Friday, April 20, 2007

The End Result of a Public Education

Sometimes the anti's make it too darn easy.

From the Las Vegas Review Journal:


By Andrea Eidenier

To the editor:

I am a full-time community college student. The Virginia Tech shooting doesn't scare me -- it just makes me sad. If the gunman hadn't had such ample access to either guns or ammunition, the death toll probably would have been lower or possibly nonexistent.

Every time a school shooting happens, the media, the victims' families and the general public look for reasons and people to blame. We should all start by blaming ourselves.

There's no reason for a person to carry a gun unless he is a government official, a hunter in a rural area or a criminal. There is no reason a person should be able to buy as much ammunition as he wants, especially for weapons such as pistols. These lax laws are keeping this country in danger of its own citizens.

I know that people would still have guns if they were banned. But if they were harder to get, people who are in desperate situations would seek other methods to remedy their situations.

In this country, we are so afraid of not being able to protect ourselves that we make it easier to put guns in the hands of people who will harm us. It makes me sad.
Andrea, what makes me sad is that 12+ years of a public education have done nothing to develop your critical thinking skills. This is an area in your life that you must improve upon. Life is going to throw a vast array of situations at you that require some semblance of logic to navigate. At this moment in your life, you do not have the tools necessary to make the crucial decisions that await you. I highly recommend that you seek out someone to be your mentor, someone who could help you develop your critical thinking skills.

3 comments:

Dan said...

"There's no reason for a person to carry a gun unless he is a government official, a hunter in a rural area or a criminal."

- I wonder if by "criminal" she meant "law-abiding citizen."

Anonymous said...

i think that by "There's no reason for a person to carry a gun unless he is a government official, a hunter in a rural area or a criminal." she simply means that a gun does not serve any purpose except for an official to protect, an hunter to kill, or a criminal to comit crime, simply stating "why do you need a gun unless you plan on doing something with it" i dont agree with the idea, i support guns, but im just clarifying her statement

JR said...

Hello Anon, thanks for stopping by.

The fact that Miss Eidenier dismisses out of hand the need of a free citizen to carry a firearm for defense of self and community, while at the same time acknowledging the fact that criminals will still have guns, proves that her reasoning is not rational.


I sincerely hope that Miss Eidenier's life is never touched by violence. I also hope that if she is ever confronted by a violent criminal intent on doing her harm, there would be someone nearby ready, willing and able to come to her defense. That person would need the most efficient tool available to confront the goblin, and that tool usually is a firearm.