Letters to the Editor

Guns can stop crime

The Second Amendment is an individual right. An analysis of what the founding fathers wrote in drafts of the Bill of Rights make it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is granted to the people, not the militia. The rest of the Bill of Rights, with the exception of the 10th Amendment, grants individual rights, not collective rights. So why should the Second be any different?

An independent statistical analysis of crime rates covering all of the counties in the United States over an 18-year period was performed by John Lott of the University of Chicago. He found that concealed-carry permits reduce crime rates. Gun control statisticians using selected subsets of his data have only been able to show that they do not increase crime rates. The cities with the strictest gun control have some of the highest crime rates. Chicago bans all handguns, but violent crime is endemic. Washington, D.C., bans almost all guns. In Richmond, Va., existing gun laws such as the five-year prison term for possessing a gun during a felony were enforced, and both total crime and the use of guns during crime commission plummeted.

The experiences of England and Australia are good examples of severe restrictions. In England, 40 percent of burglaries occur while the residents are home. In the United States, the rate is only 12 percent. The reason is that the possible presence of firearms has a deterrent effect. In Australia, since its ban and collection of most firearms, armed robbery has increased 44 percent, and in the state of Victoria, murder is up 18 percent, and murder with guns up 300 percent.

Legal gun ownership is not the problem. Guns aren't the problem. Inanimate objects don't shoot people. The problem is criminals with illegal guns.

Karl Dahm,graduate student,Institute of Technology

Professors understand the 'real world'

I do not understand why Chris Trejbal believes that professors and university students are insulated from the real world, which he illustrated in his column in Tuesday's Daily, "Growing up is more than a haircut." What aspects of reality do they miss, simply by having the opportunity to reflect in classes upon wider issues that go beyond the immediacy of everyday life? All of the professors and students I know have dealt with real-life issues, such as illness, death, paying bills and taking care of one's apartment or house. Also, most have or will have the experiences of bearing and raising children and visiting or living in other countries. Many professors and students have been victims of crime, have at some stage of their lives held part-time jobs and have at times not known where the next paycheck was coming from.

Some professors and students have served in the military. Others have worked for extended times in struggling parts of the world. I am at a loss to find what kinds of experiences "real people" have that professors and students miss out on by spending the greater portion of each day at a university.

I am also puzzled as to why Trejbal seems to think it is somehow more grown up to want a strong military and to want to protect one's BMW than to want to restrain one's greed and work to make the world a better and more peaceful place. To face reality squarely and still aspire to have a positive effect on the world seems to me to be a vision of maturity that I much prefer. Although it is true that it requires enormous strength, courage, compassion and wisdom to live this way, I always thought that a higher education (especially in philosophy, Trejbal's own field) could help build these characteristics, if learned in the right spirit.

I wish Trejbal well as he ventures off in search of more reality.

Laura Rediehs,alumna,philosophy