cities area that do not use language and images that exploit women. We think the disclaimer that the "songs are really in honor of women" is insulting and ridiculous. We are sure you are aware of the fact that pornographers suggest that they are "honoring" women also. If the Daily knows women "are offended by them," then why do you support them and give them free advertising? Is it because you know that exploiting women sells and you as a paper can profit? When will the Daily take a stand and support all female students? Why do you continue to participate in negative representation of women?

Stacy Greenfield,Janet al'Azar,Cindy Timmer,Jennifer Simmelink,Elizabeth Diaz,staff members, Minnesota Women's Center

Cartoon wrongly stereotypes Christians

It would be upsetting if it were not so laughably simplistic. The not-so-subtle suggestion Pete Wagner made in last Friday's cartoon is that all Christians are engaged in violently anti-life activities. Let's look at it mathematically. Even if I grant you that the shooter is a Christian (which I'm pretty sure he's not), that's one out of millions! I'm waiting for your cartoonist to display this week's examples of ignorance and stereotypes:

ù Afro-Americans.kom (complete with gangster rap and drive-by shootings)

ù Native-Americans.kom (tee-pees and feathers or tomahawks and mohawks)

These stereotypes are equally inaccurate and equally inflammatory. Editors, what would you do if those cartoons appeared before you on their way to print? How could such a cartoon appear in the newspaper of the University that preaches the doctrine of not harboring or promoting stereotypes?

Jaime Gathje, M. Ed.,adult special, pre-med