Don't fear fructose
The Nov. 29 article "Splurge guilt-free this holiday season," may mislead consumers about high-fructose corn syrup.
New research continues to confirm that high-fructose corn syrup is safe and no different from other common sweeteners like sugar and honey.
High-fructose corn syrup is a natural sweetener and has the same number of calories as sugar. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted high-fructose corn syrup "Generally Recognized as Safe" status for use in food, and reaffirmed that ruling in 1996 after thorough review.
High-fructose corn syrup offers numerous benefits, too. It keeps foods fresh. It enhances fruit and spice flavors. It retains moisture in bran cereals and helps keep breakfast bars moist.
Consumers can see the latest research and learn more at www.HFCSfacts.com.
-Audrae Erickson,
President of the Corn Refiners Association
Washington, D.C.
No chaos from carrying guns on campus
The Nov. 29 editorial "Guns on college campuses would create chaos" fails to mention a few highly relevant points. It gives the impression that Students for Concealed Carry on Campus advocates allowing all students to carry firearms on campus, under the protection of the Second Amendment; however, a quick glance at SCCC's Web site reveals that SCCC is simply pushing for state laws and school policies that would allow the same individuals already licensed by their states to carry concealed handguns in most other unsecured (no metal detectors or X-ray machines) locations, such as movie theaters, office buildings, shopping malls, restaurants, banks, etc., to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. A quick glance at SCCC's Web site also reveals that SCCC never references the Constitution or the Second Amendment in its arguments for concealed carry on college campuses. SCCC is able to make its case without dragging the Constitution into it.
The editorial suggests that allowing concealed carry on college campuses would lead to "accidental firings, gun thefts and an increased risk of violent behavior" but conveniently fails to mention that every public college in Utah has, for the last three semesters, allowed concealed carry on campus and that other colleges throughout the United States, such as Colorado State University (Fort Collins, Colo.) and Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, Va.) have, for years, allowed concealed carry on campus, without incident.
Thirty-six states now issue concealed handgun licenses (CHLs) or concealed carry weapons permits (CCWs) to all qualified applicants, without requiring applicants to show a specific need. Three other states accept "personal defense" as a legitimate reason for a qualified applicant to be issued a CHL/CCW. In most states, a "qualified applicant" is an individual over the age of 21, with no felony convictions and no recent misdemeanor convictions, who has attended a training course, passed both a written and a practical (shooting) test, and passed extensive state and federal (FBI) background and fingerprint checks (often including investigations into records of mental health and sealed/expunged criminal records).
All 39 of these "right-to-carry" states faced the same prophecies of blood in the streets that your paper now predicts for college campuses; yet, none of these states have, in the two decades since the first concealed carry licensing laws were passed, seen a resulting increase in violent crime, gun accidents, or gun thefts. Opponents' predictions that fender benders and arguments over shopping carts would turn into shootouts did not come true. Instead, studies by numerous independent researchers and state agencies have found that CHL/CCW holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.
The editorial also suggests, "School should be a safe haven where students feel comfortable and secure." Students at Virginia Tech felt "comfortable and secure" on the morning of April 16 until the first shots rang out. Twenty-seven of those "comfortable and secure" students, along with five of their professors, died in the bloodiest mass shooting in American history. Sadly, feeling safe is not the same as being safe. Unless school administrators decide to install airport-style security checkpoints at every entrance to every campus, campus "gun-free zones" will continue disarming only those individuals concerned with following the rules, while stacking the odds in favor of dangerous criminals not concerned with following the rules.
The editorial accurately points out that colleges can be a culprit of anxiety, but it incorrectly infers that 21-year-olds (the legal age to obtain a CHL/CCW in most states) on college campuses are under greater stress than 21-year-olds in the rest of society. A student struggling to complete his or her thesis is under no more stress than an employee struggling to meet a deadline on which his or her job depends. So why haven't we seen a spate of violent incidents involving young licensees in right-to-carry states?
The editorial accurately points out that college can be a culprit of experimentation, but it incorrectly infers that allowing concealed carry on college campuses would legalize carrying while under the influence (it wouldn't) and that college experimentation is typically centered on campus (it's not). All right-to-carry states have laws prohibiting carrying while under the influence, and most drug and alcohol abuse by college students (particularly students over the age of 21) occurs off-campus. Allowing concealed carry on college campuses would neither legalize carrying while under the influence nor have any impact on the legal ability of licensees to carry concealed handguns at off-campus parties or bars.
This is not a debate about keeping guns out of the hands of college students. Allowing concealed carry on college campuses would impact neither the ability of college students to purchase firearms nor the ability of college students to obtain CHLs/CCWs. This is a debate about removing arbitrary restrictions on the rights of CHL/CCW holders. There is no reason to assume these licensed individuals would demonstrate any less discretion or sound judgment while carrying concealed handguns on college campuses than they currently demonstrate while carrying concealed handguns virtually everywhere else.
