Friday, July 12, 1968
THE SUMMER SESSION KANSAN
3
Nation needs gun laws
This country needs gun restrictions. Its citizens have shown a lack of responsibility by the great number of deaths, accidents, robberies and assaults with the use of guns.
Countries such as Japan, Germany, England and Canada have proved that restrictions can and do cut down the murder rate involving firearms. For example, the British require a certificate from the police in order to possess a gun.
Recently, England reported only 30 murders by firearms in one year. The United States does not compare favorably, reporting 6.552 murders by guns in 1966.
One of the greatest arguments against restrictions or registration is that "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." This statement would be more valid if revised to say "People with guns kill people."
The firearm should be compared to the car. Long before the gun registration controversy occurred, it was said that people with cars, not cars, kill. With increasing highway fatalities, restrictions were made; laws were created. Although this limited the way a person could drive, it did not deny him the freedom to drive. Instead, it made driving
Ideas of a nation
"...a stab in the back."
"If I could get my hands on
him . . .
"Run him down."
"Knock his brains out."
"He ought to be hung."
"I could kill him."
"He should be horse-whipped."
"I almost died."
"That just kills me."
"I could have shot him."
No, America is not a violence-oriented society.
safer. Firearm restrictions would do the same for gun owners without forbidding the use of guns.
Judy Bennett
Some say gun registration would not prevent any deaths, so why bother? Cars are registered and that registration makes it possible to hunt down the murdered of a small child, a hit-and-run victim.
The citizens of this nation
should realize that they need to give up some privileges in order to maintain safety and order for the public.
Automobile drivers gave up the right to drive as they please to save lives. Why shouldn't gun owners? A responsible citizen realizes that it is selfish to keep a privilege merely for the sake of having that privilege.
Guns don't kill...
...people do
On the bulletin board of the First Presbyterian Church in Lawrence there is a sign which says, "guns don't kill people: people kill people."
The message is not intended as a statement of policy in support or opposition to recent appeals for strict gun legislation. It is a call for mankind to re-examine its conscience.
The unexpected tragic death of Robert F. Kennedy in June bred an attention - getting over-night campaign for strict gun laws. Day and night, campaigners hounded congressmen with telegrams, phone calls, and petitions. The country's legislators, who for years have begged for correspondence from voters back home, were caught in a deluge of highly caustic mail.
Human nature is fickle, however. Aroused humans don't stay aroused long. Thus, as soon as the citizenry is given any sort of material satisfaction for its demands, it will again return to take refuge in docile stoicism, pretending that the problem at hand and all implications have been solved indefinitely.
REQUEST UNGRANTED GLASGOW, Scotland—(UPI) James Stewart, 33, was asked by a police court magistrate if he had anything to say.
REQUEST UNGRANTED
True, stricter gun legislation may discourage the old American tradition of trial by bullet, but it can't prevent it from occurring. Brutus, British Revolutionaries, and the Boston Strangler did not use guns.
"Yes, my lord," said Stewart. "May I have permission to kiss this policewoman?"
The citizens of the United States are to be commended for their recent attempts at justice, but unfortunately they are not hitting the nail on the head. The real problem lies with the people themselves, not the legislature. It is simply a matter of brotherhood.
Permission was not granted and Stewart, charged with breaking windows, was remanded for observation.
Brenda Jones
No congress or parliament can pass legislation to make self-examination mandatory. That is the responsibility of the individual.
Prominent figures not only gun victims
In each case, new gun control legislation was proposed in hopes that arms could be kept out of the hands of people who might turn on society. Also, each time the National Rifle Association fought against the proposals, arguing that these measures would be a violation of an American citizen's right to bear arms.
I would like to point out to the N.R.A. and other protesters of gun control legislation the incident in New York's Central park where a man, after hiding and killing a young woman, exchanged gunfire with policemen and pointlessly fired at anyone and anything.
