Letters to the Editor

I want to address the recent article entitled “The Double Standard of Violence.” Ms. Williams makes the case that gun owners, and supporters of our troops, are “certainly not advocating for non-violence.” She finishes her second paragraph by stating that, “These people are totally for gun rights and violence unless those things are being used by black people.” To state that all gun owners are racist is certainly a bold claim, and I do not believe that it is thoroughly backed up in this article.

Just as most black people do not fit the characteristics of the stereotypical thug, most gun owners are not racist simply because they own a firearm or support our troops. There seems to be a misunderstanding here about the purpose of firearms. We don’t own them for the purpose of shooting people when we first get the chance, but rather only when our lives or the lives of those we love are endangered. Are they going to be misused, yes of course they are. We are a flawed species in this way. But how can those who could otherwise not protect themselves or their families defend against those who could and would cause them harm?

I am a gun owner, and Ms. Williams is right in that I don’t believe that looting, burning, and other violent acts is the correct means to go about protesting for change. However I believe what I do because I believe that we should only act in violence when we absolutely have to. If I or my family is attacked, I will do what I must to defend those I love. Black people have just as much right to this as I do, and I would actually encourage any individual (of any race or gender) who believes themselves to ever be at risk of harm to invest in a firearm as well.

But when it comes to making social changes, violence simply isn’t the solution to mending up this nation. The case in Ferguson obviously has exposed some racial tension, however if we are going to work past this as one people, we have to come together and work out these problems in a civil manner. Violence will only perpetuate the problems that currently exist. If any party believes that the other will not listen, non-violent forms of protest are the key to change. If we do truly seek to make change, we have to do what we can as one people to mend and build our society instead of hateful separation and tearing down. Me and Ms. Williams seem to be on a different page, but I hope that through my retort, which I also hope comes across as civil and respectful, we can acknowledge each others ideas and maybe each take something away from this.

“The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility.” – MLK

What I have written seems far too long and, thanks to spellcheck, probably contains far too few spelling errors for the George Anne to consciously publish. But in the off chance that this is printed I do expect quite the backlash. I urge those who disagree with me to fully voice their opinions and intelligently state their claims. However when this is done, I hope it is done in a manner that will allow us to advance together. I’d like to end this with two quotes from someone who honestly does a much better job explaining and addressing the issues of race than I ever could. Take this statement as you will, but I believe that Martin Luther King Jr. is one of the coolest people in American history. Really, just pull up some of his quotes or read “Letter from a Birmingham jail.” It’s some pretty amazing stuff.

“Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.” -MLK

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” -MLK

Charles Arvey

sophomore computer science major from Stockbridge GA.


I am writing in response to an opinion piece featured in Tuesday’s paper titled “The Double Standard of Violence.” Upon reading this piece on Tuesday morning, I was astonished that anyone could hold such an ideology about violence and guns rights. Has it seriously become a norm in this country to accept violent acts of aggression, looting, and burning during protests over defending oneself or one’s loved ones with a firearm? I know of many responsible, law-abiding citizens who own guns for the sole purpose of defense in case someone ever fiercely threatens them or the ones close to them. These people come from a variety of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds.

The majority of them have never been forced to use their weapons and hope they never have to, but the mere fact that they have the ability to guard against a violent aggressor brings peace of mind. I have a single mother who lives alone in a heavily populated area—it comforts me to know that she is equipped to protect herself from any form of intruder. To stereotype this type of person as being “totally for gun rights and violence unless those things are used by black people” is a misguided and emotionally-charged statement that I find to be absolutely unwarranted. What happened on the night of August 9th with Michael Brown and Darren Wilson was a tragic occurrence—a man is dead and a family is left to grieve. However, the results of this incident—or any other like it—should not be to disarm those who own guns solely for the purpose of keeping their homes and loved ones safe. 


Drew Whaley


Communications Studies Major

Buford, GA


Hi, my name is Kymberly Dorsey, and I am a former student of Georgia Southern. I always loved reading the George-Anne, and still keep up with articles that come my way. That being said, I have to say that this latest piece by Ciera Williams is AWFUL. I am not going to bother you with my views or opinions, because that’s not the point. The point is that her arguments were completely illogical (you can’t use violence for self-defense, but as for those who instigate riots: “Violence may not solve anything, but it sure feels a lot better than laying down to accept your defeat.”). I don’t care if it IS an opinion piece, it was poorly written, and makes her look like someone who only craves attention. 

She might be a great writer, a great person, and an asset to your team, but you did her a disservice by allowing this to go to print. I do hope the George-Anne can take this in stride as a lesson learned, and continue to provide quality journalism pieces.
Kymberly Dorsey 
Georgia Southern Alumni