Article for my school newspaper

[skywalkrNCSU]

im writing up an article about carrying on college campuses and was wondering if you guys could take a look and see what you thought before i submit it. (mods if this is in the wrong place i apologize and please move it for me)

thanks.

In the aftermath of the recent tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University where armed persons came onto campus and murdered many students, there has been intense discussion about whether or not people possessing concealed handgun licenses (CHL) should be able to legally carry their handguns on campus. The knee-jerk reaction of many people when this topic is brought up is that allowing guns on campus would create an unsafe environment. In fact it would create the opposite.


A common misconception is that since guns are not legally allowed on a college campus, then it must be a safe place and allowing guns on campus would create a “wild-west” type environment full of gun violence. There are already nine college campuses in the US where carrying a concealed handgun is legal, but you don’t hear about daily shootings or mass murders there. Also, if someone was going to use a firearm to commit a crime, would the criminal really care if possessing a firearm on campus was against the law? Of course not, since they are using it to do something that is already against the law in the first place. Basically, criminals do not care what the law says. For example, a person about to commit murder would not care about breaking a gun free zone law, a much lesser offense.


Another misconception is that if this was allowed then everyone would be carrying a gun, leading to more gun violence. If CHL holders were allowed to carry on campus then only those who have a CHL would legally have a gun on campus. This means that they would have to have completed a State approved CHL course, which involves a written test and a test for accuracy that also confirms one’s ability to safely handle a firearm. An application must be submitted to the Sheriff’s department along with an $80 fee and a fingerprint card. The applicant must then pass a criminal history and mental evaluations check. It is a very involved process that not many people would be willing to go through just to be able to carry a concealed handgun on campus. It is also statistically shown that CHL holders do not typically commit crimes. For example, in Texas from 2002-2005 there were 819 convictions for murder (only two being CHL holders), 68,045 convictions for aggravated assault (only eighty nine being CHL holders), 5,237 convictions for aggravated sexual assault (only thirty one being CHL holders), and 7,577 convictions of aggravated robbery (only seven being CHL holders). Essentially, the chance of someone possessing a CHL committing a crime is much lower than for a typical citizen. Another common response a lot of people have is that they would feel unsafe if CHL holders were allowed to carry on campus. But what these people don’t realize is they constantly are around people who are carrying a concealed weapon. They just do not know it for the simple fact that it is concealed. Many people do not realize that CHL holders are already legally able to carry a concealed handgun many places, including right across the street from campus (where you do not hear of crazy “wild-west” type shootouts happening). What would make a rational law abiding citizen suddenly a dangerous person just by crossing Hillsborough Street onto campus?


So why should CHL holders be able to carry on campus? Simple: To be able to defend themselves against things that the police cannot stop. On January 16, 2002 Peter Odighizuwa, a former student of the Appalachian School of Law went on campus and opened fire on students and faculty killing three and wounding three others. When Odighizuwa went to leave the building he was stopped by two students who had run to their vehicles upon hearing gun shots in order to retrieve their firearms. The two students, along with an unarmed student, then subdued Odighizuwa, stopping him from hurting anyone else. This is just one example of how firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens can be a major benefit to society. Had there been a law abiding citizen allowed to carry a concealed handgun at either VT or NIU there would have been a better chance that the shooter could have been subdued before he could have killed others. The problem with “gun-free” zones is that a law-abiding citizen will not have a firearm while a criminal will. And the criminals are well aware of that fact and feel smugly confident that they can carry out their crime with impunity. In the VT and NIU cases, the police were unable to help since by the time they arrived the shooter had already killed many students and taken his life as well. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

 

[rmarcustrucker]

Pretty good. Well flowing. And you are so right. Laws restrict good guys and penalize bad guys who break the law. Good luck with it.

"Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Great line. Just hope you are not going to convert the mass'. Most hard core anti-gunners just don't trust you with a gun...and gosh darn...you kids just drink, puke, sleep and go to school to much to be trusted with the EVIL gun.

 

[bogie]

Did they tell you how many column inches you are getting? What sort of photos will go with it? Or is this a "letter to the editor" instead of an article?

 

[6_gunner]

Excellent! Very well written.

My only suggestion would be to omit or re-word the last sentence. I agree that its a great line, but I think it sounds a little too cliche for a formal paper or article. You could say the same thing in your own words and it would come across much better, in my opinion.

Perhaps you could say something like: "Tragedies like that at Virginia Tech demonstrate that, in a true emergency, the police will be unable to arrive in time to be of much help. With this in mind, the average citizen should seek to be more prepared and self-sufficient."

