Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, January 15, 2019

T

he coming year stands 
to be a watershed for the 
raging debate over guns and 
gun violence in this country. Those 
who strongly oppose more stringent 
gun 
control 
measures 
remain 
shaken from a raft of prominent, 
though largely symbolic, policy 
changes enacted after last year’s 
mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman 
Douglas High School in Parkland, 
Fla., and seem especially vulnerable 
in light of Democrats’ recent takeover 
of the House of Representatives. 
Gun violence is one of the most 
intensely political issues in the U.S.. 
The extensive amount of media 
coverage (and conspiracy theories, 
for that matter) dedicated to the topic 
exemplify the polarized nature of 
the discussion. So, it’s prudent to ask: 
Why care about guns?
The emotional contours of the 
gun debate are a good place to start. 
Much like other forms of violence, 
mass shootings receive what many 
deem a disproportionate amount 
of media attention in the U.S. Even 
though 
this 
attention 
partially 
obscures the numerical primacy of 
bigger killers, such as heart disease 
and cancer, we should not chastise 
ourselves too much. Tragedy is found 
not only in absolute conceptions of 
death but also in relative ones. On 
average, as many Americans die 
every couple of days from heart 
disease as did Americans in all 
of the Sept. 11 attacks, but it is the 
latter that we memorialize because 
no one reasonably expected nearly 
3,000 healthy office workers and 
first responders to be murdered so 
gruesomely that day. So, beyond the 
unique grisliness that often define 
gun deaths, there is good reason to 
dedicate extra attention to cruel and 
often unpredictable incidences of 
gun violence.
Not only do we find gun violence 
intensely tragic compared to other, 
more natural causes of death, but 
also as Americans, we are forced to 
confront this tragedy much more 
often than our peers. Among the 
world’s free, wealthy and Western 
societies, the U.S. stands in a league 
of its own with regard to gun-related 
crime. Countries with similar overall 
rates of crime pale in comparison to 
the U.S. when one looks at per capita 
firearm homicides — sometimes, 
with specific regards to firearm 
homicides, by a factor as great as nine.
Yet writing off guns as just 
another weapon does not do proper 
justice to the unique power they 
possess. They are often used as tools 

of crime, yes, just like baseball bats, 
lead pipes and knives. But unlike any 
of these implements — none of which 
could be as feasibly regulated as a 
complexly machined firearm — guns 
make violent crimes much more 
lethal. Firearms’ impressive lethality, 
delivered in a package so concealable 
and accessible, is found in no other 
device. To sufficiently recognize the 
potential the gun possesses for both 
creating and preventing violence is 
to acknowledge this unique power, 
as anyone who has used one in self-
defense can attest to. 

It is also in this capacity of self-
defense that people often envision 
guns most romantically. While 
firearms and their unique power 
makes them ideal choices for 
individuals who wish to feel more 
secure, widespread gun use is weakly 
justified in light of the attendant 
dangers they pose to society as whole. 
This disconnect with reality reflects 
humans’ innate desire to care for 
our own security to preserve oneself 
even when the aggregate costs or 
the long-term risks of doing so prove 
to be countervailing. If we refuse 
to acknowledge these hardwired, 
albeit flawed, instincts that drive the 
popular desire to possess guns, we 
can scarcely begin to convince others 
that more guns may unwittingly 
make us less safe.
However, we as Americans 
should not approach guns only in 
terms of the distinctive dangers they 
pose, but also through a historical 
lens. From the minutemen who made 
possible the American Revolution 
to the frontiersmen who conquered 
Native American lands by force as 
they pushed to the Pacific, American 
history has been largely forged by 
the gun. The legacies of household 
militias and armed pioneers, and 
the way they have distinguished 
Americans from other Westerners to 
the present, are a force to be reckoned 
with in any effective approach to gun 
policy. Good and bad, guns are an 

