This week, I would like to thank John Roszkowski for writing a more informed article on his beliefs towards family values. I am a U.S. Army veteran myself who has seen a face of the world that drives me to be convicted to my beliefs. Though I do not share Roszkowski’s beliefs, he earns all my respect for being a fellow veteran and even more respect for obviously being convicted to his beliefs. But alas! This week, I am bored with the family values issue. Now, I have discovered fresh opposition from Karl Spaulding, better known as the “criminal justice expert.”Last week, Spaulding graced us with sharing all of his vast knowledge of the current gun control laws. He then topped it off by informing us of his credentials and how he desires to challenge the experts to some good old-fashioned debating. Please, allow me to take the first turn.Spaulding stated, “The United States has a lot of guns and a lot of violence (premise #1). Other countries have far fewer guns and far less violence (premise #2). Guns must therefore cause more violence (conclusion).” This is obviously a fallacy of “cause and effect.” Just about any course in statistics or logical analysis would teach that this is one of the worst types of arguments to use in a debate. I believe that many Lantern readers know that guns do not kill people. People kill people! The gun is a worthless, tangible item with no conscience of its own. The person who pulls the trigger, and lets the bullet fly out of the barrel is the one with the conscience. Allow me to provide a couple of examples:

  • Johnny decides to kill his wife with a butter knife because she burned his Pop Tarts. Johnny goes to trial and pleads that he is not guilty for reason of temporary insanity. Johnny states to the jury, “Please don’t send me to the chair! You just don’t understand! The butter knife caused me to do it.”
  • Mary, an alcoholic mother of five children, decides to smother her youngest son with her bare hands because he would not go to sleep. Mary states, “Please, Judge Smith! Don’t let me hang from the gallows! You don’t understand! My hands and the beer caused me to do it.” See what Alcoholics Anonymous or Mothers Against Drunk Driving has to say about that one. They will tell you that people need to take responsibility for their own actions. We, the people, do not do that enough.
  • Timothy decides to blow up a federal building full of about 270 people. Timothy states to the victims’ families, “Please forgive me, and let us be friends! You just don’t understand! The Ryder truck full of explosives caused me to do it.”
  • Human A killed Human B with a gun. The gun killed Human B, not Human A. Therefore, hold the gun responsible, not Human A. Does that make any sense? This is an outrage! I am very sorry for insulting the intelligence of so many sound-minded readers.

I suppose for thousands of years before the invention of the gun, humans simply killed each other by spitting paper wads out of straws at each other. Furthermore, thousands of people are killed every year by hammers, bricks, and even automobiles. Will outlawing all of these things bring an end to violence? Basically speaking, we need to be a part of the solution and not a part of the problem involving violence. The first step is for us to realize who, not what, is to blame and then generate alternatives to the problem. Of course, this will not be easy. But then again, thinking real hard always takes work.

Thomas Ryan Crooks is a lowly redneck senior majoring in business and communications who is still trying to figure out the meaning of life from the so-called experts.