Article lacks voices gun law supporters

To the editor:

When I read the opening paragraph of your front page article “Students, faculty respond to campus gun laws” on October 21, I went from confused to aggravated all within the first paragraph. Unfortunately, these feelings never subsided as I continued to read.

The first sentence, “Students were disappointed when … Sarkeesian cancelled her presentation,” was pushing some limits. As a student, I suppose one could argue that I was disappointed. The entire environment of threats and fear is disappointing. Still, this sentence is quite generalized. I’m sure there are many students out there entirely apathetic to the situation. This generalization became absolutely appalling in the next sentence, “Her decision has caused Utah State University students … to reevaluate campus gun policies.”

I, for one, applaud the USU police for maintaining my constitutional right to defend myself. Again, it is disgusting that death threats were made on anyone, but terror Is designed to intimidate individuals into sacrificing the rights they hold close. It would have been easy for the campus police to budge just a little bit, claiming this was a unique circumstance. Thankfully, they took the high road and defended the rights laid out in the Second Amendment instead of taking the easy way. Many of those who I have spoken with on this subject agree with me. Evidently, the Statesman staff have a limited supply of friends to interview, as they failed to find anyone but university administration who would defend the police or the gun laws.

The arguments in favor of the right to carry have been laid out numerous times, so I won’t expound on them here. It is simply a fact, though, that shootings can still occur in gun-free zones and that Utah’s concealed carry laws enable citizens to defend themselves. It is also a fact that extensive security measures had been taken to ensure Sarkeesian’s safety, as well as her audience’s. She made a personal choice to not speak; that is her decision, not the USU police’s nor Utah’s gun laws’.

Seeing that later on in the article there was a reference to “President Albrecht” and “Professor Austin,” both using courtesy titles which are typically avoided in journalism, perhaps this article was published without any serious editing or wasn’t intended to be considered actual news. If the latter is the case, and this was simply meant to be an opinion piece of sorts, then I apologize for my frustration. If in fact front page articles are meant to be real news that reports real facts, then this article is disappointing and a very poor representation of The Statesman, which supposedly intends to represent my feelings as a student.

— Bracken Allen