Guns not a solution to campus crime
Dear Editor:
Last Friday, I kicked myself for forgetting to write in to respond to Gregg Keithley’s article on the University’s gun policy. I figured that several people found Wednesday’s article as ridiculous as I did, and would have already written in. Instead, Friday’s Student Life had only Mr. Eaves-Johnson’s supporting letter.
Mr. Keithley argues that very few sexual crimes are committed with guns, so arming the female would-be victims will stem the tide of campus rapes.
I think he’s ignoring some important issues:
One, guns are often used in robberies, assaults and other violent crimes.
Could we honestly not expect a swell in these crimes if guns were allowed on campus? Mr. Johnson suggested that only women we allowed to carry guns, but come on. If guns are here, anybody can get one. Think how few South 40 residents lock their doors.
Two, are we really suggesting that gunfire is welcome on or around campus, even in defense? The South 40 at night, or the Hilltop campus during the day, probably represents the most densely populated physical space between downtown St. Louis and downtown Clayton. Stray gunfire: bad.
Three, Johnson notes that conceal certificates mandate that the holder be 23 years old. This would apply to virtually no student on campus. Therefore, any attempt by the University to make concealed gun toting legal would go against state law.
Four, according to Wash. U. crime stats, there were two forcible sexual offenses reported in 2000, two in 2001, and three in 2002. The 2003 numbers have not been released yet. While no number is too small or insignificant, does this really warrant a campus-wide change to allow guns? I am forced to wonder if any of the victims would have or could have carried and used a gun, if they had had the opportunity.
I’d be more interested to hear the opinions of women on campus. Otherwise, this sounds too much like a junior-NRA lobby: “more guns will stop crime.” Give me a break.
-Aaron Hock
Class of 2001
WILD is TAME
Dear Editor:
WILD has never really been that wild during my years here. Maybe it’s because my first year here brought the fall of the twin towers as well as the fall of kegs at WILD and subsequently, the fall of fun in general.
But this fall’s WILD was the best one I’ve been to despite increasing university restrictions. Ozomatli made plenty of new fans and offered up by far the best and most dance worthy set of the night. Nappy Roots offered up their infectious blend of pimp and hustler propaganda to a hungry crowd of arm flaying frat boys. Murphy Lee performed Nelly songs without Nelly, songs that are so commercial, that they are commercials. But despite this, the bass-heavy beats made my booty shake.
I wasn’t alone either; us Wash U kids seemed to be doing some dancing. With a couple of crowd surfers here and there, for a moment I even thought: PCU. Yet later in the Wash U metro area, the dancing was harder to find. I could go to the frats, but rarely would I get party music there as interesting as Ozomatli. I’d probably get a song about using women and a bunch of Wash U women shaking along.
I could go off campus, but I wouldn’t expect too much dancing there. Besides, the fun police might make an example of me, like they did those 18 kids the other week (or was it 36? That was the number an officer gave me when he was telling me to go home, or else). Let’s not let the U. City and Wash U police departments ruin the time of our life that society specifically designates for fun. If an outrage like that weekend happens again, something must be done by us students.
Our student body is divided and usually for very superficial reasons. Seeing so many of us Wash U kids dancing together like it was nothing gave me a good connected vibe. But when will we dance like this again? Do I have to wait until Spring WILD?
-Edvard Teko
American democracy is alive and well
Dear Editor:
Matt Shapiro makes several interesting points in his recent article on the demise of democracy. However, there are a few things we need to consider before condemning the electoral system.
First, democracy per se has a lot of problems, and assuming it has some intrinsic or egalitarian virtue is a common mistake.ÿAs much as some people despise “rich white men,” electoral red tape makes it harder for envious people to get their hands on things that aren’t theirs. By contrast, mass democracy makes it easy for the “have-nots” to expropriate the “haves” and, in so doing, eliminate the incentives that make economic and cultural progress possible. Unfettered democracy is the ultimate war of all against all. Under the Constitution, the U.S. government is a republic-not a democracy-for precisely this reason.
Second, your vote doesn’t matter. It won’t matter in a “swing state” any more than it would in Massachusetts or Texas. The only way for your vote to “matter” would be for the election to be decided by fewer than X electoral votes where X is the number of electoral votes allotted to your state, and only then if your state was decided by exactly one vote. Otherwise, your vote did nothing to influence the outcome of the election. Your vote would be no more relevant under mass democracy.
So why vote at all? Easy: politicians pay attention. Voting is a cheap way to let the government know your preferences, and there is a wide menu of choices available on the November ballot. The differences between the policy positions offered by Bush and Kerry are superficial at best-Kerry is a shade more socialist than Bush, Bush is a shade more hawkish than Kerry-but there will be a slate of Libertarians, Greens and other candidates who offer substantively different platforms.
A major component of the U.S.’ system of checks and balances enshrined in our founding documents is a check protecting the people from the vagaries of mass democracy. Specifically, it tries to protect them from those who would use the heavy hand of the state to predate on others’ property.ÿIt isn’t perfect, and American history is littered with examples of people co-opting the state for their own benefit at the expense of others. In spite of all its imperfections, though, the U.S. is a country in which the poorest among us are among the richest 1% of people who have ever lived. Considered against the backdrop of world history, that’s a pretty impressive record.
-Art Carden
Graduate Student, Economics