Letter From Thomas Smith
Dear Editor:
Opinion columns allow some speculation and, obviously, opinion. Franklin Annis’ recent offering in the October 25th edition of The Eagle, “Gun rights include right to own any firearm,” however, exhausts any reasonable latitude accorded to such forums and fails to meet basic standards of acceptable journalism.
Mr. Annis – in a theme that is central in his contributions to The Eagle over the past several months – argues for the protection of American “liberties” and the current column attempts to connect this issue to bans on assault weapons. Both of these topics, liberties and bans on assault weapons, are valid subjects and prime terrain for informed discussion.
In his column, Mr. Annis’ preferred method of argumentation is reasoning by analogy. This approach can have some limited value, but Mr. Annis’ use of analogy is invalid and irresponsible. Mr. Annis argues that banning assault weapons based on appearance is “on the level of racism,” equates discussion of bans on assault weapons to Nazi practices and, again, invokes Nazi Germany as a comparative context for his assertion that bans on assault weapons impinge on liberty and safety. Further, and of particular concern to those who critically inquire about the past, Mr. Annis states that “if history has taught us anything” it demonstrates how the restriction of firearms leads to the loss of liberty and safety. Sound historical inquiry does not rely on trite generalization, nor does it selectively mine the past to support pre-conceived arguments (Mr. Annis’ “opinion” on the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, for example, is misleading and self-serving).
Muddled argumentation by analogy, careless appeal to terms laden with significant gravitas and half-baked use of the past undermine any claims on informed discussion and do not merit publication – regardless of the opinion forum – in one of our campus’ main conduits of informed exchange.
Mr. Annis is entitled to his opinions, but a primary role of The Eagle is to promote informed discussion. I am disappointed that your staff did not live up to this mandate in this instance.
—Dr. Thomas E. Smith,
Assistant Professor of History
As a professor of history, can you cite one instance in history where a reactive gun control law proactively prevented gun crime? Has there ever been a gun ban that increase liberty or safety within any nation? If you assert that I presented a truly trite historical generalization of the impacts of gun control please present the evidence that supports the contrary. If I really did presented a “half-baked” opinion as you assert, it should be easy to present volumes of data to prove gun control makes people safer.
If all it takes to end gun crimes is laws, why do the laws that are already on the books to punish assault, battery, and murder not sufficient? If these laws cannot stop these crime how could more laws make the situation any better?
The term “assault weapon” which has no military definition in itself is a term laden with gravitas of its own. The closest military term might be “intermediate action rifle.” Supporting this ban as an “assault weapons” ban already invites the use of emotionally charged language. This term plays on general ignorance and misunderstanding of firearms. I honestly doubt that there would be enough public support for a ban named after the correct term.