(Originally published content from the Daily Iowan website Comments Section unedited for punctuation, spelling or grammar)

-In response to Samuel Studer’s “Liberal Menace Destroys Education” Published 7/14/16

Bruce Walters ·

Professor at Western Illinois University

I agree that students should be presented with all view points, but the headline “liberal menace” turns a potentially meaningful discussion into a cheap black and white fallacy -a simple proganda technique. Note: a liberal education is concerned with broadening a person’s general knowledge and experience. In politics, it means open to new behavior or opinions. It is derived from the the Latin “liber” which means free. George Washington was liberal. So was Abraham Lincoln. The author, instead, has used Rush Limbaugh’s cartoon use of the word -designed to end rather than open debate.

-In Response to Jacob Prall’s “Protest and Open Carry Laws” Published 7/13/16

Hoss Green ·

Hard KNocks Central

Oh bless your heart Jacob, do you realize that there are more white people killed by polce officers than dark skined people?

What I see happening is that white folks know that more than likely white criminals killed by police deserved it, on the other hand black people kill each other at an exponentially higher rate than the police, and in almost every instance the perp was resisting. Now I’m not saying that police shouldn’t be held accountable, but then not all are guilty of murder.

Brian Smith ·

Colerain High School

“If you were to swing a knife near an officer, you’d be arrested. If you carry an automatic rifle, the officer is supposed to look the other way.” So, here I stopped reading, because the author doesn’t understand the difference between carrying tools and (mis-)using them. Context matters, too—if the knife you swing ‘near an officer’ is used to prevent or end an attack on him by someone else, then you might very well NOT be arrested. Why does Prall, and SO MANY like him, seem to believe that anyone carrying a firearm, except a police officer, automatically intends to murder someone with it? (And conversely, that police officers are magically exempt, somehow, from ill intent?) I manage to carry a knife every day without stabbing anyone, but it seems too much for some people to comprehend that the same might apply to a gun.

-In Response to Marcus Brown’s “Dangers to Populace Seen in ‘Robotic’ Killings by Police” Published 7/13/16

Michael Young ·

University of Iowa

This is a ridiculous argument. To suggest that because the Dallas Police used a tool to end the crisis and then to suggest that the use of the same tool would become a “creative method of police brutality” is a huge leap. Whomever wrote this piece is living in a dream world and has no concept of what police officers must endure each and every day to protect the communities that they serve. Most of the time the citizens demand that police protect them, they just don’t really want to know the details of how that happens. Sometimes it gets messy. You people need to grow up and use some common sense.

Steve Abram ·

Adjunct Lecturer at University of Iowa

Personally I think this was a brilliant use of existing technology. This was an active shooter that had already killed 5 police officers, sorry but in my opinion there is no trial needed. This action saved the lives of countless other police officers and civilians. Your effort to demonize all police and the methods used to protect us is ridiculous and careless. Yes, I am against police brutality in the situation of an unarmed person who is of no immediate threat, but lets not tie the hands of our police departments when it comes to handling a serious and lethal threat. Your editorial is simply irresponsible journalism and a thinly veiled attempt to jump on the anti-police bandwagon. Shame on you!