Aside from that one suggestion, it was outstanding. I hope it gets printed. Nothing serves so well to dispel the stigma surrounding gun owners as when we calmly and intelligently present our arguments.

 

[skywalkrNCSU]

yeah that was the line I was thinking of changing for the same reason...it will most likely be a letter to the editor but I might get a guest columnest type position

 

[Nate C.]

See if Oleg will loan you some relevant graphics, if you get the guest columnist space.

 

[Albatross]

You mentioned your writing will be a letter to the editor or guest commentary meaning it isn't a featured article and you aren't a writer for the paper.

That in mind, I'd cut the length of the piece considerably. If you want to have more impact reduce the work from approximately 800 to 200-300 words max.

/publisher of a student paper at a flagship university.

 

[skywalkrNCSU]

i tried to make it shorter but it would be really hard to address everything that way and would leave plenty of room for people to argue...i would rather it not get put in the paper then shorten it honestly

 

[Gingerbreadman]

Your third paragraph says almsot the same as the second paragraph, but with more words.

and allowing guns on campus would create a “wild-west” type environment full of gun violence.

Another misconception is that if this was allowed then everyone would be carrying a gun, leading to more gun violence.

If the number is available, you should say how many people have a CHL in your state. Those 49 people who committed crimes while having a carry permit sound like a large group when left by themselves.

Other than that, I think it is a good article.

 

[Oleg Volk]

You are welcome to use my graphics.

 

[misANTHrope]

I just dropped in to say "Go Pack!"

 

[loop]

I've been a newspaper editor for the past 25 years. The first thing that jumps out at me is that you are not a journalism student. Therefore, this is not an article but some sort of contribution - letter to the editor, guest column, something along those lines.

If you are a J-school student, my apologies, but nevertheless, what I am about to write will be helpful either way.

Your first sentence should be 25 words or less and state your concept. IOW it should be a complete paragraph.

Try something like: "In the wake of several shootings on college campuses a number of groups are seeking to allow legal carry of firearms on campus by qualified individuals."

Write tight!

In your second paragraph elaborate on one subject or the other - either school shootings or legal carry.

In the third sentence take the other side.

Keep every sentence to 25 words or less and make it a complete paragraph. You do not have to punctuate it as a paragraph, but make it something that could stand on it's own.

Be specific, be precise and be concise. Journalism is all about stuffing 10 pounds of s*** into a five-pound bag. If you cannot find a way to say the same thing in half the words it probably won't see printer's ink unless some lib is using it to fan the flames of anti-gun rhetoric.

Another very important thing is to attribute your information. That means when you mention Odighizuwa you have to say how you know that. Did you get the information from a newspaper article? If so, what article? How does the public know you didn't just make it up?

You mention two students running to their vehicles to retrieve firearms - how do you know that? You must attribute your knowledge or it is hearsay.

I do not mean to discourage you. I support your opinion. I'm simply speaking as a newspaper editor - who was also a college newspaper editor. What you wrote may get you an A in an English course, but as journalism it would get what we call an "Auto E." An Auto E is the same as if you did not turn in the assignment.

You wrote a very nice piece - if it was intended for an English professor. As journalism it is "File 13." I regret to say you need to take what you have and start over again from the top.

Even if it is a "letter to the editor" you need to go back and follow my leads. Unless the material was already covered in the specific publication, attribution must accompany every statement. The only statements that can escape attribution are the ones that have already been attributed in that publication.

I apologize for being so harsh, but I do this daily to young journalists. And, I NEVER apologize to them. I just say "Do it right or don't waste my time."

Start with what you have and print it out. Then rewrite it from top to bottom, adding attribution and cutting 50 percent of the words -that can be done without changing meaning or the point. Then, politics aside, I might consider it for publication.

 

[skywalkrNCSU]

wow thanks a lot that makes a lot of sense. i am definitely not a journalist by any means (statistics/econ major) so any help in that field i can get is what i am after here. i will definitely take your advice and run with it. thanks again.

 

[Conqueror]

Factual correction: there are 11 campuses, not 9, which allow CCW (9 in Utah, plus Colorado State and Blue Ridge Community College in VA).

For your crime comparisons, do NOT use raw numbers. They are meaningless, and 89 aggravated assaults by CHL holders still sounds like a LOT to the uninitiated. It would be better to use crime RATES (percentages). Something like "3% of the general public will be arrested for violent crime in a given year, as compared to 0.05% of CCW holders." Use the initials "CCW" instead of CHL, since CCW is what NC uses officially.

I am a SCCC campus leader in NC and also a SCCC national media liaison. Feel free to contact me for more input if needed. loop's points are accurate and helpful.