Three men of great prominence in America, John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy died of an assassin's bullet, fired from guns which had been secured with shocking ease.
A young woman is dead. A girl who probably never ran for an office higher than secretary of the garden club, whose opinions on public affairs probably never went much further than to friends over a cup of coffee. This girl is dead because an obviously insane man was able to procure a gun merely by walking into a store with a purchase price in his hand.
The N.R.A. backed up its argument with another point: men in the public eye such as these three were natural targets, as they either held public office or stated opinions that could endanger someone.
I want to ask the protesters of stricter gun control what would be wrong with screening applicants for a gun license to filter out the mental defects and other undesirables when some men with sane desires to handle a gun could go on his merry way to hunt and do whatever the right to bear arms allows Americans to do. Yes, this method might prove to be a little inconvenient for the sportsman who is used to buying guns at the department store counter, but it would hopefully prove a block for the man with murder on his mind from getting his hands on a gun.
I urge you defenders of the "gun for the asking" theory to remember that the next young woman in the park might be your daughter, granddaughter, niece, or wife, or it could easily be you.
Nearly 2000 years ago the phrase "do unto others . . ." was coined. It seems that it has since been forgotten.
—Meri Maffet
Violence
In the face of a growing crime rate and three assassinations the American people must decide if it is actually the possession of guns that make us such a violent nation or whether there are far deeper reasons for this violence that no gun laws can cure. This page is devoted to this issue presenting student views on the issues.
TV, magazines incite violence
Murders, suicides, robberies, assaults—this is the Land of Happiness, America the Beautiful?
We boast of our glorious nation and of its great opportunities the same nation where political figures, men and women trying to guide their country, live in constant danger of their lives.
Oh, yes, leaders have been killed throughout history—Caesar, Charles I, Czar Nicholas II, and Louis XVI; but let's look at the more modern world. Take four of the leading countries of the world—Russia, Britain, France and the United States.
During the past five years three U.S. leaders have been assassinated, in the other countries none have been. Even in smaller and less advanced civilizations, celebrities may travel and live in safety.
And where is the free and happy ordinary private citizen? He is barricaded in his gun-stocked home protecting his frightened family from rioters, looters, murderers, and robbers.
Where has America's moral decay come from? The type of movies, songs and magazines being presented to a public of men, women and children are one cause of violence in America. How can youth, whose thoughts and personalities are just being developed, help being influenced by the heroworship and glamorous life shown to be led by murderers and robbers?
Many people think that there should be stricter gun laws. Statistics show that countries with tighter gun restrictions do have fewer gun killings. Of course, if a person is really intent upon murdering someone this law would not stop him. It would, however, reduce the number of shootings occurring in sudden moments of anger.
Violence in America can be reduced only when the people really want it to be. They must want it enough to get out and demand that the screens and magazines be cleaned up. They must see that prisoners are given fair and just trials, but that the guilty are punished by law. They must teach their children high morals and the proper handling of a gun, and they must elect capable men and women to government offices.
Mary Scott
Nation is strong
Rocked by storms and weathered by ages, the nation stands strong.
Two hundred years of pushing and growing passed till now it is proud and sure among the great.
Founded out of revolution, today revolution sings again and people moan a terrible fate for America.
They say violence has become a way of life and that people no longer can go out on the streets.
Politicians scream for legislation and new enforcement—in their campaign speeches.
Orators and commencement speakers decry the generation of today and express great hopes for tomorrow's.
But tomorrow's generations
cannot handle the problems of today tomorrow.
The murders, knifings, rapes, assassinations, violence all over our nation must be handled today.
But not with violence in return.
AMERICA—a nation that can be great only if her sons believe in her and what she stands for.
Two hundred million people live within her boundaries; each one has a responsibility to her in re-evaluating himself and what he has done to help her.
When the citizens of the United States of America look at themselves as an important part of this institution and feel the greatness she is capable of, they can be proud of her once more.
—Doris Bolinger