Hard to believe that shootings occurred with gun policy in place

I refuse to believe that the College of Nursing shootings actually happened. Guns aren't allowed on campus.

Steven R. Link
AGTM senior

Chechen rebels not the victims in Russian hostage situation

Once again I find myself at odds with Mariam Durrani's latest rant (Tuesday, "Choke the fire before it burns the house down"). When she speaks of the 50 Chechen rebels who died, she speaks as if they are innocent non-combatants dying at the hands of the evil Russians. This is not the case. The Chechens collectively have initiated a civil war, thereby making themselves combatants.

If a person is a combatant, their lives should only be mourned by their families, friends and country. They chose their path, and now they must face the consequences. Simply because they choose to fight a guerilla- style war ÷ the most effective for those in their position ÷ does not mean they are any more oppressed than those they are fighting.

However, when they begin to attack civilians, they become terrorists, Muslim or not. To defend their position (what Ms. Durrani did) on any ground once they have committed acts of aggression against non-combatants (i.e. civilians) just justifies their heinous crimes.

Furthermore, the creation of another Muslim state is not what this world needs. It is quite obvious that the supposed "religion of peace" is one of the most destructive forces this planet has seen in modern times! More people have been blown to tiny pieces in the name of Allah than those who died in the Persian War. For shame.

Silas Montgomery
history and Judaic studies freshman

Supporting capital punishment the same as valuing human life

I am writing this letter in response to Jason Baran's Monday article, "Old Sparky is man's best friend." Thank God. I finally know that someone on this ultra-liberal campus has a brain. I value human life and it is for that reason that I whole-heartedly support the death penalty.

Make it as "humane" as you wish, but Mr. Flores was not very humane when he shot and killed those three professors, not only taking their lives, but the happiness of those who loved them, their future contributions to a civilized and educated world, and psychologically scarring the people who had to watch them die. Think of those you love, and then think of how you would feel if they were cut down in a flash of violence.

If we do nothing for fear of harming the innocent, then we are all guilty. The innocent are hurt everyday ÷ be it the man who was wrongfully sentenced to prison, or the man you shortchanged at the register. People who have killed have given up their right to life, and they will kill again.

I believe in our justice system. We do not keep the citizens of America safe by letting people who commit murder soak up our tax dollars while spending a lifetime in prison. In a world already considering issues like overpopulation, I do not tolerate even the mere existence of those who would do me, those I love or the country I love harm, be they citizen or terrorist or anyone else. The punishment should fit the crime.

Josiah S. White
linguistics junior

Studies show that areas with gun control laws are less safe

Nick Ray's opinion as stated in Wednesday's letter "Argument for gun control on campus buoyed by shooting" may help prepare him for a future in politics, but it sure doesn't win any points for logic. He claims that, if not for the UA's "weapon free" policy, faculty would have to be nervous about every student that became frustrated with a grade or angry for any other reason. Huh? Was that policy not in effect this last week? Has it not been in futile effect every time there is a shooting or other incident of criminal misuse of a weapon on campus?

This wasn't the first time a criminal has ignored those little signs, and Nick is at least correct in opining that it certainly won't be the last. He may want to explain how yet another failure of the university's supposed weapon ban somehow reinforces the notion that said policy accomplishes anything besides establishing a notorious "disarmed victim" zone. The idea that anyone who has made the decision to commit murder and mayhem would be deterred in any way by a "gun free" policy and sign is simple kindergarten level naivety.

Compare that fuzzy-feel-good wishing to the many verifiable studies ÷ which, to date, gun control advocates have still been unable to disprove ÷ that show that wherever law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry defensive weapons, violent crime drops drastically. According to one study, multiple-victim public shootings are the type of crime most deterred by the presence of armed citizens ÷ declining by 84 percent in areas where such carry laws have taken effect.

So on the one hand, we have the current head-in-the-sand policy, which has repeatedly failed to accomplish anything, but that makes people who don't know any better and don't want to think about it feel safe ÷ and on the other hand, we have a proven idea that actually works, but which makes people who don't know any better and don't want to think about it feel less safe. Feelings or reality ÷ which one really makes more sense to you?

Scott Benjamin s
enior staff technician, optical sciences

Less gun control, not more, needed in light of shootings

I am writing in response to Nick Ray's Wednesday letter titled, "Argument for gun control on campus buoyed by shooting." I must be confused. Is Nick arguing that the ban of weapons on campus somehow worked? Interesting. The headline I saw read, "3 profs dead after shooting." I wish Nick would join me in reality: The campus ban on guns didn't stop a criminal from bringing a weapon to campus. Instead it stopped peaceful, gun-owning, law-abiding citizens from carrying guns for the protection of themselves and others.