 

[fletcher]

I would do away with the TX statistics, and bring in the NC ones - they're much more favorable and relevant. You'll have to do some digging, but I've seen them through DoJ and other online sources a couple times. They would probably see those numbers not as "oh, not many CHL holders commit crimes", but as "wow, X% of the criminals have CHLs?".

 

[skywalkrNCSU]

ok guys i did a little rewriting and tried to make things more concise. loop i used your first line, i hope you do not mind. like i stated before i am by no means a journalism student, just a student with a desire for being able to defend myself. please let me know if you have any other suggestions.

In the wake of several shootings on college campuses a number of groups are seeking to allow legal carry of firearms on campus by qualified individuals. The knee-jerk reaction of many people when this topic is brought up is that allowing guns on campus would create an unsafe environment when in fact it would create the opposite.


A common misconception is that since guns are not legally allowed on a college campus, then it must be a safe place and allowing guns on campus would create a “wild-west” type environment full of gun violence. There are already eleven college campuses in the US where carrying a concealed handgun is legal (nine in Utah, Colorado State and Blue Ridge CC in VA), but you don’t hear about daily shootings or mass murders there.


If someone was going to use a firearm to commit a crime, would the criminal really care if possessing a firearm on campus was against the law? Of course not, since the crime they are about to commit is much greater than a weapons charge. The problem with “gun-free” zones is that a law-abiding citizen will not have a firearm while a criminal will.


If carrying concealed weapon permit (CCW) holders were allowed to carry on campus then only those who have a CCW would legally have a gun on campus. This means that they would have to have completed a State approved CCW course, involving a written test and a test for accuracy that also confirms one’s ability to safely handle a firearm. There must be Sherriff’s approval, a criminal history and mental evaluations check must be passed, and fingerprints taken. It is a very involved process that not many people would be willing to go through.


It is also statistically shown that CCW holders do not typically commit crimes. For example, in North Carolina, from 1995-2004, only 0.2% of the 263,102 CCW holders had their license revoked. Since even the most simple of crimes can cause revocation, it is obvious that those with CCW’s are very unlikely to commit a crime.


Another common response is that people would feel unsafe if CCW holders were allowed to carry on campus. However, constantly there are people who are legally carrying a weapon in public but no one can notice since it is concealed. CCW holders are already legally able to carry a concealed handgun many places, including right across the street from campus. What would make a rational law abiding citizen suddenly a dangerous person just by crossing Hillsborough Street onto campus?


So why should CCW holders be able to carry on campus? Simple: To be able to defend themselves against things that the police cannot stop. On January 16, 2002 Peter Odighizuwa, a former student of the Appalachian School of Law went on campus and opened fire on students and faculty killing three and wounding three others. When Odighizuwa went to leave the building he was stopped by two students who had retrieved firearms from their cars upon hearing gun shots. The two students, along with an unarmed student, then subdued Odighizuwa, preventing him from doing more damage. This is just one example of how firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens can be a major benefit to society.


Had there been a law abiding citizen allowed to carry a concealed handgun at either VT or NIU there would have been a better chance that the shooter could have been stopped sooner. The police were unable to help since by the time they arrived the shooter had already killed many students and taken his life as well. Tragedies like these demonstrate that, in a true emergency, the police will be unable to arrive in time to be of much help. With this in mind, the average citizen should seek to be more prepared and self-sufficient.

oh and i did not include references mainly because i am not sure what the best way is to do it, like if i should put it at the end or with the information.

 

[bogie]

One of the BEST things that a lot of non-writing majors can do is take an intro to journalism course.

It doesn't teach you to write flowery English prose. It teaches you to COMMUNICATE. Rapidly and succinctly, without all the BS.

Now, as per the revised letter...

TOO DAMN LONG unless they told you that you have x-amount of space/words.

I'd also punch it a little... Your lead needs a hook.

"Students want to carry guns on campus..." is guaranteed to get folks into it.

Punctuation is your friend.

Slice it and dice it. Don't repeat yourself.

Don't ask questions - reader will insert their own answer. Just tell, instead of ask.

References are for English class.

Example:

Had there been a law abiding citizen allowed to carry a

If a student was legally allowed a

concealed handgun at either VT or NIU there would have been a

gun at VT or NIU,

better chance that the shooter could have been stopped sooner.

the shooter would have been stopped.

The police were unable to help since by the time they arrived the

Police

shooter had already killed many students and taken his life as

show up and clean up after the fact.

well. Tragedies like these demonstrate that, in a true emergency,

<complete cut>

the police will be unable to arrive in time to be of much help.

They cannot be everywhere.

