Guns Played Main Role in Littleton Tragedy

To the editors:

In response to the editorial dissent, "Guns Aren't the Problem" (Opinion, April 26) by Noah Oppenheim and Adam Taub, I encourage both of them to read the "Living Through Littleton" editorial more closely. They claim that the staff makes "vague, blanket demands." On the contrary, the staff specifically argues against gun control laws in Colorado and other states from being loosened or revoked, and against the NRA campaign for gun concealment. Oppenheim and Taub also write, "concerned citizens ought to look deeper and discern the less obvious forces". If the two editors look carefully, they will notice that the editorial asserts, "these tragedies are the result of severe emotional distress among teens with access to guns." As a group of concerned citizens, the Crimson Staff exposes declining access to mental support as one of those "less obvious forces" involved in Littleton. While Oppenheim and Taub are correct that blaming only guns is insufficient, they still must recognize the tremendous role guns play in tragedies like Littleton.

Every day, 94 people die of gunshot wounds, and 12 of them are under 20 years old. 90 percent of children in shootings involved a weapon found in the home. One in four American homes have a gun. And as a study released Monday shows, 59 percent of gun owners do not check their guns daily, with 17 percent of them not checking the guns for over a month. Since parents don't watch over their guns very well, the data suggest stricter laws will reduce kids' access to guns, reduce the number of kids who use guns and ultimately save lives.

I encourage Oppenheim and Taub not to fall back on standard pro-gun rhetoric, detach from emotion and look at the facts and, as concerned citizens, recognize that fewer guns are better for America.

Michael H. Tang '01

April 26, 1999

Eliot Auction Reflected Outgoing Community

To the editors:

On behalf of the students of Eliot House, we would like to take issue with Melissa Crocker's unfair characterization of last week's Eliot House Auction as a "rather staid" affair, reminiscent of our "uppercrust" past (Opinion, April 26).

Perhaps Crocker arrived as the Auction was closing, because in our most conservative estimation, at least several hundred Eliot residents showed up to bid on such unique items as an oil massage, a conducting lesson and a personalized cheer from the cheerleading team. If anything, the high turnout and raucous bidding--Crocker was clearly not present for long enough to appreciate just how lively it was--reflects Eliot House's ability to develop into a more rambunctious and outgoing community, despite the author's assertion to the contrary.

The most distressing misstatement by Crocker is that the audience was "prim and proper." Hardly the case! Our Stein Club supplied the audience with substantial amounts of liquid enthusiasm. Stein Club's presence seems to be the best explanation for how an 8-cent goldfish could be sold for nearly 50 dollars.

Our hosts Hunter Pierson and Luke McLoughlin did a magnificent job keeping the auction exciting and keeping the audience rolling on the floor with laughter. It is to their credit that we raised well in excess of $3,000, the most successful house auction that Eliot has ever had. As for hosts' tuxedoes, Crocker seems to be confusing stuffiness with style. Elitism may be gone, but Eliot will always have class.

Nathaniel W. Lalone '00,

Robert S. Schwartz '00

April 26, 1999

The writers are the co-chairs of the Eliot House Committee.