The gun battle continues
(In response to The State Press' ongoing coverage of Senate Bill 1214, which would legalize concealed weapons for gun permit holders on university campuses in Arizona)
Having concealed weapons allowed on campus is an amazingly good idea. It's a good idea for the reason so many people are against it. It's a good idea for the same reason it's a good idea to not have guns registered — fear.
If ASU students are allowed to conceal carry, people are much less likely to show up with guns to start trouble. Would you bring a gun to a police station and shoot up the place? No, because people there will take you down faster than you know it. If everyone is allowed to conceal a gun and no one knows who has the guns, then anyone could have a gun, which means if you whip out your gun in class to cause mayhem, you may have a hundred people who can, and will, stop you.
This thought will cause people to think twice about causing havoc and therein save more lives. Would you cause trouble in a room full of gun-wielding college students that you think are just itching to break theirs out?
Steven Garone
Staff
Most of your garden-variety campus, school and worksite shooters tend to be disenfranchised individuals with minimal socialization and poor people skills. Most of them will ultimately kill themselves, but only after they "take out as many of us as they can" first.
These aren't the law-abiding, responsible gun owners who train on a regular basis and pass the criteria to carry weapons legally, including qualification on a firearms range, a complete criminal background investigation, and passing a knowledge test of the applicable gun laws.
I submit that these individuals are generally quite capable of defending themselves, and others, against the 'garden-variety school shooter," if the situation should arise.
Additionally, this solution doesn't cost the University one red cent.
Chris Burmood
Alumni
Out with the old, in with the New
(In response to last Tuesday's column by Kevin King titled "New Atheism getting old")
I would like to raise several points in response to King's article on Richard Dawkins' visit to ASU:
First, the lecture was on "The God Delusion," by default the talk should be centered around the book and its message, so yes, it would be a marketing job, even though most people there had already read the book.
Second, god does not belong in scientific inquiry.
Third, it appears to be that apathy is mainstream among "rational thinkers" like King. If a question is raised, ignore it. And those who answer in either way are simply narrow-minded.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you failed to take the main take-away message of his lecture: consciousness-raising. Atheists everywhere — New or otherwise — want to be able to function in a society where the norms are constantly being ruled by some religious groups or another.
Atheists, myself included, would like to be able to stand up and not be questioned or attacked because we don't believe in god, the supernatural or whatever people use to drain the wonder from the beauty and awe of the universe. As part of consciousness-raising, there is no such thing as a Catholic child, a Muslim child or even an Atheist child.
Antonio I. Villalpando
Undergraduate