-W. Scott Lewis,
Media Coordinator for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
Austin, Texas
Guns would make campus safer
I can understand and can appreciate your point of view. I had a professor once, that at the beginning of every class would say- "T.F.Y. - Think For Yourself." I urge you not to believe anything I say. Don't believe anything the National Rifle Association or the Brady Campaign says either. Do the research for yourself and learn the facts. That being said, please allow me to provide some food for thought.
First of all, this logic seems predicated on emotion, not reality. Making people "feel safe" is entirely different from making them "actually safe." I hate to be the bearer of bad news but students already carry guns to class every day. The difference is most are not the law abiding ones that should have guns and you just don't know about it.
You mentioned "no one on campus should have a gun except for police officers." I guess the emphasis is on the word "should." Does your school have police officers on it? Mine doesn't. Does your school have metal detectors at every entrance to make sure "no one except police officers" have guns? Mine doesn't. Is your campus security even armed? Mine isn't. How much more in tuition are you willing to pay for metal detectors and armed police at every entrance? Expenses aside, would those things make you safer or merely "feel" safer? Does airport security make you safer or merely "feel" safer? Have you read the reports of prohibited items that were successfully brought onto planes through security?
Think about it like drugs. Drugs are illegal, just like criminals carrying guns or murder is illegal. No one is supposed to have drugs on campus either but I'd be willing to bet you would have no trouble finding any drug you could imagine on campus. How is that possible if they are prohibited? Despite their being prohibited they somehow always find their way there. When I was in London, where guns are completely banned, a bobby told me "The only people that don't have guns are us. We hear shots fired every night." How safe are you or would you "feel" when walking the streets of Washington, D.C., Baltimore or Chicago after dark? Does knowing that guns are completely banned make you safer? Does it even make you "feel" safer?
The editorial mentioned "people can't fight fire with fire. Adding more guns to the equation doesn't create a more peaceful environment - campuses will instead be more prone to violence."
Isn't that the same argument that was used prior to passing "shall issue" concealed carry laws in 39 states? Didn't they say "Blood would run in the streets?" Did you know that since then, every one of those states saw a drop in violent crime? While an area such as Washington, D.C., which has the most restrictive gun laws in the country has led the nation in murders and violent crime ever since the ban in 1976? Don't believe me? Research the FBI Uniform Crime Report. What do you think the crime rate is in Kennesaw, Ga., where everyone is required to own a gun? Compare that with any city where guns are prohibited.
More "peaceful" or more "prone to violence?" If you were a criminal, would you rob the 250-pound linebacker or the 110-pound woman? Which one is more likely to ensure success? Would you rob the 110-pound woman if you thought she had a gun? Which situation is more prone to violence, one where both parties are equal in size and ability or one where there is a clear disparity of force? Think about the Cold War between the U.S. and the USSR. (Mutually Assured Destruction - not a shot fired) Now think about Saddam Hussein and the Kurds (he had the military and they had nothing. They were slaughtered by the thousands). Which one led to more violence? Why do you think that is?
If you can not "fight fire with fire," what do you fight it with? Covering your head with your hands and hiding in a corner hoping the police get him before he gets you? Do you know the average response time of police in your neighborhood? Do you know that Cho Seung Hui killed more than 30 people in less than the national average response time? Virginia Tech's "No Guns" didn't stop him from carrying a gun. In addition, did you know that police have no duty to protect you!? Google Warren v. D.C. or Gonzales v. Castle Rock CO. They were both US Supreme Court cases that affirmed that. Even if there were police - did you know that if you called 911 and they never showed up, there is nothing you can do about it? (That is exactly what happened in the Warren case)
Does your life really mean that little to you that you would place the preservation of it into the hands of someone else? Do you believe that you are "endowed by your creator with the unalienable right to life?" If you do, wouldn't you also believe that you have not only a right but a duty to preserve and protect it? Doesn't one follow the other? Are you prepared to defend that gift if need be? I am. Do you know why suicide was illegal until the Suicide Act of 1961? Because only God gave you life and only God could take it away. If you were to take your own life or allow someone else to take it from you, isn't that like spitting in God's face?
Do you have a fire extinguisher and smoke detectors in your room? I do. Because the fire department cannot be everywhere at once. Are you trained in CPR and First Aid? I am. Because the ambulance cannot be everywhere at once. Do you have an evacuation plan and a 72-hour kit in the case of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack? I do. Because the government cannot be everywhere at once. Are you trained in self-defense and carry the tools necessary to protect yourself and those you love? I do. Because the police cannot be everywhere at once.
