Pistols article glorified handguns

To the Editors:

I am writing in response to Daniel G. Romano's Nov. 5 article titled "Pistols play their part in stress relief." The article is poorly written and does not provide any information of public interest; as a work of journalism it is worthless. Apart from its lack of relevance to the public, however, I was shocked by its glorification of handguns. The article plainly advocates the use of handguns, and its implications of violence are frightening. It was only the article's glorification of firearms that prevented me from throwing the paper in the nearest recycling bin.

In the first paragraph, Mr. Romano writes: "But how does an Oberlin student escape stress, relieve anxiety and circumvent depression? The answer is simple: go and shoot a handgun." He later describes how his "inspiration" to fire a handgun came about, his search for a place to shoot a weapon, and finally the feelings of elation and "freedom" from firing the weapon. The accompanying picture shows Mr. Romano firing a handgun at a target shaped like a person. The implications of violence are appalling. Then he writes, "Now don't get me wrong, I'm not some redneck gun freak." How thoughtful of him to include a few sentences in a futile attempt to reverse the thesis of the article! Also, by making that stereotype he arrogantly remarks that he himself is not a "redneck gun freak," so therefore it is okay for him to use a firearm, but not "them."

With shootings occurring in this country practically every day, it is obvious what results from the popularity and availability of firearms. It is especially irresponsible of the Review to print Mr. Romano's article on the first page, but the article about the armed robbery outside Wilder on the third! The consequent misuse of handguns could not be more clearly illustrated.

Perhaps my opinion is biased, however. I attended a high school 50 miles north of Columbine High School in Colorado. A SWAT team conducted drills inside my high school last summer, and my friend's friend was shot eight times in the chest in Littleton. My opinion may be skewed by that experience, but I find the article's glorification of handguns deplorable. Mr. Romano's article can only be detrimental to peace and nonviolence. If there is a single positive aspect to result from the article, I cannot find it.

Yhat this article appeared on the front page worries me; that the editor allowed it to be printed frightens me, and that another human being wrote it appalls me. Depicting guns as a solution to any sort of problem - be it stress, depression, or anything - is completely unacceptable. As journalists, both writers and editors of the Review should understand their responsibilities before publicly supporting firearms and violent behavior.

--Michael Murray, College first-year

Review disappoints again

To the Editors:

Each time I think I won't write another letter to the Review, something compelling occurs and I am forced to take up my pen. This time, it is Daniel Romano's appalling piece. I got the impression his piece was deliberately provocative, though I can only guess at the author's and theReview's motives.

First, it is exceedingly irresponsible for the Review to publish such articles. The story did not affect the wider community. If Mr. Romano merely wished to promote shooting, he could have done so via a letter to the editor or an ad. It is utterly insensitive to those who may have been personally affected by gun-violence. It glamorizes what is, at best, an extremely dangerous activity. It leaves the Review and the College potentially legally liable should Mr. Romano intentionally inflict harm on others or should his article motivate others to do so. Since the laws on harm are considered just and fair, any First Amendment or "raising the issue" defenses are inadmissible. Given the existance of much safer stress-relieving and attention-worthy activities, I fail to see why Mr. Romano's piece was published, beyond sensationalism and the fact that he is a Review staff member.

Next, as someone who has handled weapons, seen dead people and lived in areas where security issues compel heavy firearm usage, I was deeply disturbed. The fact that someone should enjoy an inherently destructive act using an instrument whose sole purpose is physical harm is, quite frankly, terrifying. While it can be argued there are elements of power, thrill and perhaps harm in sports, mental games like chess and in sex, none of these activities was conceived with deliberately lethal instruments and overtones. The potential for accidental damage in these activities is relatively limited, especially given the shocking extent of the "training" Mr.Romano received. The first rule of guns is not "Don't point." It is "Don't touch until absolutely necessary for physical safety." It's one thing to recieve training in firearms or to go hunting - both of which I regrettably have done. It's another to aim and use a weapon for "fun" and"stress-relief." Finally, Mr. Romano's description of his emotions, his "desires" and his belief that "fun shooting" is acceptable are worrisome.

I would strongly suggest he discuss this with qualified therapists, if only to go forward in this activity with more confidence and self-knowledge. I also expect the College to provide adequate safety measures in light of his piece and will hold them fully responsible for any occurrence linked to it.

--Jaya S. Bajpai, College junior

GOP alive at Oberlin

To the Editors:

After reading Mr. Sulman's letter regarding the (fortunate) dearth of Republicans on Oberlin's campus, I felt obliged to correct him. For you see, there are quite a few Republicans who subscribe to that "lunacy" here. Moreover, there are Republicans (and Democrats) with a "startling and irrational belief in God" in Oberlin. Not only do they manage to date while at Oberlin (a fact I can attest to), they have better things to do than endeavor to disparage others' political or religious precepts in a public forum. Rather, we engage in conversation, supported by rational arguments, when someone wishes to question us. Sadly, the open-mindedness Mr. Sulman fears will be lost in the real world has long been lacking in Oberlin, where a segment of the population insists on speaking on behalf of the totality.

--Hilda Canes, College senior

Challenge to improve town-gown relations, prevent future violence

To the Editors:

As I begin to try and understand the incident on Monday, my most immediate reaction is anger.

Why anger? For a lot of reasons. Because it was a seemingly senseless act of violence. Because it brings up a lot of questions that our administration and we as a student body seem unwilling or unable to answer. And because many people seem to have a very basic misunderstanding of what it was really all about.