It is now known that the victims feared that they were in danger of violent retribution by the killer. Perhaps they would've carried handguns for protection, were it not for the ban. It's not a stretch. My mother has carried a handgun in her purse for years.

Let us consider a hypothetical comparison. In the first, guns are banned on campus and students abide by the rule. In the second, guns are not banned on campus and one in ten students keeps a handgun in a holster on his or her belt. In which situation would a killer be best able to assert his will on a classroom? Recall that the man who shot the professors was well armed, and could easily have shot every student in the classroom if he desired.

Lastly, I am disappointed that a political science graduate student doesn't understand the political significance of an armed populous. I believe, much like the framers of the Constitution, that an armed populous is the difference between oppression and revolution. It's said clearly in the Constitution: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Let's get rid of the campus ban on weapons.

Benjamin Tanner
microbiology and immunology graduate student

Only natural for students and teachers to feel fear in addition to grief after shootings

President Likins was certainly correct in explaining that we must distinguish between the grief of an isolated incident and the fear of terrorism. What happened Monday was in no way an act of terrorism. Does this mean, however, that there is no reason to have fear in the classroom?

Robert Flores reportedly suffered from depression, was having problems with his personal life, and was upset over failing grades. His answer to his problems was to kill three of his teachers before taking his own life. Are teachers not supposed to fear this kind of reaction from their students?

I'm currently teaching an introductory class with nearly 100 students registered. Due to the size of the class and my own studies, I hardly have the time to get to know all my students as I would wish to do. I have no way to even start to determine if any of my students are suffering with any problems with the class unless they approach me.

So, of course, I have fear. When I record a failing grade for a student, am I not supposed to look over my back wondering if I failed the wrong person? If I make a test too hard or if someone misses a test, am I supposed to assume that the person who feels unjustly wronged is completely sane?

I'd certainly like to believe that of 35,000 students at the UA, 35,000 would not go kill their teachers when upset about their grades. But as Monday showed, it only takes one student who steps over the line to end the lives of three teachers. What if the number of students at the UA who would not kill over their grades is 34,998? What if I am the next person to fail the second student?

I agree with President Likins; do not fear terrorism ÷ Monday was an isolated incident. Do not assume, however, that these incidents will never happen again and we, students and teachers alike, should have no fear.

Michael Brooks
computer science master's student

Vote ÎYes' on Prop. 303; just say ÎNo' to gambling propositions 200, 201 and 202

The Arizona Lottery is one of a diminishing number of income resources for education, transportation and conservation. Since the Legislature refuses to raise taxes, insists on giving breaks to communication giants and foils our existing tax dollars on ridiculous programs like alternative fuel subsidies, there are not many options remaining to generate state income.

Granted, the one option that does remain is cutbacks. Unfortunately, the Arizona state government never cuts back where it should. It never votes to reduce administrative salaries, expensive technologies or corporate subsidies; it trims the fat by removing benefits from children, subordinate state employees and conservation efforts. If we remove the lottery, the burden of the budget crisis augments.

Wildcat columnists have argued that the lottery is "just another one-armed bandit" that it is nothing more than "racketeering" ( Wednesday, "Issue of the Week: The future of the Arizona Lottery"). In 1963, New Hampshire voted to adopt the first legal lottery in the country. Opponents confronted the legislature with the same arguments that some Wildcat columnists espoused. Since racketeering by definition involves badgering patrons into buying, selling, or voting, the lottery cannot simply be written off as such.

The truth is that the lottery is a voluntary means for generating revenue for state-supported educational purposes; no one is harassed into purchasing lottery tickets by the state. And the lottery is not "just another one-armed bandit." Slot machines and the lottery (including scratch-off tickets) operate by a completely different set of rules. The lottery is a fixed machine, dependent only on ticket sales or predetermined odds and outcomes in the case of "scratchers." Slot machines rely on maximizing profits by rewarding "wins" at a rate that provokes the user to spend more money. While an individual has better odds at making a "win" on a slot machine, the payout rarely exceeds a 1:2 ratio.

Finally, if you really want to fight against gambling, vote "no" on all three propositions regarding Indian gaming. It should be up to tribal government and the people of the tribes to dictate their own laws, not up to compacts made between Jane Hull, greyhound tracks, and a few selective tribes. Arizona should not be involved in tribal government affairs. If the state independently wants to legalize slot machine gambling, that is fine, but a new proposition is needed that excludes all interference with Indian Gaming. Vote "No" on Propositions 200, 201, and 202. Haven't we taken enough away from Arizona Indians?

Christopher Marcum
sociology junior