To the editor:
This is in response to Ronen Peled's op-ed about gun control in the September 24, 2004 issue. From the last paragraph, it appears he was trying to educate people about gun control. The rest of the piece, however, does not accomplish this.
Unlike most op-ed writers, Mr. Peled does not write with a single opinion. Instead, he presented both sides of the issue, each with a bias toward that side. This makes it very hard to get accurate information from the piece, as each side's "facts" are distorted.
Nevertheless, there are a few points I would like to address.
Firstly, Mr. Peled puts forth the idea that "[I]f Americans do not have vigilance for themselves, many more 9/11's will happen." In context, Mr. Peled appears to believe that if the general population is not allowed to carry guns, terrorists will attack us again. Implied in his statement, however, is the idea that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented if everyone was carrying a gun.
While I fully support the right of citizens to bear arms, it should be noted that the 9/11 hijackers used box-cutters to take over the planes. This is not because box-cutters are better weapons, but because airline screeners did not stop people with them from boarding planes. Guns, however, were not allowed. If everyone was allowed to carry a gun, and to take these guns onto airplanes, it is extremely likely that the hijackers would also have used guns.
Later in the piece, Mr. Peled noted the passage of the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act, which is supported by the Department of Homeland Security. This fact directly contradicts the idea that more weapons make for a safer nation. If this were the case, one would expect DHS to try and make it easier, not harder, for people to obtain weapons.
Mr. Peled also makes the claim that the United States is "prone to Islamic terrorism." As examples, he cites the 1993 WTC bombing and a 1997 incident at the Empire State Building. Adding the USS Cole attack and 9/11 to this list, there are only four examples of "Islamic terrorism." Whether the 1997 shootings should be even be considered terrorism is highly debatable. Should any shootings be considered terrorism, or only those committed by Arabs?
While any single act of terrorism can be considered 'too many,' to call four incidents "extensive" is simply wrong. Furthermore, he uses the "extensive" attacks as a rationale for gun control, when only one of the incidents was carried out with a gun. To use such an example to get stronger gun control by equating it to 9/11 is grossly irresponsible.
There are many valid points on each side of the gun control debate. The points that Mr. Peled made in his op-ed, however, are not. It is a shame that he felt the need to use the tragic yet unrelated events of 9/11 to strengthen his points.
Phil Gengler '05