The shooting that recently unfolded in Crandon was obviously very tragic, and the media attention it garnered was warranted. However, the fact that the shooter was a police officer is being blown completely out of proportion. Yes, his job provided him immediate access to a firearm, but that does not mean his job drove him to kill six people. Regardless of his reasons for rampage, he probably would not have needed his police weapon to execute his assault. Those of us who are from Wisconsin, specifically the more rural areas of the state, all know the extent to which the hunting culture pervades our great state. Especially in Crandon, a blue collar town way up in the North Woods, it would seem very probable that the shooter would have either owned a gun or had very easy access to another firearm. It is not terribly unusual to walk into a Wisconsin home to find an array of weapons displayed in a gun cabinet in the living room. While the recent bill to require new policemen to take psychiatric tests is commendable, it misses the point. The tests would not account for any mental changes that may occur five or 10 years down the road, after the real effects of the job begin to set in. Moreover, expelling a new officer because of psychiatric problems will not prevent him or her from acquiring an equally deadly firearm from the local sporting goods store. Imagine the reaction from the left if the shooter was not an officer; cries for psychiatric tests for all gun purchasers would be the anthem of the day. What it all comes down to is that an overzealous boyfriend enraged by his ex-girlfriend went berserk. His status as a police officer becomes immediately negligible when one considers he was off-duty at the time of the shooting. C.J. Smith UW junior, political science [email protected]