Letter to the Editor

A Note from the Editor

In this issue of the Butler Lantern, we feature a letter from a concerned student regarding the opinion page of issue 11 from April 3, 2018. They found the content of the page swayed too far to one side of the debate and didn’t feature a voice from the opposing view. However, as the student said in their letter, he only reads the Butler Lantern about once a semester, so he did not see the issue previous to that which did have the other side of the debate. We should have made it more clear in issue 11 that the story by Reporter Darrah Walker was written in opposition to Managing Editor Rachel McClurg’s piece in the previous issue.

We at the newspaper also edited Kerr’s letter. We as a staff discussed the letter and found there was a paragraph talking about Mac Thompson’s ability as a teacher that did not fit with our standards for criticism towards an individual. The paragraph read more as a personal attack of Thompson and not a reasoned argument like the rest of the letter. While we have published very controversial things before, we at the Butler Lantern do not wish to publish articles that could be seen as a personal attack on an individual.
While each member of our staff has their own opinion regarding current events, we, as a complete staff, at the Butler Lantern strive to stay neutral in our reporting, and we will continue to make sure that is more clear going forward.

We at the newspaper also edited Kerr’s letter. We as a staff discussed the letter and found there was a paragraph talking about Mac Thompson’s ability as a teacher that did not fit with our standards for criticism towards an individual. The paragraph read more as a personal attack of Thompson and not a reasoned argument like the rest of the letter. While we have published very controversial things before, we at the Butler Lantern do not wish to publish articles that could be seen as a personal attack on an individual.
While each member of our staff has their own opinion regarding current events, we, as a complete staff, at the Butler Lantern strive to stay neutral in our reporting, and we will continue to make sure that is more clear going forward.

Korie Kerr

As a somewhat older adult student at Butler, I don’t often feel the need to participate in campus culture. I was younger once, and all those things were more important to me then than they are now. I do from time to time read the campus paper, the Butler Lantern, about once a semester as I’m waiting on my advisement appointment. I should have guessed, but alas I was a little taken aback when I saw the blatant political bias in the opinion section of the April 3 edition. Is it really possible that nobody had anything else to say on the matter of gun control than two ideological progressives? I find that unlikely. However, giving the editorial staff the benefit of the doubt, I thought I’d offer a countering opinion.

First, I’d like to address the letter to the editor from Mac Thompson. While I understand sarcasm as a rhetorical device used to belittle those with opposing opinions, Mac’s article was disturbing for a couple of reasons. First, Mr. Thompson erects a straw man, then proceeds to tear it down. There is nobody calling for a law requiring teachers to be armed, anywhere. There are proposed laws to allow teachers to carry if they choose provided they comply with the requirements. If you can’t trust yourself with a potentially dangerous inanimate object, then leave it to the more responsible members of society and kindly mind your own business.

Another problem, which is all too common these days, is that this professor makes demonstrably false claims, and builds on them as if fact. “Being Canadian,” he says, means he knows that “sensible gun control laws lead to a safe and secure population who doesn’t suffer massacres every week.” Really? How are those tough gun laws working out in Chicago? Also, what exactly is meant by sensible? That’s an entirely subjective yardstick to use, so how will it be determined what is sensible? Would the good professor rather the US be like London, outlawing knives?

Gun crimes happen all over the place, and the statistics aren’t really all that easy to make sense of. There are lots of murders in places with strict gun laws, and some places with lax gun laws too. It’s not a clear cut correlation like Mr. Thompson seems to think it is. Frankly, though, it doesn’t really matter because the main reason most people who are “pro-gun” don’t care one whit about statistics. Simply put, why should you be allowed to use government force to take away my rights because you are afraid? How do you think those laws are enforced: with pepper spray and padded rooms?

There is literally zero evidence to support the notion that if armed, the freshmen students at Butler will suddenly decide to have shootouts over parking spaces. There is no evidence that young people carrying guns are likely to start shooting because they are startled by loud noises. There are thousands of young people carrying firearms every day in the military, and while for some reason people still think it should be illegal for them to drink, there doesn’t seem to be all that much of a problem giving them guns to go to Syria to kill people. Accidental shootings are a huge minority of gun deaths, and using them as fear propaganda shows a lack of concern for honesty.

In the end, the gun control debate will continue to be a hot one unless, and until, both sides learn to actually listen to the other side’s argument, and respond to them. For clarity’s sake, here is an argument against gun control that is often unaddressed: enforcing gun laws would require expanding government power, which many people are opposed to for many reasons. Personally, I don’t see very much at all that the government does well. Roads are in pretty poor condition. We’ve been at war with an ideology for more than a decade without any noticeable success, Social Security is failing, trillions of Dollars are unaccounted for, and innocent people routinely get sent to prison. Inviting the government to regulate guns means putting the most inefficient and corrupt organization on the face of the planet in charge everyone in the entire country’s personal safety. I am unwilling to allow that, and so are many others.

So for any out there who are actually open minded, I have a question for you. If you were sitting in class and you heard a shooter going down the hall executing everyone he found, would you want a gun? If not, that’s understandable, but please extend the same courtesy to those of us who say, “Yes, please.”