Oh boy! Another cliché letter to the editor with a lousy opening, easily refutable content, and an impractical solution proposal – this time written by a professor. Jackpot!

I’m responding to Edward Schmid’s letter to the editor entitled “Education, not guns,” which was responding to Marlize van Romburgh’s article “The amendment that protects your independence.” I think Schmid completely missed the point of Van Romburgh’s article, which by the way, was the sexiest thing I had read all day. She was arguing the point that reinforced why the Second Amendment was necessary for upholding a free society and she did an excellent job by backing up her points with historical events used in context. Her point: governments should be afraid of their people.

A week later I read Schmid’s whiney article. His point: Gun violence is a serious problem and the best solution is to educate.

I’m seeing two different arguments going on here:

1.Members of society with guns vs. government (Van Romburgh).

2. Members of society with guns vs. members of society with guns (Schmid).

If we take guns out of the picture to solve current social issues and “peacefully educate,” a major consequence will be a society that can much more easily succumb to governmental oppression. That cost will be sacrificing liberty along with the notion of personal rights and property. History has shown that the “centuries-old justifications” (according to Schmid) of the Bill of Rights is anything but obsolete for providing a solid foundation for backing up American citizens’ beliefs.

It wasn’t your social or political views that prompted me to write, Mr. Schmid. You have your opinion and that’s fine, even when it comes to the point of governments stepping in to regulate firearms. But the pompous tone I read on your proposed solution to educate all the crazies out there made me kick my neighbor’s cat. I just couldn’t stop laughing.

Here is my challenge to you, Mr. Future Nobel Peace Prize Winner: Choose any urban area with rampant gun violence (i.e. Detroit, Oakland, Washington, D.C., etc.) and see how long you can look a random individual in the eye before you get killed. For I am doubting your familiarity with some of these neighborhoods. See if you could approach a possible gang member, openly unarmed, just to tell him what he is doing is wrong.

Feel more than free to correct me personally after your findings, since you suggested that we need to educate. See where your social problems lie after trying this, and I think you will find the problems don’t lie with the sole ownership of firearms. For the firearm is only being used as a tool.

Clearly, we as a society have a common interest in reducing violence. But what Schmid proposes to do – strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights – leaves the law-abiding citizens defenseless and lets the thugs roam the streets. Do you really think someone who wants to use a gun to commit a crime will peacefully surrender his firearms along with the rest of us?

If you want to practice what you preach, get your ass out on the streets. But you might want to carry a firearm that night – that is, if you value your life.

Michael Macedo is a manufacturing engineering senior.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *