Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, April 11, 2019
Zack Blumberg
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino
Erin White
Ashley Zhang
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
G
un policy is a delicate
balancing act. On the one
hand, optimal gun policy
is about gun control: regulating
guns and gun ownership with the
aim of making society safer. On the
other hand, reducing the volume
and lethality of civilian arms
should not reduce, to the extent
possible, the capacity of those
same arms to do good and make
individuals safer.
An adequate balancing of these
interests is what American society,
currently plagued by nearly 100
firearm fatalities per day, screams
silently for. As I opined in my
last column, this balancing is not
impossible.
Permit-to-purchase
laws, which require prospective
gun buyers to acquire a permit
from state or local law enforcement
in addition to passing universal
background checks, are tried and
tested. These laws make society
safer because they ensure that those
buying guns are qualified to enjoy
their benefits, rather than targeting
certain guns or gun attachments.
However, they, and other laws like
them, will need to be introduced at
the state level for their benefits to be
enjoyed.
For
any
staunch
Second
Amendment
supporters
still
reading at this point, the main
grievance with my position is
almost certainly a constitutional
one. Ammunition for this defense
of the Second Amendment is
often found in the curt opinions
of
Supreme
Court
Associate
Justice Clarence Thomas, who
has launched his own crusade
against the supposed relegation
of the Second Amendment “to
a second-class right” by the
Court.
To
adequately
protect
what Thomas terms the Court’s
“constitutional
orphan,”
many
Second Amendment supporters
claim that we should disregard all
gun control regulations but those
most substantially beneficial to
public safety and least burdensome
to individual rights.
Even though applying this strict
standard to gun laws has scant legal
precedent, for the sake of argument,
we can assume that legitimate gun
control measures have to both
further a “compelling governmental
interest” and be narrowly tailored
to do so. Reasonable people would
agree that the government has a
compelling interest in reducing
firearms deaths. And requiring a
permit from law enforcement in
order to obtain a firearm definitely
qualifies as a narrowly tailored
measure, in that it entails neither
an assault weapons ban nor limits
on magazine capacity – measures
that arguably reduce the capacity of
law-abiding gun owners to defend
themselves. Anyone worried that
local or state gun registries would
inevitably lead to the feared “federal
registry” would do well to review
the concept of federalism.
As for the efficacy of permit-
to-purchase laws, I am confident
that even die-hards such as Justice
Thomas would be satisfied. A study
published four years ago detailed
how Connecticut’s 1995 permit-
to-purchase laws were correlated
with a significant decline in
firearm homicides.
Another found strong evidence
that Missouri’s repeal of its own
permit-to-purchase law in 2007
led to increased gun violence. Yet
another study supported these
findings. In 2015, the Court denied
certiorari, an order in which a
higher court reviews the decision
of a lower court, to an appeal
of a local-level assault weapons
ban, and Thomas dissented by
noting that if a broad ban on
firearms can be upheld based on
conjecture that the public might
feel safer (while being no safer at
all), then the Second Amendment
guarantees nothing.” Permit-to-
purchase laws not only stop short
of broadly banning firearms, but
demonstrably make the public
safer as well.
So why do federal efforts
to enact much more restrained
measures flounder, such as the
recent
Democratic-led
bills
expanding
background
checks
to nearly all firearms transfers?
There’s a lot of lying, of course.
Graced by frequent support from
the president himself, the National
Rifle Association has used its
platform to persuade Americans
that universal background checks
will “make it harder for good
people to defend themselves and
their families.” Keep in mind,
background checks are only meant
to flag those who shouldn’t own
guns. How, then, could those same
checks
possibly
inconvenience
“good” people?
More importantly, perhaps,
are the institutional dynamics
halting any chances of success for
federal gun control measures. High
numbers of Americans support
universal
background
checks,
but
pro-gun
voters
prioritize
halting
such
measures
more
than pro-gun control voters care
about passing them. Gun control
simply isn’t that high of a policy
priority
for
many
Americans.
Additionally,
contemporary
partisan divides make the Senate
a disproportionately Republican
place. When only rural states
receive a relative advantage in the
Senate, and rural states are now
almost
entirely
dominated
by
Republicans, the result is a Senate
more conservative than the country
it represents. It’s no surprise that
the universal background check
bill will likely pass in the House but
not in the Senate.
For these reasons, advocates
of
permit-to-purchase
laws
should look to the states. Last
year’s
midterm
election
saw
Democrats make more gains in
state legislatures and governorships
than did Republicans, including in
several states where gun control
measures have already been passed
and met with severe backlash from
Second Amendment supporters.
