Community building needed to prevent further atrocities

This letter is with respect to the horrible incident that occurred in the College of Nursing. Robert Stewart Flores Jr. stated, "The university is filled with too many people who are filled with hubris. They feel untouchable. Students are not given respect nor regard." I completely disagree. I must assert that my experiences at the UA have been nothing but positive.

I was a sub-par high school student prior to entering college. The enthusiasm and support from the faculty and staff at the UA allowed me to gain the confidence to become an effective college student. Furthermore, the students at the UA are unbelievably nice and fun.

Too often, people refuse to accept their own faults or shortcomings and instead point to other people to blame. At some point, one must take responsibility for his or her grades, etc. I am shocked, just as I believe my fellow classmates are shaken up. But the UA is a great university for several reasons.

Its faculty is professional and friendly, the staff is helpful, the students are kind, the sports are high quality, and the research opportunities are immense. I owe a lot to the UA.

More than 15 years ago, Joseph Campbell said, "The world is a spiritual wasteland," and indeed it currently seems that way. I hope that we can build more connection in our community so that we can help people mature psychologically and spiritually. The difficulty right now is that some of us are human beings, while others are closer to animals. However, we all look alike. While it is easy to prevent attacks from wild animals, it has proven much more difficult to separate the more spiritually evolved among us from the rapists, murderers, etc. But building a more connected community is a starting point.

Vijay Pottathil
general biology senior

Notion that campus gun law led to shootings is Îfoolish'

After reading Mr. Tanner's letter ("Less gun control, not more, needed in light of shooting") published yesterday, I felt the overwhelming need to respond. His theory that the shootings would not have occurred had the rest of the students in the class been armed is flawed and somewhat ridiculous.

First and foremost, the gun is a purely offensive weapon. There is no way to use it to "defend yourself." The closest thing is that it may be used to scare someone, using the threat of death. In normal circumstances, I would say that the threat of death is only of moderate use, but in this case the man was already prepared to die! There is no way that the threat of death would have deterred this man.

"But if the students had been armed, they could have gotten him first!" he wrote. Entirely possible, but to be successful, such a student would have had to have terrific reflexes and been an even better shot. Not only is this far-fetched, but it also begs the question: What sort of casualties could have occurred had a firefight taken place? Instead of four bodies, there could have been ten or more.

No one is denying that this was a horrible tragedy that should never have happened. But to assert that shootings wouldn't happen if more people had guns · Well, that's just foolish.

Daniel "Ash" Rhodes
history senior

History reveals gun control has increased gun violence

If the tragic incident at the College of Nursing on Monday proves anything, it's that declaring the campus a Designated Victim Zone has had precisely the opposite effect intended. It serves as an open advertisement to predators and lunatics that they can rob, rape and murder with impunity. History, logic, fact and law, however, mitigate against the wishful thinking inherent in such a short-sighted policy.

Fact: In Nick Ray's (Monday letter, "Argument for gun control on campus buoyed by shooting") own homeland, where the very roots of the liberty we treasure were planted and nurtured, the government declared the entire country a "gun-free zone." The result was as predictable as it was painful: Violent crime increased 50 percent, and now far surpasses the rate in this land of "gun nuts."

Fact: While there would be few, indeed, who actually did opt to carry guns on campus (and may well be doing so now), the overwhelming majority are current and former military ÷ well trained and more highly disciplined than the average. Additionally, the acquisition of a concealed carry permit requires hours of instruction and written and practical testing.

History: Arab terrorists initially targeted Israeli schools ÷ target-rich, low-risk environments. Teachers and volunteer parents then armed themselves, and more terrorists than children died. How surprising is it that the attacks on Israeli schools ceased immediately?

Logic: Simplistic or not, the mere possibility, not necessarily the actuality, of a potential victim ÷ of rape, robbery, assault or murder ÷ being armed will deter all but the most insane. The actuality will deter the rest ÷ permanently, if necessary.

Law: The UA is a state institution. The Constitution of this state clearly reiterates, in Article 2, Section 26, " · the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself · shall not be impaired." There is neither justification nor authority for the administration to place itself above the clearly stated letter and spirit of the law.

In conclusion, it is overwhelmingly obvious that a goodly portion of culpability for Monday's obscenity rests squarely on the heads of the administration and others who would offer up the campus ÷ indeed, the nation ÷ to the tender mercies of thugs and lunatics with the sole defense "please don't hurt me." One armed, trained, disciplined individual could have completely altered Monday's scenario. Now that "the unthinkable" has not only been thought of, but acted out, the choice is yours: How long will you consent to be a victim?

J.D. "Duke" Schechter
Marine Corps sgt.
political science junior