Toledo Blade: Anti college carry article

This forum is for discussion of general issues regarding Concealed Carry in your everyday life. This forum is not intended to be political or for discussing legislation.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Toledo Blade: Anti college carry article

Postby fisher » Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:34 pm

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... /-1/NEWS16

Same old pandering:

The answers seem so obvious. Even if only 21-year-olds were initially able to carry weapons on campus, pressure would mount to lower the age to 18. It just seems to me to be someplace we don't want to go.


Like it or not, many college students drink. Often to excess. Do we want to put a beer in every hand and a gun in every pocket? Should sports fans be permitted to bring guns into a football stadium?
"If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot"
-Joe Deters, Hamilton County Prosecutor
(Chant) Hey Hey, Ho Ho, This Nanny-State Has Got To Go. (Everyone, sing along).....
-Me
" I know what dude I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!"
-Kirk Lazarus
http://www.patriotguard.org/
http://www.gunbanobama.com
User avatar
fisher
 
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:41 pm
Location: cincinnati

Postby farblue » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:04 pm

Just another version of the "blood running in the streets" argument. Let me see if I got the feeling of this article right. College students, as a whole, are irresponsible drunkards who should barely be trusted with a sharpened pencil, let alone a "scary" gun.

Is that about it? Please.
User avatar
farblue
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:26 am
Location: Columbiana County, Oh

Postby DOCDC1 » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:13 pm

It's close, just replace the term "college student" with the term "main stream media" and you'd nail it.


Doc
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
User avatar
DOCDC1
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:56 pm
Location: NE Ohio

Postby rs172203 » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:30 pm

I love the fact that when I walk down the street I am sane, rational, and a good person; but when I walk onto campus I become a psychopath bent on revenge fueled by alcohol and drugs. And I thought schools like mine were places of open thought.......what a joke
NRA basic pistol instructor, proud member of "The Gun Culture"
We must all fear evil men,
but there is another kind of evil
which we must fear most
and that is the indifference
of good men
rs172203
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:17 am
Location: Parma Ohio

Postby charben » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:47 pm

My letter...

Mr. Walton,

Certainly you can do better than that. Your arguments in your recent editorial are some of the same ones brought up prior to the passing of concealed carry legislation in Ohio. Further, you indict the entire student population with your comments in your article as irresponsible drunkards. That may fit a minority of students, but the vast majority of students ARE responsible. What about "non-traditional" students such as myself? There is a growing population of 40-somethings on college campuses across the state and nation. What you suggest is that I should not have any fear for my safety on a college campus. My question for you is: "what makes a campus inherantly so much safer (than outside campus) such that I should be compelled to give up my right to protect myself?".

Remember, every victim of a school/university violence, church violence, mall violence, or any other violence in such locations, THOUGHT that they were safe, too.
Chris

Crushing the First Amendment, one post at a time!

"If you walk out of your house carrying your gun (openly or otherwise) and you DO NOT fully understand the law, then you are NOT completely armed..."
User avatar
charben
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 10189
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Attica, OH

Postby color of law » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:57 pm

charben, you should know that when you rub a liberal's nose there dung, to them that is getting back to nature.
User avatar
color of law
*** Banned ***
 
Posts: 3623
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Cincinnati area

Postby charben » Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:01 pm

color of law wrote:charben, you should know that when you rub a liberal's nose there dung, to them that is getting back to nature.


I just don't want their dung near ME! :)
Chris

Crushing the First Amendment, one post at a time!

"If you walk out of your house carrying your gun (openly or otherwise) and you DO NOT fully understand the law, then you are NOT completely armed..."
User avatar
charben
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 10189
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Attica, OH

Postby schmieg » Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:29 pm

DOCDC1 wrote:It's close, just replace the term "college student" with the term "main stream media" and you'd nail it.


Doc


I think that I would trust a member of the MSM more with a loaded weapon than with the sharpened pencil. What they write often does much more damage.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Postby DOCDC1 » Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:31 pm

schmieg wrote:
DOCDC1 wrote:It's close, just replace the term "college student" with the term "main stream media" and you'd nail it.


Doc


I think that I would trust a member of the MSM more with a loaded weapon than with the sharpened pencil. What they write often does much more damage.


lol...agreed

Doc
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
User avatar
DOCDC1
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:56 pm
Location: NE Ohio

Postby jacksnack » Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:43 pm

Unless the bars to which they are referring are ON campus, students are allowed to carry off campus. Obviously, there aren't mass CCW shootings in bars in college towns.

That argument is old and stupid. :?

College towns are NOT the same as college campuses.
NRA Life Member
Key ID: 43A1FB9B48171781
User avatar
jacksnack
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:20 pm
Location: Bethel Park, PA

Postby willbird » Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:55 am

charben wrote:My letter...

Mr. Walton,

Certainly you can do better than that. Your arguments in your recent editorial are some of the same ones brought up prior to the passing of concealed carry legislation in Ohio. Further, you indict the entire student population with your comments in your article as irresponsible drunkards. That may fit a minority of students, but the vast majority of students ARE responsible. What about "non-traditional" students such as myself? There is a growing population of 40-somethings on college campuses across the state and nation. What you suggest is that I should not have any fear for my safety on a college campus. My question for you is: "what makes a campus inherantly so much safer (than outside campus) such that I should be compelled to give up my right to protect myself?".

Remember, every victim of a school/university violence, church violence, mall violence, or any other violence in such locations, THOUGHT that they were safe, too.


Having a Police Officer like Jeffrey Hodges made it safer.

In January 1992, a University of Toledo police officer named Jeffery Hodge kidnapped Nursing School sophomore Melissa Herstrum and took her behind a building on campus. After undressing her, he pumped fourteen bullets into her body. A shot to her head was fired at point blank range.

Melissa Herstrum’s murder was another in a long series of crimes that on-duty police officers committed against students on campus. Just one week before this murder, Jeffery Hodge pumped several shots into a sleeping female student’s dorm room window, narrowly missing her by several inches. He also set several fires on campus, made bomb threats, and harassed female students in several situations. Because the University of Toledo administration knew of Hodge’s behavior, but took no action, they were forced to pay Melissa Herstrum’s family one million dollars in a settlement.
willbird
*** Banned ***
 
Posts: 11163
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:19 am
Location: Exit 13 on the ohio Turnpike :-)

Postby Glock and dagger » Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:01 am

From the article:

THE NATIONAL Rifle Association is a lobbying colossus in this country, and it doesn't like to lose a political battle. Fortunately, the NRA is losing one that makes you scratch your head and ask yourself, "what were they thinking?"


For any of you familiar with what happens in Israel when some idiot thinks shooting up schools is a good idea, and then does it, the casualties are always much lower, and the dirtbag gets slain in the process, rather than run out of ammo and turn his own gun against himself.

It has less to do with what they are thinking, and everything to do with what has been proved to them.

What they were thinking is this: The gun lobby believes America's college campuses are dangerous places for your children to be and wants the states to enact laws that would forbid any attempts to keep guns away from university classrooms, research labs, office buildings, arenas, dining halls, and dormitories.


Again, it isn't what we think; it's what has been proven to us. The time that lapses between the first shot made by a mass murderer, and when someone with a gun intercedes and puts a stop to it is directly related to how many die. That should be a self-evident truth, right there. We need the possibility of armed resistance to be as high as possible.

Yes, you read that right. The NRA wants to force the people who run our colleges and universities to allow guns on campus, a place most parents hope is a safe haven for their kids while they pursue an education. No gun left behind, you might say.


Enter the world of reality, parents can [deleted -- TR] Reality is that they are victim disarmament zones. Logic dictates that a criminal is just that because he does not obey laws. They won't obey "no guns" zones when they are intent on murder; that is just the way it is.

That's the bad news. Here's the good news: the NRA is getting shot down in state after state. So far in 2008, guns-on-campus bills have failed to gain any traction in 15 states where they have been introduced. It's truly an honor roll - my own little Dean's List, if you will - so let's list them: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. That's 15 tries and 15 misses.


Why celebrate? This only means the possibility of school zone murders increases, and in this case, the instances increase dramatically.

Rather than follow what we think, we should follow what has been proven to us, and look toward Israel or Switzerland, neither of which have these issues with the same tragic results as the US does.

What must be especially upsetting to the NRA is the defection of states and legislators the organization thought it had in its deep pockets. When guns-on-campus legislation was pushed to a vote in South Dakota, the state Senate rejected the bill with the help of "no" votes from six A-rated NRA senators. Same story in Indiana. The legislation lost by a vote in the Senate because 10 senators endorsed by the NRA went the other way and rejected the idea. Only one state, Utah, has ever passed such a law, which on some level doesn't surprise me.


Utah had something demonstrated to them: armed encounter is met wit harmed resistance. They got the message.

Guns-on-campus has been an NRA agenda item for a long time but the organization cranked up its lobbying effort after the Virginia Tech tragedy in 2007, when a mentally disturbed student opened fire in a classroom building and killed 32 students and faculty members, including a professor with Toledo connections.


So, why did the "no guns" signs not work?? I doubt that animal couldn't read; quite the contrary. Predators like their prey as weak as they can be.