indelible part of America’s past and 
present. Logistical and legal realities 
ensure they will be around for the 
future as well.
Moreover, the current moment 
demands 
levelheaded 
analysis 
of gun policy because prominent 
opinions often make the easy 
mistake of patently demonizing guns 
or wholeheartedly lionizing them. 
Gun control, while an important 
part of any comprehensive public 
health policy, should not hog the 
policy spotlight at the expense of 
other contributors to gun violence 
and crime more generally, such 
as inadequate public education, 
astronomical 
incarceration 
and 
recidivism rates and insufficient 
treatment of mental health. On the 
other hand, loudly decrying efforts 
to limit the Second Amendment 
without consistently and persuasively 
justifying a need for it inherently 
posits that the Constitution is entirely 
infallible (which the deeply flawed 
Electoral College proves otherwise) 
while overlooking our Constitutional 
right to legislatively revise outdated 
provisions. Addressing the gun-
related 
costs 
American 
society 
bears while maintaining the spirit 
of liberty set forth by the founding 
fathers requires that both of these 
considerations are paid due attention.
Gun violence in the U.S. is a 
national-level problem that demands 
national-level input. Taming this 
violence requires that we analyze 
gun policy with intense scrutiny, 
but vastly differing interpretations 
of gun rights in the U.S. reflect the 
significant 
political 
polarization 
that we must overcome to enact 
any meaningful change. 2019 may 
very well be the year that the pro-
gun lobby, after facing numerous 
setbacks, is forced to moderate some 
of its more apocalyptic doctrine. 
Alternatively, it could be the year 
that large-scale action on gun 
violence, despite recent legislative 
improvements, stalls in ordinary 
fashion. Regardless, solutions to 
gun violence will require thoughtful 
policies that acknowledge firearms’ 
incredible capacity to hurt, while 
respecting the rich history of 
firearms in America, not including 
the the impact on Native Americans, 
 
and the bearing this will have on 
gun control efforts down the road. 
There are plenty of reasons to care, 
and a lot of work to be done.

Why are we still talking about guns?

ETHAN KESSLER | COLUMNIST

Ethan Kessler can be reached at 

ethankes@umich.edu

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
 Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

For tech newcomers, caution is required 
“ 
C

an’t 
you 

just write 

a program 

to do this?” is a half-

joking 
question 
I’m 

sure 
most 
of 
my 

computer science peers 

have received countless 

times. As computing 

permeates more and 

more of our world, we 

have less of a choice about 

how it affects us. In order 

to manage the increasing 

externalities, 
a 
culture 

shift is required. For too long, 

we have been operating under 

the presumption of “good” with 

regards to new technology. The 

magic touch of tech things has 

suddenly become just plain 

better. That’s how we get a 

fridge 
that 
can 
tweet. 
It’s 

obviously better than a fridge 

that can’t tweet!

Unfortunately, 
this 

phenomenon isn’t limited to 

misguided retailers. Software-

based elections are a perfect 

example of the potential for 

serious problems when this 

ideology is applied. Elections 

have been shifting away from 

paper 
ballots 
and 
towards 

electronic 
voting 
machines. 

This all changed with the 

“hanging 
chad” 
debacle 
of 

2000. 
The 
events 
of 
that 

election happened to coincide 

with the technology boom of 

the early 2000s and resulted 

in a rush to computer voting 

machines with the promise of 

increased clarity and efficiency. 

After all, it was the 21st century 

— why were we still relying on 

the cumbersome pen and paper 

to record our votes? For all the 

guarantees of computer voting 

machines, they’ve turned out 

to be quite the letdown. As 

Alex Halderman, a professor 

of 
Computer 
Science 
and 

Engineering at the University 

of 
Michigan, 
has 
shown 

repeatedly, they are vulnerable 

to a host of attacks and failure 

states that render them far 

inferior to paper-based voting 

systems.

We 
tend 
to 
think 
of 

technology only in its perfect 

state. 
When 
everything 
is 

running 
smoothly, 
computer 

voting systems sound like a 

more convenient and efficient 

way to do things. 

