Miami Student

This editorial is both presumptuous and inconsistent. Concealed carry means that firearms are not brought out in public to be gawked at and played with, but carried discretely. It is not "inevitable and understandable" that lawful concealed carry causes alarm--how could something unseen, unknown cause alarm?

You may then ask how concealed carry inhibits crime. The law itself provides a measure of deterrence for criminal activity, and in the event that something happens a lawful carrier can judiciously employ his/her firearm. By judicious I mean with regard to laws, morals, and basic firearm safety. Within firearms safety guides there is a clause about knowing what is behind the target.

You mention the possibility of a lawful firearms carrier to intervene with law enforcement; however, this is ignorant speculation. Do criminals commit their offenses when they see uniformed police officers present? In campus rape cases across the nation, was the crime committed even within ear shot of law enforcement? Now what if someone tried to rape a licensed firearm carrier? The results may be significantly different.

In regards to the email sent by school administration, I was appalled that they felt compelled to warn people. Without a weapon inside of it, a holster is nothing more than an obtuse fashion accessory. This is the only protest I have seen to come with warnings from administration. As a veteran, it would have been nice if someone warned me about the anti-war protest exhibited several weeks ago, but I and my fellow students were not warned of that.

I feel like this editorial fails to address adequately the logic behind allowing students to carry a weapon on campus, chalking up Miami University's policy as its inherent right to create policy for its private property.

I agree with the comment made by Mr. McNary. More often than not, criminals will not act out when there is a pressing force against them. A person considering whether or not to shoot at someone, would think twice if they knew that person can shoot back. An environment that is understaffed with police officers and known to be "weapon-free" is blatantly at risk more so than an environment without such limitations.

And yes, while allowing students to use weapons in their defense does put them at risk of shooting an innocent bystander, I have to say that the benefits might outweigh that risk. Innocent bystanders are shot when students cannot defend themselves, but allowing them to carry weapons, with even one decent shot, could change that. Imagine if in the Virginia Tech shootings, even one student was able to disarm the shooter, innocent bystanders could have been saved.

I think the protestors have a very good point, and I believe had the protest been more widespread and not minimized by the adminsitration's forewarning, it could have been very effective.

First of all, there are states where carrying concealed weapons on campus has been legal for a long time, and none of your imagined problems have occurred.

The author takes the same positions as everyone else who is afraid of guns. Yet guns aren't the problem. Outlawing self defense is the problem.

Every mass killing in recent history has occurred in a gun free zone. It becomes exceedingly obvious that there is no such thing as a gun free zone. These places only serve to keep law abiding citizens from having the ability to defend themselves against those who do not follow the law.

You depend on the police for your protection. The police sure did a fine job of protecting those kids at VT. /sarcasm

You know that guns are illegal on campus, so you feel safe. Your feeling of safety is an illusion.

You say that you have to swipe a card to access certain places. Do you know for sure that everyone who has card access is perfectly stable and will not bring guns and start shooting all the defenseless students? I certainly don't know that.

In fact, a shooter doesn't even need a card. All he needs to do is grab a defenseless student, like you, and use your card, while he decides whether you should live or die.

Have you ever noticed that people who are afraid of guns always call for people with guns to come rescue them when violent crimes occur? Why is that?

Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

I think the editors at The Miami Student need to do a bit more research about concealed handgun license holders before they jump to any conclusions. For starters, nearly all of the people that would be allowed to carry will be upper-classmen, faculty, and staff. They will all have training and have been state certified in over 20 states.

Concealed handgun license (CHL) holders number over 101,000 people in the state of Ohio. They also contribute less than .02% to firearm related crime. There were not 101,000 murders, rapes, or any other crime committed by license holders last night in the state of Ohio. In fact, CHL holders are approximately 7 times less likely to commit any act of violence than the rest of the population according to multiple independent research studies and multiple states' crime statistics.

The fact that colleges are learning environments has no bearing on whether or not CHL holders should be allowed to carry on campuses. The word concealed is in the license for a reason. State law says that openly carrying a handgun is legal nearly everywhere without a license, and a college campus is not a place where it is prohibited. In fact, name me the last time you saw somebody concealing a handgun when you got your groceries, saw a movie, or were in the bank. Odds are that there was probably at least one person legally carrying their concealed weapon. The whole idea of concealed carry is to prevent anybody from knowing that you are carrying, and the editor's whole reasoning of "instantly incite panic and fear" a complete crock.

Ohio law was created and governed by Boob (ops, I mean Bob) Taft, and if you took the time to read the actual laws or the Attorney General's booklet on it, you would realize a pattern. The laws were written with so many grey areas to try to keep somebody from carrying anyway. Taft was vehemently opposed to allowing people to have a means of defense against their life on their side. If you haven't noticed he's also the laughing stock of recent governors in the country for a reason. I guess it's asking too much for the editors of this paper to do research on why the law was written as it was as well. It is NOT inevitable that students would be alarmed about guns on campus when carried by a CHL holder, because nobody will know about it, nor who has their legally carried firearms. Over 600 carry at the University of Utah, it causes no problems there, nor would it do so here.