I wish I could tell you that Ohio and Michigan have joined with all those other states in aggressively repudiating the idea of arming our college campuses, but the fact is that only two states still have pending legislation that could do just that, and their names are Ohio and Michigan. The good news is that neither legislature is in a hurry to act. If that's repudiation, I'll take it.


It will be interesting to see if either state has the interests of the innocent in its hearts....

As you might expect, law enforcement officials charged with keeping the peace on our college campuses don't like turning them into armed camps either. Gene Ferrara, chief of police at the University of Cincinnati, had this to say to CNN not long ago: "I don't think the answer to bullets flying is to send more bullets flying. My belief is we ought to be focusing on what we do to prevent the shooting from starting."


Why do we care what our public servants think?? They are supposed to do a job, not exceed their authority and tell us what to do.

Gun violence anywhere is horrifying. Do we really want to prevent our universities from banning firearms from their campus communities? Like it or not, many college students drink. Often to excess. Do we want to put a beer in every hand and a gun in every pocket? Should sports fans be permitted to bring guns into a football stadium?


It is entirely possible that the "get drunk and party" crowd is entirely different from the "responsible for their own safety" crowd. That's what the facts tell us. When the facts are in contradiction to your opinion, that means it is wrong. If you know that, and by now, there is no possible way you could not know it, then you are lying.

The answers seem so obvious.


Apparently not, if you would keep printing deceitful lies in the ace o the truth.

Even if only 21-year-olds were initially able to carry weapons on campus, pressure would mount to lower the age to 18. It just seems to me to be someplace we don't want to go.


This is an inadvertent addmission from this guy stating tat if you are not 21, you are incompetent to secure your own family, protect yourself in public, and it reeks of prejudice. I expect that from the standard rank and file liberal trash bag, though.

The Supreme Court of the land agrees. Though the court narrowly ruled late last month that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a personal right and not a provisional right linked to preserving public safety, the court also made clear that it was not messing with long-standing laws prohibiting firearms in what it called "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings.


Well, our good friend Alan Gura did not waste any time conceding this idea, but that doesn't mean anything. Let me demonstrate how it is wrong in and of itself. Take notes, Alan; you might make a better case for yourself, next time...

In order for a building to be "public", means it is funded entirely by tax revenue. That revenue comes from us. In other words, and in no uncertain terms WE paid for that. The politicians did not. The police did not. In fact, both of them are employed by us. Since WE paid for it, that means that ownership belongs in part to every tax payer. That is what defines something that is public.

No one has the authority to tell any citizen, to which ownership rightly belongs, that they cannot bear arms inside any "public" building. All they have is unjust force backing themselves up, the exact same way they do when enforcing any malum prohibitum law. No one granted the servants the right to rule over the true masters.

Every building at a public university is a government building.


Do your homework before you begin conceding your point. If it is a government building, as you say, then it belongs to us. Nothing can truly belong to the gov't. Those of us who actually attend a certain college or university make an even greater argument to claim of ownership, since, on top of taxes, we pay tuition, also; already, your argument is failing under lawful scrutiny.

College students themselves think guns on campus are a bad idea.


Who gives a damn?? If they don't want to rely on themselves for their own defense, fine. They still have no right commanding others who would to do otherwise. There was a time when slavery was supported, too. The same is true about women voting rights. I don't see your point, and I don't care if the majority of college students now believed that the world is flat, and is at the center of the universe. I know differently.

Toledoan Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, remembers an appearance before a class of about 150 students at the University of Cincinnati. She asked their opinion about allowing students to carry guns. All but "a handful" were opposed, she said.


Am I understanding this right?? All but a handful of students wanted guns on campus?? Earlier, you stated that a majority of college students were opposed. This doesn't sound like it, to me.

What about professors, she asked. This time the response was unanimous: no way. There was nervous laughter but a point was made.


And what point was made, exactly? That college professors are retarded in the Freudian sense of the word, and are the ones instructing others in intellectual institutes??

That's scary, right there.

I know the argument of the other side. When the Virginia Tech shooter opened fire, they contend, another student carrying a gun might have ended the rampage shortly after it began. But would another student have had the presence of mind, the skill, the coolness to prevent (animal's name omitted due to lack of relevance)from gunning down so many classmates? Perhaps. It's also possible a shootout would have made the carnage worse.


NOPE!!! But thanks for playing!!!

The worst possible case scenario is that the armed mass murderer will run out of ammunition and shoot himself. If this happens, enough time has passed to allow this animal the opportunity to shoot at a maximum number of targets, and then end his own pathetic existence, so as to escape consequences. Anyone interceding at any point in between will change how thisshooting goes, the exact same way Israeli intervention makes school shooting exceptionally rare in their country. No one is stupid enough to try it, there.