States also passed an increasing
number of gun control laws after
the Parkland shooting last year,
proving correct former Associate
Justice Louis Brandeis’s assessment
of
states
as
laboratories
of
democracy. Passing gun laws state-
by-state certainly has limitations,
such as encouraging cross-state
gun transfers. But the relatively
homogenous considerations of state
governments, contrasted with the
myriad political pressures that
burden the federal government,
still make them excellent for
addressing those problems like gun
policies that have trouble gathering
nationwide traction.
I think it’s fitting to end this
column with the mantra of NRA
executive vice president Wayne
LaPierre, who is for many the
face of pro-gun advocacy: “The
only thing that stops a bad guy
with a gun is a good guy with a
gun.” Yes, Mr. LaPierre, the only
thing that stops a bad guy with
a gun is a good guy with a gun
(that “good guy” usually being a
trained law enforcement officer,
or several, with the requisite force
to overcome an attacker). But
wouldn’t we much rather the bad
guy didn’t have a gun in the first
place? The best way to do that, as
of now, is with permit-to-purchase
laws. We have every reason to
lobby for their passage. But it’s a
task best left to the states.
KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN
The world of my dreams is all green
A
fter I return to my
dorm after a stressful
day
of
classes
and
schoolwork, I retreat to a place
that is always there for me to
de-stress:
the
Arboretum.
From my vantage point, I
watch the sky go from blue
to orange to purple as I visit
the highest point of the Arb
around dinner time. It truly
works wonders for my mental
health, at least on a day-to-day
basis. Even so, I often wonder
about
the
real
advantages
these green spaces have for us
and if they improve the quality
of our response to climate
change.
Experiencing the benefits
of green space first hand
truly feels like a blessing. Our
psychological
connections
with nature are some of the
most habitual and necessary
ones that we make, so it
makes sense why our brains
are tailored to essentially feel
revived by plant life. Since
the establishment of the Arb
in 1907, the University of
Michigan has been able to
shape this green space into a
place for many uses, including
exercising,
leisure
and
studying the local ecosystem.
Various
directors
have
led incremental initiatives to
expand the property of the Arb
and utilize it for its topography
and biodiversity. Among many
initiatives, a few of the most
important
strategies
span
from maintaining the natural
beauty of the topographical
features and vegetation since
1916 to creating multicultural
and
intersectional
art
installations in 2000. As a
result, it’s clear our green
spaces in Ann Arbor, such
as the Arb and the Matthaei
Botanical
Gardens,
have
been developed in such a way
that we are able to establish
an
important
emotional
connection with our local
landscapes. While there are
personal benefits to creating
a
meaningful
relationship
with
nature,
it’s
easy
to
think that experiencing the
natural environment without
tampering with it benefits the
green space.
On a broader scale, I’m
curious to explore if the
devastation that our world
faces today is a result of
the
human
population
maintaining and creating less
green space. At the same time,
I believe there is a possibility
that
large
green
spaces,
whether they be natural or
urban, may not necessarily be
a counteracting force against
climate change. Essentially,
the
largest
contributor
to
rising temperatures causing
climate change is the emission
of greenhouse gases, mainly
carbon, from industrialized
areas. Since cities are the most
concentrated
industrialized
areas of our modern society,
initiatives attempt to reduce
the urban heat island effect
and make large metropolitan
areas less of a hot spot.
Even so, at the deliberate
rate that the greening of cities
is occurring, these initiatives
are not enough to completely
offset the level of heating that
occurs with the emission of
greenhouse gases at street
level. This large-scale struggle
is expanded on by Franco
Montalto, a civil engineering
professor at Drexel University,
discussing the Javits Center
in New York City: “Green
infrastructure can help to
mitigate the heat island effect,
but local factors will determine
by how much, and widespread
greening of the city is going
to be required to generate
significant improvements at
the urban scale.”
Though many of us, myself
included, relish in the personal
benefits of having accessibility
to a massive green space like
the Arb, we have to consider the
fact that more should be done
to improve the quality of the
environment and public health.
In other words, it’s not enough
for the University to provide
this green space as both a
conservation of nature and a
method of self-rehabilitation:
We should be doing more
to restore the quality of our
environment and mend public
health in the process.
Providing a cleaner, more
regulated
environment
by
creating green infrastructure
in addition to green spaces
should be the method that this
city and the University uses to
improve the quality of life of its
inhabitants. As we have seen,
there is a strong correlation
between poor public health,
both mental and physical, and
the urgency of a changing
climate. Furthermore, I urge
the University to invest in
methods
that
mitigate
the
negative
consequences
that
Ann Arbor’s industry puts
upon us and ultimately commit
to complete carbon neutrality.
