Call For Submissions

The Guardsman is looking for writers and illustrators to express their opinions! Submit an opinion editorial, letter to the editor or a political cartoon!

The Guardsman wants to hear from you! Write an opinion piece about current events, create a political cartoon, write a letter to the editor, or send us ideas. We are always looking for new voices to diversify the content and perspectives in our journalism.

The campus and the city of San Francisco is filled with experts on a wide variety of subjects and it’s important for the community to hear from those living the stories. Your opinions on what’s happening locally, nationally, and internationally is important and we want to provide a platform for comment. From health, politics, and economics, to music, theater and fine art, we are looking for your voice.

Each article should be between 500-700 words and will be edited by the publication’s staff. Editors will work with authors to ensure the article aligns with the newspaper’s style and ethics. The Guardsman does reserve the right to choose articles that are most appropriate and relevant for the community. If your submission is selected, it will be featured in the Opinion Section of The Guardsman in both print and on the web with your byline.

There are many ways to share with us. Contact Renee Bartlett-Webber with proposals, articles, letters or questions at rbartle8@mail.ccsf.edu.

students don't want to. I get sick really easily and through the pandemic, I haven't really had much contact with people. I find that whenever I get back to class, for me, I just like a mask on for safety.

Paul Wilson Jr.

California Mass Shooting: Where Are Solutions?

By Courtney Baker Email Courtneybaker802@berkeley.edu

Mainstream media, such as the New York Times, should offer solutions rather than doubling down on language conveying helplessness while reporting on mass violence. This opinion piece is in response to the Jan. 24 version of the New York Times article, “California Mass Shootings: Half Moon Bay Killings Add to State’s Grim Toll of Gun Violence”. Note that the original Times article has been updated since the writing of this opinion editorial.

The article delves into two California shootings that occurred within 72 hours of each other: one on Saturday, Jan. 21 in Monterey Park, and the second on Monday, Jan. 23 in Half Moon Bay. It covers the first shooting, moves onto the second shooting, jumps to California officials’ response, then to gun control issues before returning to details of the first shooting. Finally, it ends with an outline of eight mass killings that have happened at the hands of gun violence “recently.”

I was in the Air Force for eleven years, so I've been a part of an organization much larger than myself and contributes to something bigger than me, so I understand sacrificing for the greater good. So personally, I think wearing a mask shouldn’t be an option. I think people should wear them because this disease is killing people. People are all about individuality, but it’s unfortunate because we’ve moved away from what’s best for everybody. I'm fully vaccinated, and I don't want to get it, so I wear it as a choice. I understand that City is part of the San Francisco Unified, so they have to do what high schools are doing and that dictates more of what we do than the other way around. So I get it. But to each be their own. I'm going to wear a mask as a choice because I don't want to catch it. And if I do have it, I definitely don't want to spread it. My parents are part of a vulnerable population, so they have predispositions. I'm sure there was pressure somewhere, that's the reason they chose to abolish it. Somebody always answers to someone else. It is what it is. But as far as I go, I choose to wear it. Do you have a question to ask the community? Tell us! Contact Renée Bartlett-Webber at rbartle8@mail.ccsf.edu.

The article does a great job of distinctly outlining the events of both shootings, despite the startling similarities in the profiling and unknown motives of the suspects. I believe it does this in order to delve into the history, detail, and current state of the neighborhoods in which both tragedies occurred. A story was created – you could clearly picture the old ballroom dance studios catering to an older Asian community in Monterey Park as easily as you can imagine the slow-paced, agricultural town on Half Moon Bay that is a sanctuary nestled in between tech-dominated cities of the Bay Area. By creating distinct portraits for their readers, it allowed for the crimes to not get confused as the article progressed. After outlining the shootings themselves, the article then focused on more broad topics of gun laws in California. Whether the gun used in the Monterey Park shooting was legal, as it was able to hold more than ten rounds, came into question. The article then quotes different sources that lead readers to an “it’s illegal but also sometimes not” answer which made me feel as if this portion of the article was filler. The article divulges that “the complexity of California’s gun control laws and when they went into effect make determining the legality of any given person’s possession of weapons difficult to resolve.” It also quotes one source who states , “We have no right to be surprised when these things happen.” As the article inched toward a conclusion, it continued to offer little solace to distraught readers. One final frustration – the absolute final words are the most discerning: a list of eight recent shootings. Ending on such a hopeless note crystallizes the seemingly gridlocked, murky gun laws, leaving the reader feeling helpless and frustrated about the rampant mass violence in our country.

If the article’s last points were mirroring a country that is frustrated, unsure, and mostly directionless on how to create change in this area, I suppose this portion was not “filler”, but instead some sort of meta-commentary on our nation’s overall psyche at this moment. The article leaves us with no clear answers, no motive of the shooters, and a reminder of devastation that gun laws do not equal clear restrictions in America. However, maybe asking if the gun was legal with no definitive conclusion was not a productive way to end this story. The article could’ve asked us something different. Perhaps it could have ended with a call-to-action – giving its readers something to hold onto during a terrifying time, or at least something more profound to think about other than our muddled firearm laws and a reminder of the tragedies with which we are, unfortunately, already all too familiar.