Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 18, 1986)
V pm KumraHranmn . ■ Page 2/The Battalion/Wednesday, June 18, 1986 Opinion Deadly defense A study in the New England Journal of Medicine has blasted holes in the National Rifle Association’s argument that hand guns in the home are a safe and effective method of self-protec- tion. Dr. Arthur Kellermann, a researcher at the University of Tennessee, found that for each gunshot slaying in self-defense in a gun-owning home, there were 43 suicides, homicides or ac cidental deaths by firearms. Kellermann surveyed gunshot deaths in gun-owning homes from 1978 to 1983 in the Seattle area. Of the 398 killings, only about 2 percent (nine deaths) were in self-defense and only 0.5 percent (two deaths) were slayings of burglars. The study also showed it was more common for guns to be used in suicides, homicides, usually resulting from arguments, and the accidental killings of family members, friends and ac quaintances. The study shows that in instances where handguns are dis charged in the home, they rarely are used for protection. The NRA claims the study is irrelevant because most protective uses of guns don’t involve the firing of bullets. Perhaps the NRA is right. Maybe most people keep hand guns around to wave at prowlers and scare them off. Maybe they feel safer with a pistol around to lean on. But they should be aware that if the trigger is pulled, chances are the barrel won’t be aimed at a burglar, but at their families, friends or even themselves. The Battalion Editorial Board E Then aid wit around cans ha' Hcation this yeai I For tl ithc Uni Hs just stamp- ■ The op> d a ■amp. ■her b any nati Hal m r?, RT oVustally u ^Swii’s tir lere Filli prlvent r after tht dept, the ^Kwic, knbw it c nexi day ir pov tive falloi air. Pro-communist stance not based on one vote William F. Buckley Jr. The Contra de bate is coming up again now, and it’s time to review some of the rhe toric that has been used. As an exam ple of militancy, opponents of Con tra aid like to cite Patrick Buchanan. Now, Buchanan is one of the lustiest polemicists in town, and sometimes one gets the impression that he thinks nu ance is just a little effete. Here is what he wrote about the Sandinistas in March: “About the character of the Sandinista regime, doubt no longer remains. Even the ‘useful idiots’ of Lenin’s depiction — the liberated nuns and Marxist Maryk- nollers, the journalistic camp followers and tenured professors anxious to wow the coeds with how they picked coffee beans for the revolution — seem de fensive.” I wish I had said that. And he went on: “Desertion of the democratic resistance by Congress would lead, as night follow day, to loss of Central America.” And then the line they like most to hate: “Whose side are you on? With the vote on Contra aid, the Democratic Party will reveal whether it stands with Ronald Reagan and the resistance — or Daniel Ortega and the communists.” Now the other side was hardly re strained. Rep. Henry Gonzalez said it was all very simple: “The president is obviously lusting after that false bitch goddess of war.” Rep. Parren Mitchell was pretty outspoken: “Mr. Speaker, a foul, stinking odor has already been in jected into the political campaigns. Through smear, innuendo and McCar thy-like statements — they have had the temerity to question the patriotism of some of us in the Congress who oppose Reagan’s misguided attempts to . . . ,” etc. Rep. Ronald Dellums came right to the point, as he saw it: “When members stand up to assert their responsibility, their responsibilities . . . press confer ences are called, people are challenged, they are pro-communist, they are anti- American, they are disloyal human be ings because they do not walk in lockstep. I would suggest, Mr. Chair man, that Nazi Germany of the 1930s was a nation where people walked in lockstep.” One would think that Del lums, an intimate of the Marxists who were Castroizing Grenada until Reagan liberation, would be as anxious to bring up Nicaragua as Richard Nixon would be to bring up Watergate. But the point arises: How does one correctly put it? Say of the British and French who didn’t want to rearm when warned of the dangers of Hitler. That they were pro-Hitler? No, they weren’t. But their policies certainly assured Hit ler’s success. Thejohn Birch Society un der Robert Welch sank out of legitimate view for one reason, namely the procliv ity of Welch to assume that objective ef fect indicates subjective intention. If Ei senhower stood idly by when Stalin grabbed East Germany, why, that was because Eisenhower wanted Stalin to have East Germany. No, it doesn’t work. On the other hand, mature people are entitled at some point to conclude that the objective effect of certain poli cies is pro-communist, and then ask whether they want those who back such programs in power in Washington. Take Tip O’Neill, Democratic leader. A recent listing of major recent foreign policy issues was done by Policy Review managing editor Dinesh D’Souza, after which the positions of Reagan, O’Neill and Gorbachev were recorded. Here is how it shapes up: • Pershing deployment: Yes (Rea gan) No (O’Neill) No (Gorbachev) • Cruise missile deployment: Y N N • Neutron