We are grateful for these
large green spaces that you
make available to us, but we
are dreaming of something
more. I want us to have this
mentality: Why can’t we have a
permanent, far-reaching green
space all around us instead of
one that is only available for
some escape? I believe that
the strongest barrier we face
in terms of avoiding climate
change is action, and we need
the total implementation of
green spaces, green technology
and green habits to propagate
a series of actions that will
eventually sustain a green
lifestyle.
I
f a tree falls and no one is
around to hear it, does it
still make a sound?
If a girl is sexually assaulted
and no one tries to stop it, does
she still matter?
After it happened, I couldn’t
speak for days. Motionless, I sat
on my bedroom floor in front
of a mirror — desolate eyes
blankly staring at the bruises on
my body, unable to accept it as
mine. I often have nightmares in
which I return to this moment,
my first examination of the
damaged goods I had become.
As I restlessly toss and turn
in bed during these times, my
mind’s eye first sees my neck
— a blank canvas one moment,
painted by a sea of black and
blue and purple and green the
next. I will never forget the
feeling of utter powerlessness,
when my cries for help were
met with hands smothering my
mouth and neck and his words,
“I know a whore like you wants
this.”
My gaze travels downward,
and I see the wrists encircled
by
bruising
and
abrasions
unmistakably
resembling
silhouettes of human hands.
Even now, the sound of male
laughter can send me into
hysterics. I can’t help but think
of his housemates’ drunken
laughter,
their
humor
in
observing my sober attempts to
free myself as they held down
my wrists and waited for their
turn.
Finally, I look at my face,
unable to recognize the girl
staring back at me. At that
moment, all I feel is shame.
All I feel is disgust towards
myself and my body, unable to
consider myself as anything but
a filthy object used to the point
of worthlessness. No number
of showers or bottles of empty
mouthwash since that night has
helped me feel clean again.
This
recurring
nightmare
relentlessly lingers, even now,
an unwelcome addition to the
myriad of habits that arose in
the subsequent months after
my assault. I secretly developed
a vice of self- harm, my habit
of “only” once a week quickly
turning into “only” once a day,
a routine that inevitably gave
way to two, three, maybe even
four times from the moment
I woke up until the time my
eyes fluttered shut at night, my
body exhausted from wracking
sobs. I became trapped within
the jaws of an eating disorder,
the 25 pounds dropping off my
already-small frame the closest
I could come to disappearing
from this world.
My mind often conceptualizes
in the form of color, with this
night being the before and after
point in the timeline of my life.
I used to feel kaleidoscopes of
bright neon shades and swirls
of pastels. Now, I only see black.
Most of the time, I don’t think
I deserve the elusive ‘healing’
referenced so often by my
therapist and fellow survivors.
I even question if I deserve the
title of ‘survivor’ in reference
to an experience that I still
think is my fault. Last year, in
a place between emptiness and
devastation, I expressed these
emotions in the form of a poem:
Is Healing
Feeling like I was physically
beaten and raped just yesterday?
My absent minded habit of
stroking the spot on my skull
that was shoved into a hard
surface
before
my
‘friend’
removed the clothes from my
dazed body?
The lump in my throat and
wetness on my cheeks that arise
just before every interaction
with my family, my mind yet
again reminded of the trauma I
don’t have the courage to tell my
own mother?
The crippling feelings of self-
blame that prowl around my
thoughts on an almost hourly
basis?
‘You shouldn’t have gone to
his house.’
‘He picked you because he
knew a girl with a pretty face
wouldn’t have fallen for his
kindness.’
‘What did you expect when
a boy expressed interest in a
lackluster person like you?’
Though I still don’t have the
answer to this poem’s question,
what I do know is that I am
surrounded by people that will
hold me up when I am falling to
my knees, and endlessly radiate
light into the darkness in my
mind. For them, I am forever
grateful.
They
have
been—
and continue to be—integral
in my path to return not to my
“old self”, but instead to one
with improved capacity for
self-compassion and growth.
This “new me” will revel in
floodlights of brilliant hues,
never letting the events of that
night define me.
ANONYMOUS | SURVIVORS SPEAK
In a place between emptiness and devastation
Kianna Marquez can be reached at
kmarquez@umich.edu.
ETHAN KESSLER | COLUMN
Ethan Kessler can be reached at
ethankes@umich.edu.
SOFIA ZERTUCHE | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT SOFZER@UMICH.EDU
Take care of your planet
We have to consider
the fact that more
should be done to
improve the quality
of the environment
So, what does good gun policy look like?
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.
This is the third piece in the Survivors
Speak series, which seeks to share the
varied, first-person experiences of survivors
of sexual assault. For more information
please visit our website.