With this in mind, the average citizen should seek to be more

<complete cut>

prepared and self-sufficient.

<complete cut>

 

[misANTHrope]

Some thoughts from a complete and total non-journalist:

A common misconception is that since guns are not legally allowed on a college campus, then it must be a safe place and allowing guns on campus would create a “wild-west” type environment full of gun violence. There are already eleven college campuses in the US where carrying a concealed handgun is legal (nine in Utah, Colorado State and Blue Ridge CC in VA), but you don’t hear about daily shootings or mass murders there.


If someone was going to use a firearm to commit a crime, would the criminal really care if possessing a firearm on campus was against the law? Of course not, since the crime they are about to commit is much greater than a weapons charge. The problem with “gun-free” zones is that a law-abiding citizen will not have a firearm while a criminal will.

I think that these two paragraphs really go together. Also, the rhetorical question, to me, seems to take away from the persuasiveness of the piece. I'd ditch the question and instead make that into a strong statement. As in,

"The problem with expecting 'gun-free zones' to deter crime is that criminals, by definition, have no respect for the law. This is particularly he case with a potential VT-type murderer- if he's planning on violating perhaps the highest crime in existence, what's a weapons charge to him? In contrast, the citizens who do respect the prohibition are precisely the ones that are not a violent crime risk."

In fact, I think I would make that the start of the first paragraph, and then roll into citing the "wild west" claims and the countering examples.

It is a very involved process that not many people would be willing to go through.

Finally, this sentence sort of smacks of conjecture to me. At the least, I don't think it's very persuasive. Perhaps just the removal of the "would" phrase would strengthen it, or maybe just change "would be" to "are."

 

[skywalkrNCSU]

ok wow i sure didnt think i would be able to get it this concise but got it under 500 words...anymore suggestions are definitely welcome. thanks a lot for the ones already mentioned they have helped a bunch.

In the wake of several shootings on college campuses a number of groups are seeking to allow legal carry of firearms on campus by qualified individuals. The knee-jerk reaction of many people when this topic is brought up is that allowing guns on campus would create an unsafe environment when in fact it would create the opposite.

A common misconception is that since guns are not legally allowed, then campus must be a safe place. There are already eleven college campuses in the US where carrying a concealed handgun is legal (nine in Utah, Colorado State and Blue Ridge CC in VA), but you don’t hear about daily shootings or mass murders there. If someone is going to use a firearm to commit a crime on campus, they won’t care that it is illegal to have a gun with them. The problem with “gun-free” zones is that a law-abiding citizen will not have a firearm while a criminal will.

If carrying concealed weapon permit (CCW) holders were allowed to carry on campus then only those who have a CCW would legally have a gun on campus. This means that they would have to have completed a State approved CCW course, involving a written test and a test for accuracy that also confirms one’s ability to safely handle a firearm. There must be Sherriff’s approval, a criminal history and mental evaluations check must be passed, and fingerprints taken.

It is also statistically shown that CCW holders do not typically commit crimes. For example, in North Carolina, from 1995-2004, only 0.2% of the 263,102 CCW holders had their license revoked. Even the most simple of crimes can cause revocation so it is obvious that those with CCW’s are very unlikely to commit a crime.

People often say they would feel unsafe if guns were allowed to carry on campus but CCW holders are already legally able to carry a concealed handgun many places, including right across the street from campus. What would make a rational law abiding citizen suddenly a dangerous person just by crossing Hillsborough Street onto campus?

On January 16, 2002 Peter Odighizuwa, a former student of the Appalachian School of Law went on campus and opened fire on students and faculty killing three and wounding three others. When Odighizuwa went to leave the building he was stopped by two students who had retrieved firearms from their cars upon hearing gun shots. The two students, along with an unarmed student, then subdued Odighizuwa, preventing him from doing more damage. This is just one example of how firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens can be a major benefit to society.

If a student was legally allowed to carry a handgun at VT or NIU the shooter could have been stopped. Tragedies like these demonstrate that, in a true emergency, the police will be unable to arrive in time to be of much help and the average citizen should seek to be more prepared and self-sufficient.

 

[bogie]

In the wake of several shootings on college campuses a number of groups are seeking to allow legal carry of firearms on campus by qualified individuals. The knee-jerk reaction of many people when this topic is brought up is that allowing guns on campus would create an unsafe environment when in fact it would create the opposite.

Problem with this is that you are assuming that people will think, and then side with your opinion. Tell them what their opinion should be. The sentence/reasoning is kinda awkward and seem to come around from the back...

Allowing qualified students and faculty to carry guns on campus will result in increased safety. After several campus shootings, some groups support allowing these people to be armed while on campus.