Monday was not about locks. It was not about lights, or security or suspicious people. On one hand, we live in an imperfect world, and these are all important things to be aware of to a reasonable extent. News flash, folks. Realistically, crime happens. It happens everywhere. Lots of crimes happen on this very campus that go unreported or unpublicized. People have said that the reasons that crimes like these happen is because people at Oberlin are very trusting and caring, but in my mind, it is these things that makes Oberlin relatively safe. People look out for each other. If we let our fear consume us, we run the risk of losing that which I (and many people I know) love the most about our school.

So now we know what it was not about. What was it about? At the forum led by Peter Goldsmith Tuesday night, someone asked if this was indicative of College-town tensions. The response by the Oberlin Police Chief was a rather perplexing statement about how students should not be as trusting that people in the town would take advantage of students if given a chance. Goldsmith's reply was that College-town tensions simply did not exist. Neither of these is entirely true but they left me with the definite impression that this was not an issue which either of them were willing to address.

Why not? Addressing the conflict between the campus and the town is a difficult undertaking. Inevitably when students in a college are more financially well-off than the surrounding area, some conflict is going to ensue. To their credit, many students do take a very active role in addressing these differences, but they can only make a small dent in what is undeniably a systemic problem. So I challenge the student body and the administration to begin to work to facilitate greater communication and understanding between the College and the town. And I challenge the town to work toward this as well.

There is another important aspect to this that no-one seems willing to discuss. This assault, as several assaults in the past, was possibly the act of a black man on a white person. People on this campus, and perhaps the Oberlin Police Department, consciously or subconsciously, seem to consider this justification to be suspicious of all black males who are not students in the College.

The most infuriating aspect of this perception is that if these acts were committed by a white person, the race of the aggressor would not be an issue. The race of the aggressor seems to play off of a lot of deep-rooted racist fears that are prevalent in our culture, within Oberlin and without. If the aggressor had been a white female, I would not take this as a reason to be suspicious of all white females, but somehow this generalization seems more acceptable when applied to a black male. I wonder how many black males have had their rights violated as a direct result of this incident. So once again I send a challenge to the Oberlin community. What are the racial tensions that exist within the College and the town?

How do these tensions relate to economic status? How many are culturally based? Only when we begin to understand this will we really know what happened last Monday.

--Robin Metalitz, College sophomore

Whose rights are you getting up, standing up for?

To the Editors:

"You gotta get up, stand up... stand up for your rights," is what I heard from a white reggae band performing a Bob Marley cover when I stepped into the 'Sco on campus band night. I could not help but tie it with a letter from Yahya Ibn Rabat's concerning appropriation of poverty. Bob Marley wrote political songs to stand up for rights denied to him and others by white people. In this American society, you, as whites, are privileged enough to have all the rights guaranteed. How can you sing or dance to those songs of political oppression and honestly know what they mean? Maybe you are one of the few that knows the true meaning of the struggle at heart, as you sang, I highly doubt it. I also doubt that the crowd jumping around as you sang has ever experience the true meaning of standing up for their rights as well.

One of the major concerns with what happened at the 'Sco and other events is that the actions are viewed as just and are seen with no problem. Allow me to refer to a similar situation to the problem found at Oberlin with Harkies and those similar to them, individuals stepping out of their community and into one where they do not belong.

A suburban kid dresses in "ghetto clothes" to have an trendy urban feeling. Not only does he dress like an urban kid, but he internalizes the problems of gang violence and drug abuse. He has never lived in a place where he had to protect himself with extreme violence because there was no alternative. He never had to walk down the street constantly looking behind his back. He doesn't constantly get harassed by police officers. He doesn't receive bad looks from department store workers while being followed around the store. He doesn't know nor deserve to be part of the urban struggle. He's a person who lives in luxury because he has never been oppressed, or had to stand up for his rights.

Some students do understand the cause and the struggle of living in poverty, but why do you have to go so far as to dress "poor" in order to identify with the struggle? Give up your financial power and go to a community college because that is all you can really afford due to the fact that a major university didn't offer you the financial aid package to cover the cost to attend. Go to Thrift Town because A&F is honestly too much. This is not you. You have the choice, the privilege, that others do not. That is where the problem lies.

Since you have the social mobility, you think that you can enter and exit certain communities at will. You can't! There are certain social boundaries that aren't meant to be crossed. You, Harkies, totally bumrushed the boundaries and camped out in the middle of what you think is your rightful place. You exoticize certain communities' struggles to your benefit because your status enables you to. Because of your status, you can wear the struggles as a coat, pulling it off and on as you please. If you want to help out in struggles of poverty or oppression, by all means, do so, but do not internalize the struggle and make it yours, pretending you know what it means and how it feels to be oppressed. Don't lie to yourself at the cost of others.

--Jorge Sanchez, College sophomore

Hunger, homelessness unjustified

To the Editors:

As many of you have been told before, right now there is too much food and money circulating in the world for people to be hungry. Every day 32,000 people die of hunger-related, preventable causes. In America, the "wealthiest nation," more than 27 million Americans are considered hungry and over 3 million are homeless. Here in Lorain County, one of the poorest counties in Ohio, one-in-four children is afflicted with hunger on a daily basis. And, last year, the Ohio State Legislature ignored the facts and cut funding for housing, for the poor to fund an oil refinery. It can seem overwhelming.

Realizing that these problems may not be solved in one week, there are things you can do to take action on hunger related issues. From Nov. 15-21, Ohio PIRG, Habitat for Humanitv. RESULTS and Res. Life will hold several events during National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week. This annual week, sponsored by the National Student Campaign Against Hunger and Homelessness (a student PIRG project), is a way for people to become more aware of the issues, both politically and locally, concerning hunger and homelessness. It's a great way for people to confront the problems and find ways to educate others on the true atrocities that are associated with the poor of this nation and the world.