Unfortunately, the “In Our Opinion” piece from the July 9 issue of the Daily follows the current trend of replacing basic facts and logical reasoning with simplistic, short-sighted, emotionally-based babble when it comes to firearm legislation. Would the opinion of this group have been the same if the topic was making car owners criminally responsible if their vehicle was stolen and used in a crime? I doubt it. It would be absurd to prosecute a law-abiding citizen for the actions of a criminal, wouldn’t it?

No. Not when that law abiding citizen legally owns a firearm. Guns have become the ultimate posturing tool for those wishing to close their eyes to the real problems in society. Why go through all the trouble of finding out why a child would kill his classmates and work to prevent it when you can pass a bill that gives you a nice warm fuzzy feeling. This type of legislation is the logical equivalent of taking an aspirin and thinking it will cure a broken leg. Sure it might not hurt for a while, but the root problem still goes untreated.

There are too many people putting bandages on brain tumors these days, and the scariest part is that these bandages are slowly eroding our constitutional rights. Are guns really so dangerous that people are willing to give up their freedoms? No. You are twice as likely to choke to death on something you eat than to die in a firearm accident, and 33 times more likely to die in car accident. Laws against carrying concealed arms have lowered violent crime rates where enacted, while locations that continue to restrict our rights are showing increases in violent crime rates. Every year over 2.5 million people use firearms for protection, and more private citizens legally use lethal force than do police officers.

What is next? Should journalists be restricted from reporting incidents such as the recent school killings so that other kids don’t get any ideas? Could it be possible that one of these rampages could have been prevented if a kid hadn’t read about it in the paper, or seen it on the news? Will all law-abiding citizens be responsible for the misuse of any items stolen from their property?

Why can’t a criminal simply be responsible for their own actions? Why in the hell should anyone be responsible for items stolen from their house?

The kids that broke into two houses, stole guns from one of their own grandparents, and killed their classmates were just rotten human beings.

It wasn’t Grandpa’s fault, and it wasn’t the gun’s fault; it was the kids fault. Blaming Grandpa for legally enjoying one of the freedoms provided by the Constitution is just plain stupid.

This bill will only restrict law-abiding citizens. It will not stop someone from illegally buying a gun on the street, and for someone who is determined enough, it will not stop them from stealing them from a home.

It is just another transient measure meant to blame the wrong person and accomplish nothing.

It is very unfortunate that those who depend so heavily on our constitutional freedoms won’t take the time to actually think about an issue before they start chipping away at our rights.

I can almost hear our founding fathers turning over in their graves.

Chad Daniel

Graduate student

Agronomy