Now, rehash it in that direction. Don't use a long word where a short one will do. Be merciless in trimming. You can always make something longer if they want you to.

 

[skywalkrNCSU]

what do you think about...

In the wake of several shootings on college campuses a number of groups are seeking to allow legal carry of firearms on campus by carrying concealed weapon permit (CCW) holders. Allowing qualified students and faculty to carry guns on campus will result in increased safety.

i like keeping the first sentence first to create more of an introduction to the piece

changed the second paragraph to...

A common misconception is that if guns legally allowed on campus then it will increase gun violence. There are already eleven college campuses in the US where carrying a concealed handgun is legal (nine in Utah, Colorado State and Blue Ridge CC in VA), but you don’t hear about daily shootings or mass murders there. If someone is going to use a firearm to commit a crime on campus, they won’t care that it is illegal to have a gun with them. The problem with “gun-free” zones is that a law-abiding citizen will not have a firearm while a criminal will.

 

[bogie]

In the wake of several shootings on college campuses a number of groups are seeking to allow legal carry of firearms on campus by carrying concealed weapon permit (CCW) holders. Allowing qualified students and faculty to carry guns on campus will result in increased safety.

After several campus shootings, to increase safety, some groups seek to allow qualified students and faculty to carry guns on MYSCHOOL campus.

A common misconception is that if guns legally allowed on campus then it will increase gun violence. There are already eleven college campuses in the US where carrying a concealed handgun is legal (nine in Utah, Colorado State and Blue Ridge CC in VA), but you don’t hear about daily shootings or mass murders there. If someone is going to use a firearm to commit a crime on campus, they won’t care that it is illegal to have a gun with them. The problem with “gun-free” zones is that a law-abiding citizen will not have a firearm while a criminal will.

Some groups say that allowing guns on campus will cause violence, but this has not happened at eleven campuses which permit it. (do you have any numbers?) In fact, violent crime rates at these schools, in Utah, Colorado and Virginia, is markedly lower than many others, including MYSCHOOL.

"Gun free zones," such as MYSCHOOL, merely allow criminals an advantage. Since 2004, there have been n violent assaults, n robberies and n rapes on campus. Many could have been prevented if criminals went elsewhere for easy victims.

 

[loop]

Keep going...
It's getting tighter and better.

Feel free to use my words. They don't belong to me, I just scrambled them.

Find a way to take more words out, but bear in mind attribution is crucial. You can sometimes take the burden of extra words out of Attribution by saying "experts say" and following that up with "Dr. Such and Such of XXX Institute said."

It is really very difficult to do and I applaud your efforts.

I believe that at this point you are on verge of writing an extremely convincing 300-word essay. That is one of the biggest challenges I've ever dealt with as a journalist.

A hint that may be helpful is that one of the first things a (good [this is a key]) journalist does is throw out all the adjectives and adverbs. (Re: good.) Only saves one word, but that one word allows you to use another somewhere else along the line.

Now, if I may, you are on the verge of a very strong piece of journalism. Bear in mind, do not let your personal opinion show through - make sure that comes from another source.

Keep it tight. Find a way to get rid of words that don't matter.

Do not underestimate the importance of attribution. Do not use your opinion, but use the opinion of experts to support your point.

You are very close. Make it kick ass in 300 words and I'll introduce you to your next employer.

I not only applaud your efforts, but applaud your determination.

I'm flattered that I am able to assist.

Do me a favor... Kick ass in 300 words.

I know, it's a bitch - I do it every doggone day.

I already applaud your work effort. You're doing a great job.

A few more well-placed words and you're in the 10-ring.

Loop

 

[svtruth]

Good job

If you drop by the Biology Department they can tell you about Batsean mimicry. The viveroy butterfly mimicing the monarch is the most widely known example.
In brief, the non-toxic viceroys are protected by the presence of the toxic monarchs.
Good luck.

 

[CNYCacher]

I think it can stand to be less verbose, but I am only going to comment on your statistics.

Your statistics are very weak still. In the first example, you stated "819 convictions for murder (only two being CHL holders)". This is a weak statistic because in and of itself it does not show a difference between CHL holders and Joe Schmoe. You have demonstrated that approximately 0.25% of murders are committed with by CHL holders. This sounds good but it doesn't mean anything unless you back it up with something like "Since 2% of the general public are CHL holders, and account for 0.25% of the murders, CHL holders are 8 TIMES less likely to kill someone than the average citizen."

I am just inventing numbers here, but that is the argument you need to make. You need to MAKE A COMPARISON between CHL holders and Joe Schmoe, you haven't done that yet.

check http://www.guncite.info for the data to back up your claims