Column unfairly analyzes presidential worth of candidates’ middle names

Dear Editor,… Column unfairly analyzes presidential worth of candidates’ middle names

Dear Editor,

I recently read Sam Ginsburg’s column titled “Middle Names Prove Candidates’ Presidential Value.” While the columnist was trying to make a valid point – that a middle name shouldn’t determine whether or not we like a candidate – he proved himself to be very hypocritical in his argument.

The column mentioned that on a radio show, Bill Cunningham said Sen. Barack Obama’s middle name numerous times warming up for Sen. John McCain.

It was then pointed out that McCain apologized and spoke against using such remarks against any of the other candidates.

However, later in the column, McCain is attacked for his own middle name, Sidney. The columnist says, “Mr. Badass has the middle name of a little girl. That should be really helpful during foreign negotiations.”

So I am now confused; this column is supposed to be in defense of candidates being criticized for their middle names, yet he makes an unnecessary and blatant stab at McCain and even stoops so low as to call him “Mr. Badass.”

He mentions that the people he knows who want to vote for McCain say that he is someone nobody would mess with, but then he says they have “clearly never seen his Wikipedia page,” implying that knowing he has the middle name Sidney might change their minds. This comes across to me as defeating his purpose in the column.

While coming to Obama’s defense about the constant criticisms he gets over his middle name, he doesn’t do the same throughout. Now, had this been an actual issue, people criticizing McCain for his “girly” middle name, I could see that portion of the column validating his point that the public is overly concerned with minor and unimportant details. However, that isn’t the case, as I have rarely heard McCain’s middle name even mentioned in the media. I feel that was an inappropriate portion of the column and could have been much better done, without the unnecessary jab.

Caitlyn McCracken Student School of Arts and Sciences

Concealed carry of weapons not the answer to school shootings

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to “Student group wants to pack heat on Pitt’s campus.” The growing movement to allow students to carry concealed weapons on campuses nationwide is unsettling.

It is unreasonable to think that an increase in the number of guns on campus will reduce crime or the likelihood of a shooting attack like those at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois universities.

Concealed weapons on campus will not deter crime and will only make more guns available to end up on the street.

In both of the college shootings, early intervention, stricter gun sale laws and a tougher police presence would have helped to save lives. Yes, armed civilians could conceivably stop a gunman, but it would be better for the gunman to be stopped before he gets to the point where he wants to kill.

It would also be better to leave crime fighting up to those who have been trained to do just that, rather than introducing more guns on campus.

In a heavily populated area like Oakland, where there are break-ins and thefts on a regular basis, it would be far worse to have these weapons being stolen and used by those who do not have a license to carry them.

You can carry a concealed weapon in public places in Pennsylvania, but that didn’t prevent two separate shooting sprees here in Pittsburgh within two months of each other in the spring of 2000. The sad fact is that if someone is going to lose control and go on a mission to kill others, he will find a way to do it.

Having more guns on the street will just make his mission that much easier. The University’s policy of prohibiting concealed weapons on campus is just fine the way it is.

Atarah Hornezes Student Pitt Law