What happened at Virginia Tech remains extremely rare;


Statistics are a cold comfort when you learn that you are the rare exception.

it could occur more frequently if guns abound.


It would likely be thwarted well in advance, also, if veryone had them, and not just the cowardly predators who insist on extremely soft targets.

(animal's name omitted due to lack of relevance) had already been judged in court as mentally "defective," yet he was able to purchase the two handguns he used in his deadly assault. It seems to me that's a greater problem in Virginia than rules against guns on campus.


Actually, the only real problem here was than none of the good guys were armed, and they were sitting ducks.

Trying to interject philosophy where logic reigns supreme is as idiotic as asking a doctor to overhaul a jet engine, rather than an aircraft mechanic. Logic always trumps philosophy!!!
I'm Glock and Dagger and I approved this message.

"If it deprives just one citizen of their God-given rights, it's not worth it."
-evan price

FOOTOS... the Fresh Fighter
User avatar
Glock and dagger
 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Findlay

Postby Benjamin.Altose » Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:28 pm

So many flawed arguments in that article, it makes me sick.
It is better to have less thunder in the mouth and more lightning in the hand. - Apache Proverb

יזכר לא עד פעם
User avatar
Benjamin.Altose
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Shaker Heights

Postby pkt1106 » Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:54 pm

my contribution, sent this evening:

Mr Walton-

Recently, I read your article about guns on campus on the Toledo Blade online edition. Like most rational people, the thought of students carrying guns on campus is unsettling to you. I myself was once totally against Ohio's CCW instatement in 2004. I thought the same as you, shoot outs would ensue, people would die, etc. But then something happened. Nothing. Absolutely nothing happened in Ohio to point out that the CCW laws were contributing to crime. If anything, statistics have shown that crime has decreased across the State.

But, we are not talking about public areas, we are talking about Universities and Colleges. Those fine institutions of higher learning where the youth of America become well-rounded, productive members of society. Eighteen-year-olds coming out of their shells to indulge in the "college life" and be away from the nest congregate to share ideas and experiences. Of course, there is the dark side: binge drinking, recreational drug use, greek life hazing. It's not pretty, I can tell you, having graduated in 2005.

Not every student partakes in these activities, though. I know, it's disheartening when you can't lump every 18-22 year old in the same irresponsible boat. What you seem not to realize is that thes 18-year-olds mature and grow into 21-year-olds. Where do we categorize them, then? Borderline drug abusers? Recovering alcoholics? Unfortunately for you, there are those that are just plain 21-year-olds. They go to class, go to work, follow the rules, and go to bed just to wake up the next day to do it all over again. They are the students who will be truly good citizens and not transgress against society. Were these 18-year-olds out in the real world, they would be treated just like any other adult. We would mean for them to follow rules and obey laws. So, why when they step on a college campus must we continue to coddle them and tell them we will take care of everything and keep them safe, when that is a lie?

To assume that 21-year-olds, just because they are students, can't be responsible with firearms on campus is as preposterous as it is hypocritical. These 21-year-olds are out in the world every day, being responsible, law abiding citizens outside of campus. When they cross that invisible line, all of a sudden they are a potential threat to others and can't be trusted with even a pocket knife.

The fact of the matter is that everyone who gets trained for CCW gets evaluated in many facets including pratical skills, gun safety, and being judged by the instuctor in the intangibles such as character and mentality. If an instructor feels that a person should not pass the course, they can send them away. There is no rule stating that everyone who takes the course is automatically going to be approved by the instructor.

You are correct. Maybe if someone had another firearm in the same room as the Virginia Tech shooter, things could have been alot worse. How many students in that classroom do you think wished they had some way to fight back? Thanks to people like you, they were all sitting ducks without a chance of survival.

My attitude toward CCW changed since college. I see it as giving people a chance to fight back when they are attacked or threatened. Thats what it is all about, giving people a chance. In the court of law, everyone is "presumed innocent until proven guilty". Why does this not extend to firearms? Why is everyone a threat? Isn't that discrimination as well?
pkt1106
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:39 am

Postby GroundChuk » Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:33 pm

What I find fascinating about this is the fact that we have 18 year olds overseas fighting, and call them Soldiers, yet up until they are around 25 years old on campus they are....get this....KIDS!!

Why is a working class person, with no college an adult at 18, yet a college student a "kid" well into their twentys?

I guess a 16 year old who commits a violent crime and is charged as an adult just doesn't get the opportunity to be a "kid" into the twenties because they aren't in college yet. (Not defending any violent criminals, just being Devil's Advocate)

Anyone who reaches the age of 18 is an ADULT. I don't see why they must keep saying "kids". They are not.
GroundChuk
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:16 pm

Next

Return to Ohio Concealed Carry Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests