Editor:

Your “simple” logical syllogism is embarrassingly flawed and your

argument supports the exact opposite of your position. The Chronicle’s argument reads as follows:

“The logic here is simple: The use of lethal force is only necessary in circumstances where one’s safety is in dire and immediate danger. Very rarely are there ever such circumstances on the U campus. Guns are instruments of lethal force, and they are designed to be used. Therefore, guns should never be allowed on campus.”

Now, take the key points of The Chronicle’s argument and the logical conclusion is obvious: The use of lethal force is necessary in…rare circumstances on the U campus. Guns are instruments of lethal force and are designed to be used.

Therefore, guns (conclude your first premise) ARE NECESSARY!

This is exactly the point advocates of legal self-defense are trying to make. The human right to defend oneself in “dire and immediate danger” (although rare) is necessary. Please do beef up security, install police cameras and emergency phones, and add lighting to reduce threats, but the campus’ own crime report, although not bad, still documents enough of forcible felonies to concern those citizens who want to legally defend themselves (yes, violent crimes happen on the U campus.)

The U should stop using bad logic to make criminals out of law- abiding citizens and support each individuals right to self defense.

David Baker

Staff, Medical Center