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