It is only when we 

consider the possible 

imperfections 
that 

we 
can 
obtain 
a 

truly 
informed 

assessment 
of 

the 
system. 
Alas, 

caution is woefully 

scarce 
in 
many 

discussions involving 

technology. 
Those 

who are employing 

the technology fear 

being 
seen 
as 
old-

fashioned, while those building 

the technology too often take a 

position similar to Facebook’s 

former 
motto, 
“Move 
fast 

and break things.” Risks and 

externalities are ignored for the 

creation of a shiny new system 

that demonstrates “progress.”

But if the product is faulty, 

won’t the market reflect that 

and correct itself? Won’t the 

company make a change lest 

the consumers turn to other 

options? Not necessarily, as 

technology failures tend to not 

make themselves obvious like 

a faulty air-bag. Your fridge 

could appear to be functioning 

perfectly, 
happily 
tweeting 

along, 
all 
the 
while 
being 

remotely accessed and enlisted 

in what is known as a botnet, 

which is a network of private 

computers 
infected 
with 

malicious software.

Furthermore, 
as 
more 

nontraditional 
technologoical 

entities 
utilize 
software 

systems, they are frequently 

dealing with small, external 

teams 
of 
developers 
that 

sometimes fail to follow best 

practices and often lack the 

resources 
of 
a 
large 
tech 

company to dedicate to issues 

of consumer protection such as 

security. Security threats tend 

to be like a game of whack-

a-mole — you patch one issue 

and two more pop up. Without 

a full-time staff of software 

professionals, 
these 
systems 

are bound to be one step behind.

Many of these problems 

stem 
from 
the 
idea 
that 

the spread of computing to 

anything 
and 
everything 

is 
just 
and 
inevitable. 
It 

is 
technology’s 
version 
of 

manifest destiny. I agree that 

the advent of computing has 

brought, 
and 
will 
continue 

to bring, countless powerful 

improvements to the world. 

That’s 
why 
I 
am 
studying 

computer science. However, we 

need to think carefully about 

where and how we use that 

technology, especially when it’s 

involved in economies of scale. 

One tweeting fridge is innocent, 

a conversation starter even. But 

one million tweeting fridges 

potentially becomes a massive 

botnet, enabling attackers to 

wreak havoc.

Entities 
considering 
the 

implementation of computing 

systems 
should 
consider 

worst-case societal outcomes 

and consult security experts 

when making their decision. 

In the world of government, 

this is a realistic goal and 

should be expected. In the 

retail 
world, 
this 
may 
be 

unrealistic. Ideally, we would 

trust these businesses to cast 

aside technology proposals that 

serve only as marketing ploys 

and offer no real consumer 

benefit. However, this seems to 

be a classic prisoner’s dilemma 

for which regulation may be 

needed to induce cooperation. 

Requiring 
a 
product 
with 

computing 
capabilities 
and 

large sales to have full-time 

software staff dedicated to its 

maintenance is one possibility.

The future of technology 

is bright. Every day, exciting 

and meaningful things are 

being done with the help of 

computing systems. However, 

as more and more newcomers 

enter the computing gold rush, 

caution will be required in 

order to avoid fool’s gold.

Chand Majendra-Nicolucci can be 

reached at chandrn@umich.edu.

