4A
Opinion
Friday, October 15, 1999
Editorial
Gun manufacturers are not toy makers but should undergo the same scrutiny
Lawsuit resulting from Columbine is justified
In the wake of the Columbine High School tragedy, the parents of one of the murdered students sued the parents of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the student gunmen responsible for 13 deaths. Now the parents pursuing the wrongful-death lawsuit are expanding their claim to include at least one gun manufacturing company whose semi-automatic weapon of terror claimed the life of their son.
Some readers may question the wording "weapon of terror," as the Constitution of the United States says that we all have the right to hear arms. In fact, the National Rifle Association will tell you that not only do we have the right to bear arms but also the restrictions our society has placed on a citizen's Second Amendment rights already are too strict — or even unconstitutional.
The Constitution, however, does not give the right to protect gun manufacturers from having tighter restrictions placed on the merchandise they produce. While these arguments have been hotly debated around the nation and recently in Congress, it is obvious that the Constitution will not protect Intratec, the company that makes the recreational semi-automatic pistol that was used at Columbine.
Years ago, toy manufacturers came under similar production scrutiny. We all are familiar with the fact that babies enjoy putting items in their mouths or using toys in ways that they weren't intended. However, before child safety regulations, countless children were injured or killed every year because of toys. Reform in the toy industry for child safety regulations did not occur until it hit corporations where it hurt them most - their wallets. Parents brought lawsuits that forced companies
to self-regulate, research and even promote safer toys.
Gun manufactures must be reformed in the same manner as the toy companies.
searching for the popular children's toy Thomas the Train Set on the Internet, the subtext says "not recommended for children under the age of 3." Obviously this is because of the many small pieces of the train set that could be swallowed.
Despite the fact that guns and children's toys are two vastly different things, there are frightening differences in safety regulations between the two. In
In contrast, one of the more popular guns on the Internet, which happens to be similar to the TEC-DC9 used in the Columbine shooting, has no safety warnings on its Web site and even advertises that the gun can pierce bulletproof vests.
The advertisement goes on to
promote that the gun's metal alloy "doesn't leave fingerprints." Clearly this is not a recreational or hunting gun; it is a tool to kill people.
What is the solution? The answer is definitely not a warning label or a safety lock on the trigger of the gun. The change has to take place at the drawing board for these weapon companies. Federal or state regulations legally can restrict companies that wish to make weapons that are too powerful and extravagant to shoot the already outmatched deer and police officer with a bulletproof vest.
While gun enthusiasts may dislike the change and even argue that regulations won't stop the killing, it will make a positive social change toward the safe handling of guns. In the long run, maybe it will heal the wounds left by the recent string of violence across the nation.
Corey Snyder for the editorial board
Perspective
Communism in China must change for people
The Chinese Revolution celebrated its 50th anniversary on Oct.1. Since then, much has been said about the People's Republic of China, and the images of Mao Zedong's face — a symbol of communism in China — and the Tiananmen Square massacre 10 years ago have been brought back into the U.S. consciousness.
China faces many difficult challenges today. The country does not have the strong leadership it once did. It has serious overpopulation problems. And it faces continuing political opposition to the status quo.
The world has changed very much since that autumn morning when Mao declared that the
Chinese people had stood up and so has China. The Communist Party, however, has the same principles of 50 years ago.
The Communist Party once had the strong leadership of communist greats Mao Zedong, Marshal Zhu De, Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping. Not anymore.
Furtado columnist
opinier@kansan.com
Jiang Zemin, the Chinese president, does not have the leadership ability it takes to rule a country of China's magnitude, and this is a serious threat to the nation.
the entire communist regime.
The Chinese Communist Party doctrine preached population growth as a way of gaining power in the years following the revolution. It was a way of having young people for labor, a way of having a prosperous country but also a way of being able to teach Communist values to children from birth. They would have, therefore, a mass of young Chinese to dominate.
But this strategy has backfired. A couple of decades after enacting the policy, China admitted it needed to stop the population growth. Birth control came, which was curious because the Chinese Communist Party created the problem of overpopulation. Now they have advocated that it can only be solved by its own methods.
It is difficult to control the number of children one will have if you live in a democracy.
