Arguments regarding gun control should attempt to be logical, unbiased and multi-polar
Editor’s note: This is in response to the column “Gun worship has gone too far,” published in Friday’s Daily Lobo. In his column, Jason Darensburg argued that despite recent legislation, people will still have broad access to guns. He also criticizes the National Rifle Association’s presence in the legislation process, stating that “the NRA needs to be excluded from any further public debate on gun control.”
As a young United States Air Force veteran and a new Lobo, I am extremely saddened by your recent opinion piece regarding gun “worship.” I am not disappointed in your choice to voice your opinions, but in your extremely biased writing style that resorts to emotions and name calling. I approached your article with an open mind because this was my first time picking up the Daily Lobo. Quite frankly, I found it more suitable for a personal blog than a university publication.
Your main argument took the stance that America has the highest rate of gun ownership as well as the highest rate of gun-related homicides. Yes, no one is denying there is a connection. However, as even your most basic college course should have taught you, correlation does not equal causation.
Throughout the article you call gun owners “gun worshipers,” “wing-nuts” and “psychos.” I am honestly quite disappointed that this is what qualifies as college-level writing. Personally, I take offense to those names as I am not any of those. I am a second-degree student, a war veteran, a wife and a proud Asian-American. I believe in the Constitution and I believe it is every American’s duty to defend it.
You stated that no one is coming after Second Amendment rights and that there is nothing to fear. You may very well be correct.
However, given that we are such a young nation, I believe your confidence in the system is too bold. Why do you believe that where other nations have faulted and infringed on the rights of the citizens, ours will not? The purpose of the Second Amendment is to maintain the right of the people, aka militia, to keep and bear arms, the intention being the prevention of a tyrannical government. How is this possible when the people are only allowed to possess the most basic of weapons, while “military”-style weapons remain in the hands of those we are potentially protecting ourselves from?
I have many more unemotional and logical points to make. For example, the majority of these executive orders only hinders law-abiding citizens. However, these points will probably result in me being called a psycho gun worshiper, which is quite unfortunate. I hope that in your next opinion piece you will choose a writing style that does not attempt to polarize your audience. Thank you for your time.