ABBIE BERRINGER | COLUMN

E

very New Year’s Day, 
my timeline is filled 
with 
New 
Year’s 
resolutions and claims that 
the next year will be “the 
very best one yet.” My peers 
are going to get in shape, eat 
healthier and study harder. 
They 
also, 
often 
times, 
reflect on the geopolitical 
landscape of the previous 
year. 
They 
are 
always 
hoping the next year brings 
less war and more peace, 
less corruption and more 
transparency, and there is 
an overall sentiment of hope 
that the world will hang on 
by a thread for one more 
year. As the days pass on, 
people may hit the gym and 
put blood, sweat and tears 
into keto diets. However, 
when it comes to the state of 
the world, it seems most of 
us do little more than keep 
our fingers crossed.
It has been overstated, 
etched on decorative pillows, 
and clichéd to an almost 
unbearable degree that one 
must “be the change you 
want to see in the world.” Yet 
few New Year’s resolutions 
that 
have 
hit 
my 
social 
media timelines in the past 
few days have included any 
community 
service 
plans. 
We as a society are obsessed 
with personal improvement 
kicks, but hardly ever do 
these trendy diets or yoga 
plans 
include 
community 
improvement 
initiative. 
What if this New Year’s, 
alongside 
our 
book 
lists 
and 
workout 
plans, 
we 
made plans to volunteer in 
our communities one day a 
week or even just one day a 
month?
We 
sit 
behind 
our 
computer screens discussing 
the 
latest 
National 

Geographic 
article 
about 
the abuse of plastics, yet 
how 
many 
of 
our 
New 
Year’s resolutions involve 
volunteering to clean up 
roadways and parks? We 
live in one of the coldest 
states in the continental 
United States, and yet how 
many of us will donate old 
blankets or boots to the local 
homeless 
shelters? 
Many 
of us will save up money 
for new phones, watches or 
Lululemon leggings, but how 
many of us will donate to 
relief efforts to help rebuild 
smoldering 
communities 
in 
California? 
We 
have 
arguably the best children’s 
hospital in the state in our 
backyard, but how many of 
us will volunteer there this 

year?
On this subject, I admit 
that 
I 
am 
a 
hypocrite. 
As I sat in my home this 
New 
Year’s 
Eve, 
trying 
desperately to stay awake 
long enough to see the ball in 
Times Square drop, I thought 
about how little I had done 
for others in the past year. 
I hardly volunteered in my 
community at all. I didn’t 
donate my time or resources 
to 
any 
local 
charities. 
Overall, I was not a citizen 
with a true commitment to 
bettering the world around 

me. For a moment, I made 
excuses for myself, such as: 
trying to boost my GPA, I was 
sick quite a few times or I 
had a hard summer. Yet, none 
of these excuses made up 
for all the hours of Twitter 
scrolling 
and 
Domino’s 
eating that had sucked up so 
much of my time and money 
into wholly self-gratifying 
efforts.
The truth is that we are 
all busy. We all have things 
in our personal lives we 
want to improve. Sometimes 
we do need to focus on 
ourselves 
by 
ordering 
a 
pizza and binging Pirates 
of the Caribbean, but what 
if this year we made some 
time in our calendars for 
helping our communities 
as well? Imagine all that 
we could change if every 
student at the University 
of Michigan donated just 
a little bit of their time 
to 
volunteering 
in 
Ann 
Arbor and the surrounding 
areas. We live in a bubble 
as highly privileged college 
students attending one of the 
most prestigious universities 
in the nation, yet every time 
we look at our phones or 
turn on the news, we see 
how small that bubble truly 
is. The world around us can 
most definitely be better 
in 2019 than it was in years 
past, but maybe this year, 
instead of merely crossing 
our fingers while we run 
on t he t readmill, we ca n 
ma ke resolutions to be a 
pa r t of t he solution.

A new kind of New Year’s resolution

 Abbie Berringer can be reached at 

abbieber@umich.edu.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the 
editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 
300 words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 
words. Send the writer’s full name and University 
affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

Gun violence in the 

U.S. is a national-level 

problem that demands 

national-level input

We should be 
making resolutions 
to be part of the 
solution

JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our Editorial Board meets Mondays and Wednesdays 
7:15-8:45 PM at our newsroom at 420 Maynard St. All 
are welcome to come discuss national, state and campus 
affairs.

We tend to think 
of technology 
only in its 
perfect state

CHAND 
RAJENDA-
NICOLUCCI

CHAND RAJENDA-NICOLUCCI | COLUMN

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

