A gun isn’t a gun

I am writing to talk about the “Show some respect, please, and put down your piece” (editorial) put in the Sept. 7 (issue) of the Daily Wildcat. To me, it seems like whoever wrote this article seemed more “unintelligent” and “ignorant” than the people that they were trying to belittle. It has been nine months since the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. Is there a set limit on how soon we are comfortably able to talk about guns again? It has been long enough since the incident, and she did not even die from it. The same thing happened to Theodore Roosevelt (a former president). An assassination attempt was made on his life, and he was out shooting again later that week.

It is not like the Republican Party was auctioning off Jared Loughner bobble heads or anything like that. It was not even the same gun. Whoever was “unintelligent” enough to write that “a gun is a gun” proves that they are not at all informed on article-writing and providing an intelligent story. What if a Republican got hit by a semi nine months ago, and did not die from it, and then a democratic fundraiser tried to auction off a Prius? Would we hear the same stink about it then? I believe we would not.

Then, when the party tries to address the situation by putting a different gun in the auction (the first one was already different to begin with) you still complain about that. Guns can be worth quite a bit of money, and actually serve non-lethal purposes, contrary to popular belief.

I don’t think whoever wrote this article should have been so narrow-minded when doing so. The thought process was only half-developed and was guided by narrow-minded emotion. If you are going to bash not only somebody’s political views as well as personal heritage views, you need to do so in a more intelligent way and with proper credibility.
 
_— Matt Lewis,
Natural resources major_