Dear Editor,

Regarding the Feb. 24 opinion piece titled, “Student Should
Say Farewell, Not Hello, to Arms,” I certainly applaud the article’s focus on
improving mental health services for students. It is correct that for some the
transition to a college environment is emotionally and mentally stressful. But
proposing improved mental health services as a be-all, end-all solution to the
problem of campus violence isn’t the way to go.

Improved campus security requires a holistic approach that
addresses both the root causes and the actual actions of campus shooters.
Mental health services are an important part of students’ well-being, but the
fact remains that in the case of all too many shooters — Seung-Hui Cho at
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Eric Harris and Dylan
Klebold from Columbine High
School, among others — thought that it was the
rest of the world that had a problem. Improving the counseling services
available to them wouldn’t have helped anyone.

I’m not sure I understand why the article has such a strong
stance against lawful firearms on campus. Why are Utah
and Colorado schools “scary”? None of the things the
article warns about — the gun misuse and abuse, theft, violence or suicides —
have occurred at any of those schools.

Mental health services, campus alert systems, more security
guards — none of these things will help a student trapped in a room with an
active shooter. But firearms in the hands of licensed, trained individuals
could make a difference.

— CDT Samuel Keane-Rudolph

ARMY ROTC

UWLAX Eagle Bn.

WSU Company