If the editors insist on leaning on tradition as their sole main support for continuing the prohibition of firearms on campus, then I would strongly suggest that they look at the original "school safety act of the 1960's. Prior to this, teachers carried their weapons to schools daily. There were no irresponsible actions by these people, nor were any innocent people hurt. Pilots in the US were MANDATED to carry firearms when they flow until 1969, but still had the option until 1979. They currently now have the option again.

These limits represent no prudent judgments on the side of our government at all. I won't get into the second amendment, as this is NOT what this debate is about. This isn't about keeping guns out of the hands of college kids anyway, because anybody over 18 can buy a firearm of some sort if they pass a background check. This is about public safety. Every single state that has a shall-issue CHL has lower crime rates (violent and non-violent) than states that do not. Disarming the innocent doesn't protect them at all. This is akin to saying that sheep are safer without sheepdogs, fences, or ranchers to keep them safe from the foxes and wolves.

Miami is publicly funded, and regardless their own rules about issues that aren't given constitutional rights (such as smoking), they do not have the ability to over-ride state law, or federal law. Assuming that state laws will change to more closely resemble those of Utah in regards to CHL holders on campus, then Miami would have no choice but to allow CHL holders. These same people cause no problems in any other walk of life, so why should a college campus be any different.

The presence of a concealed handgun is not troubling at all. I'll give you a few perfect examples. Bank robberies occur, and people sometimes get seriously wounded or killed. If a bank robbery occurs and a gun is pointed at you, would you rather be at the bank that prohibits people from carrying and has no armed guard, or at the bank that allows carry and/or has an armed guard? Let's apply that same thing to a classroom. Would you rather be at a public University in Utah in a room where a license holder has their gun, and has a bead on the room entrance/exit and wait for police to arrive while a massacre is occurring; or would you rather be at a college that DOESN'T allow a license holder to defend their lives (by either law or policy), and have no means of effective resistance? Yes, the odds are small that it would occur. But would you be pissed that you're alive because a CHL holder was pro-active about staying alive and he had a gun? I didn't think so.

After all, if the odds are so small that it doesn't justify the carry of guns, then why are there over 101,000 CHL holders in the state of Ohio alone? If this logic is true, then perhaps we should take away guns, tazers, mace, and batons from police officers. These are all the items they use to keep themselves safe in the same neighborhoods and streets we all live in and walk on.

The Miami Student Editorial Board's reactions were inappropriate. They are unfounded, uneducated on the subject at hand, and used emotional dribble to attempt to prove a point instead of using logic, facts, and statistics. This piece was a prime example of poor journalism at a bare minimum, and a disgrace to the Miami Redhawks at the worst

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

"These limits represent prudent judgment on the part of our government to sensibly limit Second Amendment rights to alleviate fear and secure the public's safety."
I believe the Miami student editorial board has missed the intent that underscores the 2nd Amendment.

What a great idea - NOT. Students bringing guns into the classroom. WHY? What purpose is served? What possible good can come from this?

Please don't say "prevent another Virgina Tech". Can you imagine the chaos that would have ensued with another 10-15 vigilantes trying to track down the real shooter.
With any luck they would all shoot each other and then we wouldn't have any more guns on the campus - which is as it should be.

Tom: What purpose? How about so my friends don't get raped (it's happened!), so my friends or I don't get stabbed (it's happened!)? It's called "safety". Because when someone's 20 feet from you intent on calling you harm, are you going to call 911 and hope they show up in 2 seconds? Miami police response time is up to 2 mins. on a good day, just in time for them to take your statement or take pictures of your dead body.

Contrary to what you naively think, licensees aren't police officers. They get their license to protect THEMSELVES first, so if someone is across campus shooting, it'd be foolish for 15 non-police officers to go LOOKING for the criminal--though if 1 did and took the person out before the carnage could spread, would you really be this mad? By the way, the person that would bring a gun onto campus to commit the illegal act of murder isn't going to bother getting a license.

So remember that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Remember that next time you're walking around at night. Remember that next time you're in a mall and you pass by someone carrying a concealed weapon. Of course, you won't know that person is carrying a concealed weapon, but if there's a need for that person to draw and fire (say, to save your life for example), you'll be glad they're there.

I feel that it is you, the editorial board, that has missed the point. The key word in "concealed carry" is "CONCEALED". Students will not know which students, faculty, and staff members are licensed and who exercises their right to carry. I was in a room earlier this month with 2-300 citizens legally carrying a concealed weapon. I honestly couldn't tell any of them were (by the way, not a single crime involving a firearm was committed while in this room). Trying to figure out who is LEGALLY carrying a gun is as preposterous as trying to figure out who has a green pen in their pocket.