So, basically, if China changes into a democracy, it will starve to death because of the lack of natural resources to feed the population. I presume the Chinese people prefer to limit their family size than have children who will die in a country that will have no ability to feed them.
Then there is the opposition to government domination, and the Chinese students saw that 10 years ago. They protested at Tiananmen Square and died to show a message to the world. They wanted a new regime but made little progress as the world did not help them.
The challenges China faces today force us to question ourselves: Is the People's Republic of China about people?
It is difficult to predict if China will remain communist in the future, but this will depend very much on how President Zemin will manage China's economy in the next few years. China needs a strong economy, one that will be able to provide basic needs to the Chinese and also aid development in this overpopulated country. Zemin needs to show leadership for this to happen.
China also needs to handle Hong Kong and Taiwan, and these are huge and complex issues.
If the Communist Party does this, if it's able to combat the opposition it has been facing in the last decades, and if they can show their people that communism is the desirable regime, then there is a chance for the People's Republic.
If the Communist Party is to maintain power, it must focus on the people. The party needs to go back to its roots, to the beginning, working for the people and not ruling over them. Power is worthless unless you can change people's lives. Power is simply a manner of helping people. They have not done this in many years.
Communist leaders can't think of it differently. If they do think differently, they will fall. Then the Chinese will rise and choose another system. As Karl Marx once said, "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please. They make it in circumstances handed down to them from the past."
Furtado is a Pelotes, Brazil, junior in political science and journalism.
Published daily since 1912
Kansan
Jule Wood, Editor Laura Roddy, Managing editor Cory Graham, Managing editor Tom Eblen, General manager, news advisor
News editors
Brandi Byram, Business manager
Shauntea Blue, Retail sales manager
Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser
Scott Vallier, Technology coordinator
Chad Bettes . . . . . . . . . Editorial
Seth Hoffman . . . . . . Associate editorial
Carl Kaminski . . . . . News
Juan H. Heath . . . Online
Chris Fickett . . . Sports
Brad Hallier . . . Associate sports
Nadia Mustafa . . . Campus
Heather Woodward . . Campus
Steph Brewer . . Features
Dan Curry . . . Associate features
Matt Daugherty . . . Photo
Kristi Elliott . . Design, graphics
T.J. Johnson . . Wire
Melody Ard . Special sections
Advertising managers
Becky LaBranch ... Special sections
Thad Crane ... Campus
Will Baxter ... Regional
Jon Schiltt ... National
Danny Pumpelly ... Online sales
Micah Kaftzit ... Marketing
Emily Knowles ... Production
Jenny Weaver ... Production
Matt Thomas ... Creative
Kelly Heffernan ... Classified
Juliana Moreira ... Zone
Chad Hale ... Zone
Brad Bolyard ... Zone
Amy Miller ... Zone
Broadon your mind: Today's quote
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." — Mark Twain
Society needs to look deeper for real answers to violence
When the people in our society face a problem, we want to fix it. And we want to fix it now. After all, this is the United States of America, and we are the world's only remaining superpower. We can fix anything fast.
Unfortunately, in recent times, we are too often falling prey to the temptation of looking for the easy answers to the major problems confronting us. In the quest to heal what ails us, we fail to probe beneath the surface to find out what the root causes of the problems are. Sometimes, and sadly, this comes at the cost of individual responsibility.
Or can we?
Think of the diabolical dictators of the world who slaughter millions of people to grab and maintain power. Think of brutal tribal fighting in
And this is just one of the more memorable manifestations of violence in our society. There are plenty of other examples to be found, from husbands killing wives to teenage mothers leaving their babies for dead in garbage bins.
We need to remember something about human nature. Call it evil or whatever you prefer, but some people have a real dark side, and it's been illustrated throughout history.
For example, when students get gunned down in a school, we want to react and do things that make us feel better. School shootings are tragic and devastating. They drain a little of our national spirit and optimism each time they happen.
So do we really think that suing gun manufacturers or taking away constitutional gun ownership rights will solve the underlying rage that criminals have? Will turning our schools into high-security, prison-like fortresses take away the urge to kill? Can we gloss over the real causes of violence?
Chad
Bettes
opinion editor
opinion@kansan.com
Africa. Think of the subway terrorists in Japan and the terrorist bombers in the Middle East and Northern Ireland.
