Rerun

Long before I joined the staff of The Daily Northwestern, I wrote this letter to the editor. Oh, what a snide little pissant I was. I'd like to preserve this—a little more perverse space junk just waiting to rattle someone's skull. As Julie once told me, bask in the horror of my logic!

Limiting gun rights means more murders by stabbing (Oct. 23, 2002)

I'm replying to Sriranjani Parthasarathy's Monday column ("Gun rights are about money, not our safety"). First of all, let me say that guns were a lousy idea in the first place. Also, I'm no fan of the NRA or the Bush administration; however, I would advise other writers to aim higher than simply taking hackneyed potshots at such entities.

Don't take the chance to write for granted -- death or massive head injuries rendering you unable to think or write could occur at any time (I'm purely trying to give advice here) -- and would you want this little inkblot left behind as the final piece in your legacy? Would I be writing the same letter if I agreed with Parthasarathy's column? I honestly can't say that I would -- but the piece would have been much more respectable, and much more widely read, if she had strived to present her opinion from a less tired angle.

The column neglects to mention that Vermont, where one can purchase and carry a handgun with ease, boasts the nation's second-lowest crime rate. England and Wales are to be commended for their low rate of gun-related deaths, but I bet that the total rate of violent deaths in the U.K. is proportionally about the same as ours. Death is death, no matter the method, and anything can become a weapon in a violent crime -- guns are just presented and sold more explicitly as such. I wonder how many poor people in the U.K. have had to suffer stabbings, beatings or something resourceful, like being assaulted with household steel-wool scrubbing pads for hours, when they could have gone nice and quickly with a bullet between the eyes.

You think about that. When you oppose gun rights, you oppose our right to be murdered with relative speed and efficiency and a minimum of pain. You also add to the plight of violent criminals, who, when recalling their deeds, will also remember the prolonged pain of their victims, whose horrendous and unexpected deaths could not be administered humanely without the loving convenience of modern firearms. This contradicts the mostly admirable liberal principle of extending merciful, humanitarian treatment to even the most vile elements of our society.

Scott Gordon

Medill freshman