Furthermore, students, faculty, and staff can already carry at Colorado State and in public universities in Utah and do so without disrupting the educational environment or inducing fear. The comments by the editorial board are the same as in every single state that issues such licenses, but it has been shown that when you conceal a weapon, nobody notices.

Actually, Miami is unable to make stricter policies concerning the legal use of firearms. HB 347 (now ORC GP 9.68) which went into effect March of this year, prohibits cities, towns, etc. from enacting stricter gun laws than those already established by the state. Thus, if state law changes, Miami policy would be forced to change.

We're not only citing Virginia Tech as reason to change the laws. What about assaults, armed robberies, rapes? These vicious felonies may also be thwarted by an armed student standing up to do the right thing. While a school shooting may be rare, it is not impossible to think that someone would ILLEGALLY carry a gun on campus (not to be thwarted by Ohio law prohibiting it) and ILLEGALLY commit crimes.

Finally, the notion that armed students will impede police procedures is also not the case. This is another common argument in states that issue licenses and it has clearly not been the case. Licensees get their license first and foremost to protect THEMSELVES. The training classes I have heard of emphasize that licensees are not law enforcement officers nor are they superheroes. Police response time can be long, however, and most shootings are over probably within 30 secs. Miami response time can be up to 2 minutes. At Virginia Tech, police officers waited for 30 mins. before they were able to reach the shooter. An armed student or professor could have ended it without it really ever beginning. A student on one side of campus isn't going to race across campus just so they can try to play hero, and I reiterate that we are trained not to do so.

But again, it's not just about school shootings. How many of you know female students (or are such students) that wouldn't stand a chance against a 250lb. guy intent on raping her? The chances of such heinous crimes occurring on campus is minute, but should NEVER be ignored.

A few weeks ago, a student was attacked by 3 males unknown to him outside of a residence hall. He's lucky he managed to scramble inside and close the door behind him. The 3 assailants could have been armed, but lucky for this particular student, all they hit him with was their firsts. However, had this particular student been licensed and able to carry on campus, he could have diffused the situation merely by unholstering his firearm (if he feared his life was in imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury--if you ask me, if there's 3 against 1, I'm going to fear for my life) or shooting if it became necessary.

It is clear to me that none of you did your homework before formulating your own opinions. Combine that with a very two-faced point of view and overall it amounts to poor journalism. Studies consistently show (and I can cite sources) that the carrying of a concealed handgun does in fact lead to less violence and that licensees are amongst some of the most law abiding citizens.

I urge you all to reconsider your viewpoints on the issue. I don't understand how you can seem to agree with our position one minute and then support the university the next (which, in all reality, the university has nothing to do with it).

Tom Schaber said:
"Can you imagine the chaos that would have ensued with another 10-15 vigilantes trying to track down the real shooter.
With any luck they would all shoot each other and then we wouldn't have any more guns on the campus - which is as it should be."

I don't have to imagine it: January 16, 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law, also in Virginia, a shooting spree much like the VT one started, and was stopped cold by two armed students, neither of whom had to fire a shot. The facts there and in other places paint a very different picture from your whimsical rhetoric.
I'm sorry your mistrust and hatred of legally licensed fellow students prompts you to wish misfortune upon them for merely wanting to protect themselves, and by default, you as well. I'm also sorry you are intellectually incapable of discerning the difference between an honest non-criminal with a license and a dangerous felon; I dare not ask your GPA.

Evidently, you prefer that the Socialist Agenda of teaching people to be afraid of guns remains in place, and that the mass executions continue unhindered.

Some very good comments in here! I am pleased to see gun owners and second amendment supporters so polite, logical, and articulate. That is usually the case.

Every time right-to-carry laws are proposed to be liberalized, opponents predict doom and gloom. And it never comes to pass.

Why are people even arguing about such things?

1. I'll agree shooting at the colleges is fairly rare, only 3 that I can think of so far this year.

2. The sheep are so afraid the CCW'ers will shoot everyone except the bad guy, It is possible, but highly unlikely. Most civilians practice more than do most police.
Also it is wise to remember if this guys wanted to be in a gun fight they would not to do the shooting in a "GUN FREE ZONE"! The biggest thing to stop school shootings is to Deter the shooter, & a metal sign is not a deterrent.

3. The Police nearly always get there after the shooter is done, & has killed himself.

4. Not all students live on campus, & some area where campuses are located are simply not nice neighborhoods, and in many students are looked on as easy money by the BG's

The sheep, need to at least learn to get over the fear of the sheepdogs, because when the wolf comes that will be all they have.
Also note perhaps, if the words were:

"These limits represent prudent judgment on the part of our government to sensibly limit First Amendment rights to alleviate fear and secure the public's safety."
After all more fights, wars etc have been launched with words, than any gun ever started, and lastly if the sight of an empty holster frightens you or alarms you, perhaps you should return to France.