Killers can crash cars into a building. They can use bombs, knives or deadly gases. For that matter, they can use a baseball bat. Objects of violence need human force and intent
Violence takes many forms, but it is not in short supply.
Let's not just put ice on a wound when it actually deserves major surgery. Let's instead focus our attention on the sources of the violence.
This is an opportunity for America to show its greatness once again and for human intellect and goodness to triumph. It would be nothing new for us. We have pulled together before for
great causes, both internal and external.
Not really. Because whatever is
We have built an infrastructure in our own country that is the envy of the world. We fought against genocide and aggression against democracy in World War II. Our people have used their entrepreneurial spirit to make the economy thrive. We fought a civil war to end slavery.
Let's use our national resolve again. It certainly won't be easy and the job never completely finished. In fact, we may have to rethink some of the fundamental structures underlying our society and wait for years to see the results.
behind them to kill.
If we take the more difficult, but productive, path of attacking our problems at the source, we can find answers that will take us to the stars.
But it's an exercise worth the effort and a price worth paying. Let's get the dialogue going. We should examine our priorities and set them straight.
The motto of the state of Kansas can be our inspiration. The Latin phrase *Ad astra per aspera* translates "To the stars through difficulties."
Then, we may just find ourselves in a nation where kids don't build bombs in their garage or have their older friends get them guns. We may build a social climate in which family members don't turn violently on one another. We may enter an era in which random violence is again a rarity in America.
---
Bettie is a Shawnee graduate student in journalism.
I would like to say how wrong this is. Speaking as a Christian, I can say that we are not fanatics. We are people who have been forgiven and wish to bring the love of Jesus Christ to this campus. Although some may think otherwise, it is not Christianity's goal to ram religion and Scripture down other people's throats. We simply wish to express our faith in a loving way that will cause others to desire to draw near to our Lord.
People miss the point entirely when they debate what the University of Kansas' logo should be. It doesn't matter what the logo is; Christians wear our symbols as symbols, to remind us of our faith and as an outward display of that faith, so that others will know what we believe in.
Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case, and I am not surprised. I can only hope that others who saw the cartoon will realize that it was completely off and not an accurate depiction of what a Christian really believes.
I am writing to express my displeasure at the political cartoon printed on Oct. 12. In it, you depicted two Christian men who had the "motive" of covering Strong Hall with religious symbols. It reduced the Christian religion to a cult.
I believe in Jesus as God's only Son,
that He was sent to die for us, and that
the Bible is truth and the word of the
Living God.
Feedback
Christians aren't fanatics
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
Marshall Gross Overland Park junior
Journalists should be for more freedom
I'm always distressed when journalism students applaud government attempts to suppress freedom of expression, as Katrina Hull did in her recent column in The University Daily Kansan. As Hull tells it, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani did the right thing in trying to cut off public funds for the Brooklyn Museum of Art because it hosted an exhibit featuring a collage of the Virgin Mary that included elephant dung.
While Hull keeps her eye on the dung and the scatological details of art that she and Giuliani do not approve of, she pays scant attention to the real issue at stake: the freedom of artists and galleries to express their views, and the right of the public to see their work, without first seeking the approval of government.
Just as journalists hold up the mirror to society to show us sometimes gory truths — truths that include pornography, sexuality and a lot of blood, much of it shed in the name of religion — artists also focus on controversial and troubling themes.
When government steps in to decide what messages are appropriate, in art or in journalism, we lose far more than one art exhibit that disgusts some people; we lose the best vehicle for all of us to communicate with each other and seek truth — freedom of expression.
Contrary to Hull's statement that "little precedent exists for New York courts to decide whether Giuliani overstepped his mayoral bounds," case law abounds declaring that our First Amendment forbids government officials from censoring art in publically funded museums.
Governments in countries like China and Iraq may have the legal authority to decide what truths are appropriate for artists (or newspapers). In this country, artists (and journalists like Hull) are free to compose their own messages without government interference.
Like any citizen, Giuliani is free to speak out against those messages and even to boycott an exhibit. But the mayor does not have the right to judge which art is appropriate for the rest of us to see. Bad art is a small price to pay for something as important as freedom of expression..
Ted Frederickson Professor of journalism