bomb: Y N N • Aid to Contras: Y N N • Abide by SALT II: NY Y • Lift grain embargo: Y N Y • Strategic defense: Y N N • Nuclear freeze: N Y Y • Aid to Angolan rebels: Y N N • Aid to Marxist Mozambique: Y Y Y • MX missile: Y N N • B-l bomber: Y N N PRES' Dr. Ann • i}\svn\ esvment. in Soud\ Ak 1 odist Un chosen tl • Trade sanctions against Sog tocondu fsj n cal and c ■This ] • Sanctions against Nicaragua: her life! N the past • Military aid to El Salvador:)' • Aid to Afghan rebels: YYN America choice oi Now surely if a congressman "i was 100 percent of the time in favor: that day bachev, you could responsibly whose side he was on. Pat B asks, about aid to the Contras,* 1 Congressman X is on the samt , Ortega in opposing aid to thefc or on the same side as Reagamfe | aid to the Contras. You can’t, vote on just that issue, make it. | generalizations, but it is fairtosan | lot of votes over a long period of I add up to — a syndrome. Ifalejs votes day after day, year afteryen cade after decade, against tions for the military, at whatpon you legitimately think of himai! fist? Copyright 1986, Universal PressSyndici' Should AIDS cure be sought, or is virus a social antibod The Public Health Service has predicted the death toll from AIDS will rise to 54,000 a year by 19 9 1. Think about that for awhile, and com pare it to other figures. These projected fatali ties are relatively equal to all of the American losses during our country’s involvement in Vietnam. The number Mark Ude of deaths will make AIDS one of the top ten killers of people in the United States, killing more people than pneu monia, suicides or car accidents. In San Francisco, the bastion of the homosexual community, AIDS has deci mated the political force of gay voters, which once was strong enough to put a homosexual on the city council. Gays, who had flocked to Castro Street like a Mecca, are now confused and unde cided as to their political future. Discrimination and hostilities have broken out against the gay segment, even more so now that there is the pan demic of AIDS present. There are fears that AIDS is being spread like wildfire among the homosexuals, and that it will overflow into the “straight community.” Such fears are valid, especially when we read reports of those who become in fected with AIDS from blood transfu sions. The hysteria is centered on the cause of this AIDS outbreak, promiscu ous gays and drug users dumb enough to use an infected syringe. Fears also have prompted some to wonder if they could receive AIDS because of a mos quito bite. While there are cases of AIDS victims having been infected as a result of con taminated ' needles and blood transfu sions, most (70 percent) patients are or were active homosexuals. The persistent occurence of AIDS in the gay community can be attributed to the public, promiscuous and easy sex that has surfaced in modern times. There are even those who would seek the legalization of homosexual mar- raiges. If or when such practices are al lowed, I will reconsider living in these United States. It has been estimated that of the 70,000 gays in San Francisco, 35,000 of them have been exposed to the AIDS vi rus. The fear of a prolonged, agonizing death have prompted safety rules, as to lessen the risk of contracting AIDS. But either the promiscuous ones don’t know they have the AIDS virus, or the com munity is disregarding the safety rules conveniently provided. This blatant dis regard for public health is what has caused many people to consider AIDS to be God’s wrath upon the deviant 11 practices of immoral people. Exactly what this nation’s i goals are concerning the AIDSpA* is still under discussion. Do w untold billions to discover a cure* gays can continue their prorni* lifestyle, regardless ofthetf quences? Or do we let AIDS run its course, effectively disposi 1 what many consider an undesirf | ement in American society? Our enlightened, humanisii ( open-minded civilization should!? come up with some wonder druj can reduce the effects of AIDS ing more harmful than anotherstri herpes. Maybe then we can: to living our lives as before, of these embarrassing side effects seem to pop up from nowhere Mark Ude is a senior geognpt' and a columnist for The Battali The Battalion (USPS 045 360) Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference The Battalion Editorial Board Michelle Powe Loren Steffy Opinion Payd-1 Scott Sutherland Ctyjji Kay Mallett Newf l Ken Sury Sport#] Editorial Policy The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper operated as a community service to fexas A&\hnd BrurU Station. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the Editorial Board or the author, and do not necessuril}'rcprft opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in reporting, editing and photography dasses d Department of Journalism. The Battalion is published Monday through Friday during Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holidayandev lion periods. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Advertising nit | c nished on request. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Building, l exasA&M University, College Station, TX 77843. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, CollegeStaf 77843.