Well put, Duck. Revered and spit upon, the warrior. As I have said before, Sparta never had this problem.

I am both a college faculty member and a concealed carry instructor.

Two major assumpitons show up in the column and in the subsequent comments that reveal quite a lack of knowledge.

First, concealed means concealed. In whatever state you live in that has a concealed carry law, you are, on a daily basis, around people carrying handguns legally, and you never, ever notice because the guns are, of course, concealed.

Second, the comments about armed students being "vigilantes" or making a public shooting worse are revealing.

These comments are made by people with little or no knowledge or experience with firearms training, and the realities of an armed attack.

Armed students or faculty members would not be "trying to track down" the real shooter.

The students and faculty members would be responding to an armed person who is trying to kill them, and who would be at most about 10 or 15 feet away.

That's how actual, armed, violent confrontations happen.

They are up close, fast, and there is no question to those involved who is the "good guy" and who is the "bad guy."

Also, even if the police get there within 60 seconds (and they won't) that's still lots of time for someone bent on murder to kill and wound many people.

As for how a concealed carry permit holder interacts with police after a confrontation? Well, that's addressed by something known as "training."

The concerns about armed students or faculty running willy-nilly around campus hunting for the real shooter, and causing choas and panic are the results of either ignorance about actual armed confrontations, or misinformation spread by those with an anti-gun agenda.

Reading the editorial, and the comments it has generated, has been interesting. Some observations:

1. Whoever wrote the editorial did not give their name or position at or with the school. Is it from a student? Faculty member?



2. And while editorials are a forum for opinions, it would be nice if statements made in them, and the writers in support of the editorial, are factual. If this was written by anyone involved in the School of Journalism, shame on them. The facts are:

(1) schools where legally armed students/faculty are allowed have not shown that small argument turn into gunfights;

(2) students/faculty with legally carried firearms do not "instantly incite panic and fear among students";

(3) in actual situations where a (legally possessed)firearm(s) has been available by a student(s)or a faculty member(s)in the event of an attack, the attacks were defused without a single bystander being harmed in anyway by the student(s)/faculty member(s) who were legally armed;

(4) the incidence of "innocent bystander" shooting by concealed weapons permit holders is many times LESS that that of Law Enforcement Officers. (Because LEOs are called INTO harm's way, while CCW permit holders are AVOIDING harm's way;

(5) there is no evidence that CCW holders become vigilantes, in fact, a CCW permit holder is several times less likely than the general population to be involved in crime of any kind;

(6) smoking is not protected by the Bill Of Rights, the right to the ability to defend one's self is protected by the Bill Of Rights;

(7) it is delusional to believe that someone intent on doing harm to others and/or themselves is going to allow a school policy/rule/sign to deter that action, while most permit holders will honor the policy/rule/sign.



3. It is interesting to note that most of the comments in support of the editorial were based presumption and emotional responses, while the responses from those who disagree are logical, factual and articulate.

4. And it has been said before, "feeling safe" is not the same as "being safe".

Hi.
I need to point out that when this subject has been
mentioned in the press, and on radio.

It's been addressed as, "The college kids, or some of your children wish to carry hand guns on campus!"

They need to be reminded that the students that are
licensed are over 21, and responsible adults attending
college.

"Stay safe!"

Rick.

As a former Miami student, I'm disappointed at the lack of real debate in the Miami Student's editorial. They state that weapons would cause fear, however does a citizen carrying a weapon in public cause riots? So why would it on a campus?

The editorial also downplays the 'possibility' argument laid out after the VA Tech shooting by saying a shooting at Miami is very improbable- which it is. But is that an acceptable argument? "We don't feel that we should practice fire drills because a fire is not likely". You have to prepare for the unlikely.

The student also argues that the Miami campus is safe, courtesy of card-swiping systems. But in my recollection, most shootings on campuses are from irate students, so wouldn't this be a mute point?

I feel that the Student's editorial very unfairly and in poor argument, represents incorrect points which really aren't applicable. I would hypothesize that whoever wrote the editorial really did not have the experience with firearms to make correct points.

This article does not examine the facts and the qualms this writer has with concealed carry on campus are unfounded. For example, students being alarmed at the presence of guns on campus would not happen because the guns are concealed. They likely pass by someone on the street once per day that is carrying, and they never know it. Also, they express concern that the police would be confused about who is the gunman and who is the CCW holder. They don't realize that the average gunfight last less than ten seconds, and they've likely seen too many movies. If the police could get there within that ten seconds then we wouldn't need to carry, but since they are much slower than that, we can't afford to hide under our desks with fingers crossed in the meantime.