Do you know the difference between a "hard" and a "soft" target? Criminals, like terrorists, prefer unarmed targets. It increases the likelihood of success when no one fights back. Have you ever wondered why there are no mass shootings at gun shows or police departments? What was the only plane that failed to reach its target on 9/11? What made that flight different from the other three? Citizens fought fire with fire. Only by them standing up and saying we are not going to "go gently into that good night" were they able to avert another tragedy, saving countless lives. Do you think the terrorists will ever hijack another plane that way, knowing that failure is almost assured by people that will fight back saying "never again!"? Would Cho have gone on his rampage if he knew students would fight back? Would you? The terrorists are not afraid of death, they are afraid of failure. Cho was a nobody and by killing 32 people he is a somebody. People will always remember his name and that is exactly what he wanted. Would his name be remembered if he were stopped by an armed student and was the only casualty? Would he have gotten the same media coverage? How would 9/11 have been remembered if armed citizens had foiled their plot? Would al-Qaida have the same notoriety if the only memory of that day was 19 dead highjackers?
-Steven Riccitelli,
political science and history senior at Sacred Heart University
Fairfield, Conn.
Doubting Devin
Excuse me Devin Kunysz, but you must have failed "Girlfriend 101." In your "study guide," why do you feel the need to propitiate a rumor that is constantly seen in the media that women can't get along and that animosity between females is "sexy?" I especially had a problem with your line, "However, there are some women other females should feel free to hate, such as a pretty co-worker, an ex-girlfriend and any woman who is coming onto her date (in front of her). A little bit of cattiness is extremely sexy." Why do you think that it is OK that women hate each other because of appearance? Better yet, why would a woman waste energy hating someone because of something trivial and shallow? Yes, you could say some women you've talked to have told you this, but they are not the majority. I am sick of media telling us that they are.
And to The Daily Aztec: Just because you throw on the disclaimer "This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Daily Aztec," does not excuse you. I would expect a college newspaper to be progressive, and not recycle old stereotypes. It's time to step it up. You can do better.
-Ashley Hart,
Media studies senior
Free speech prevails
To "make a mountain out of a molehill" is a fitting adage to describe the whirlwind of events sparked by a student attacking Doug Case in an openly aggressive and self-admittedly offensive comedic student paper. Has The Daily Aztec staff surrendered in its mandate to provide multiple perspectives on important issues to the San Diego State student body or should I believe the last dozen issues which prostrate this paper to the idol of political correctness is an anomaly? In a paper that constantly defends all sorts of liberal causes such as gun control, national healthcare and same-sex marriage, it is astonishing that the voice defending free speech has been found wanting. This entire event is not what the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender association and its ardent supporters are pitching. It is using this non-incident to advance its goals of a permanent campus presence, expansion of non-discrimination laws to include sexual preference, and a government investigation to hunt down the person who dared to speak his mind.
The furor over an anonymous opinion printed in a purposively rude and stereotypical student publication, The Koala, is exactly that: an anonymous opinion which obviously is not representative of the Greek community. The intent of the letter, which has been distorted to serve the ambitions of the LGBT, had very little to do with homosexuality and nothing to do with hate crimes, homophobia or discrimination. The writer simply used the backpage, like hundreds of other students, to vent his frustration toward an individual he felt was hindering the efforts of the Greek community. The writer, true to The Koala's standard, eschewed an organized list of complaints in favor of scoring an easy personal attack, which ruins his case in the eyes of a sympathetic public. It just happened to be that Doug Case is gay, but I'm sure if he had any other publicly known, non-macho traits, those would be highlighted. Instead of treating the backpage as humor like all women, minority groups and everyone else caught up in The Koala's blanket stereotypes do, the LGBT is using sound clips to push its agenda of expanding. It's very similar to GOP candidates playing Hillary Clinton sound clips to drum up funding and support. The difference here is that the reason for the push is baseless.
Homosexuals are not oppressed at SDSU. Homosexuals are oppressed in Iran, where they are routinely executed for same-sex relations. Homosexuals are oppressed when employers refuse to hire them solely based on their gender preference (which leads to the uncomfortable answer of how Case has a position here). The best this power-hungry group can come up with is the aforementioned letter and something about a rainbow flag being stolen from Aztec Center. I suppose it's the same flag that without my consent, represents how SDSU embraces and openly accepts homosexuality. The Daily Aztec and the student body at SDSU need to recognize events as they are instead of being blinded by the LGBT spin and its drummed-up oppression.
-Tucker Wincele,
political science sophomore
-The Daily Aztec welcomes letters on all subjects, sections and stories. Letters may be edited for brevity, libelous and overtly offensive content. Letters must include the writer's year in school and major or professional title. The Daily Aztec offices are located in the basement of the Business Administration building. Please send e-mail to letters@thedailyaztec.com.
Be the first to comment on this article!