OCR Text |
Show Your Opinion PAGE 4 c MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2005 k s>c STRAIGHTS ONL7 i Errinjulkunen Editor-at-Large, John Ditzler Opinions Editor/NetXNews Bush fails to aid tsunami victims appropriately Aaron Bryan Opinions Wnter Dec. 26, 2004 brought to eleven southeastern Asian nations a wave of disaster. The largest earthquake in forty years caused the earth's rotation to change slightly and shortened the day fractionally. But it also sent out from its epicenter a huge tsunami that wiped out entire cities in Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. The wave went so far as to hit Kenya off the eastern tip of Africa. To date, 150,000 are dead and millions more have been displaced from their homes. Three days later President Bush announced that the United States would pledge $35 million in relief aid. Within a week, the United States had multiplied their initial pledge of $35 million ten fold. Other countries, including Japan, Canada, Aus- Wednesday, three full days after have much manpower, money, tralia and others have pledged the disaster to pledge support? and supplies pouring in, but did millions of dollars in relief aid. the US fumble? UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called upon In time Uk Why did President Bush wait until * * *ese' all nations to respond 1 we must think about to this "unprecedented Wednesday, three full days after the w n y w e are doing disaster with an unprecdisaster to pledge support? And why what we are doing. edented response." originally only $35 million? Could the US Surely President Bush, So far, the response ° ' as well as others had has been overwhelmresponse be too little tOO late? heard about the diing. But it didn't seem so at first. For instance, why saster the day of, or Could the US response since did President Bush wait until shortly thereafter. Why didn't be too little too late? Indeed we they react more quickly? Kofi "Tsunami relier' cont'd on page 5 Faculty Corner • •• 1 'Guns or butter: concealed weapons at UVSC David R. Keller characters in Gus Van Sant's Associate Professor of Philosophy Faculty Guest Contributer The only place guns have at UVSC is in discussions about possibility curves in economics classes. As a faculty member, I concur with the majority opinion of my colleagues, who endorsed in a Faculty Senate by a 2-to-l margin, the University of Utah's ban on firearms. And while UVSC Chief of Police Tracy Marrott and I differ on the issue of the private ownership of guns in general, we agree that concealed weapons have no place on campus (The College Times, 'November 29, 2004). Campus is not the right place for the general pubic to carry concealed weapons for at least. two reasons. First, it is extremely dubious that the presence of armed citizens makes campuses "safer" Imagine a scenario in which shooters, like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, or the movie Elephant, open fire at school. The image that comes to mind is utter chaos, with scores of students, faculty, and staff dashing for cover in every direction. If the attack occurred in an auditorium or stadium, that number would be hundreds or thousands. In such a situation, Senator James Evans believes the presence of armed civilians would be beneficial. As he puts it, "I wonder if a janitor or teacher at Columbine had a concealed weapon how many children's lives would have been saved." Unfortunately, such optimism is dangerously misplaced. Attackers are not likely to be standing alone out in the open, providing an easy target. Rather, they probably would be in the midst of a panicking crowd. An armed citizen would have to evaluate such a rapidly changing scenario in a split second, and be incredibly accurate in discharging a weapon to avoid accidentally shooting an Courtesy of Cincinnatti Post innocent person near or behind the attacker. The decision to open fire in a complex situation in flux requires exhaustive training and skill. It is the kind of intensive training and experience that we require of our law-enforcement officers and military personnel. And it is precisely the kind of training a teacher, janitor, or the vast majority of people with concealed weapon permits are unlikely to have. Simply obtaining a permit hardly prepares one for hitting a moving target in a chaotic crowd. In fact, the claim made by W. Clark Aposhian, the Chairman of the Self Defense Instructors Network-that there is nothing to fear from law-abiding citizens with guns-could not be farther from the truth. A firefight between a criminal and an armed civilian increases the potential for carnage, instead of decreasing it. Thus I was hardly comforted by the gun-toting UVSC's students claim in The College Times that he was "protecting" me in the most harmless of ways: "As I walked around on campus I felt powerful and dangerous, even though I posed no threat of any kind. It was a cool feeling, a thrill[.] And yet, I was not breaking laws, I didn't put anyone in danger. I was protecting them. I had 10 little guardian angels: ten .40 caliber, hollow pointed angels waiting to protect them" (op. cit, December 5, 2004). And despite the best of intentions, if a person inadvertently kills an innocent by- "The Faculty Comer" is a new addition to the College Times in 2005. If you are an employee of UVSC and want to write an op-ed piece for The College Times contact us at uvscopinions@hQtmail.com; stander, she or he could be tried to rebuff the British's wellfor manslaughter. This realizaequipped infantry. The best hope tion is presumably the rationale was the formation of a militia of the Jordon School District to from the ranks of an armed renounce liability of the actions civilian population. of armed employees. So the intention of the Second Amendment was to ensure As police chief Marrott says, the existence of a well-regulated "We have police officers on militia to protect Americans campus, we have them around from invading foreign forces, campus, this is a learning envinot to protect us from one anronment...it's not a place where other. The right we need to bear arms guns, and An armed citizen does not equal with the rash the right to bear of school vi- would have to evaluarms at all times olence, there ate such a rapidly in all places. is no reason to make changing scenario in In the end, weapons a split second, and be the preposterous available" claim popularincredibly accurate in ized by John R. (The College Times, discharging a weapon Lott and othNovember that "more to avoid accidentally ers 29, 2004). guns mean less shooting an innocent violence" is Second, based on twisted assertions to person near or behind logic. If we are the contrary the attacker,,. And really serious notwithstandabout reducing despite the best of ing, it is far possibility from clear intentions, if a person the of violence at that banning inadvertently kills an schools, then concealed k innocent bystander, we should act weapons to increase the from camshe or he could be number armed puses is a tried for manslaugh- professionals on violation of campus, rather constitutional ter. _______ than incorrectly rights. The assuming that a wording of heavily-armed citizenry is up to the Second Amendment, which states, "A well regulated militia, the challenge. being necessary to the security When it comes guns at of a free state, the right of the UVSC, keep them to questions people to keep and bear arms, about "guns or butter" in the shall not be infringed," must be classroom. taken in context. At the time of its framing, the patriots needed desperately |