Critique My Editorial

[Ohio Rifleman]

I have been working on a letter to the editor of my university newspaper regarding the campus' anti-gun policy, which is particularly relevant given the attack at VT. I gathered my facts from books available at the university library. So, tell me what I did right and what I did wrong. I want to make this as strong as I possibly can.

Why Guns Aren't the Problem

If you saw me in the Hangar or the library or walking through the quad, you probably wouldn't give me a second thought. I am a Wright State University student. I attend class, worry about exams and grades like everyone else.

I am a Wright State student. I am also a gun owner and a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association. I own two rifles, both perfectly legal. I only use them for target shooting, I don't even hunt.


Recently, there was a terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech, in which someone with two handguns murdered more than 30 people and wounded almost as many. Virginia Tech, like Wright State and countless other universities across the country does not allow guns or other weapons on campus. Such policy is intended to prevent these tragedies, but it is at best, misguided. This policy does not deter someone intent on murder. All this policy does is ensure that decent law-abiding people on campus cannot defend themselves.

I got all the following facts from books I checked out at the university library.

-Criminologist Gary Kleck performed a large academic interview study and found 2.5 million incidents of defensive handgun use between 1988 and 1993. 54% of these instances were reported by women. Furthermore, the gun involved was only fired 8% of the time. This information is available in Gun Women by Stange & Oyster.

-Also in Gun Women. In 1966, the Orlando Florida police department trained 2,580 women in defensive handgun use. This recieved tremendous media attention. In 1967 in Orlando the incidence of rape dropped by 88% while it remained the same throughout the rest of Florida.

-Many aruge that stronger gun control regulations would serve to prevent tragedies such as the Columbine attack or more recently, the shooting at Virginia Tech. However, the Columbine shooters violated around 20 gun laws in acquiring the guns used in the crime. This information is available in Gun Control and Gun Rights by Constance Emerson Crooker.

Banning firearms and other weapons on university compuses simply doesn't make sense. It only renders students defenseless before violent criminals.

 

[ConfuseUs]

This policy does not deter someone intent on murder. All this policy does is ensure that decent law-abiding people on campus cannot defend themselves.

I would say that "This policy is proven not to stop someone intent on murder and should be scrapped. All it does is reduce the number of people empowered to deal with the situation and stop it before it gets worse."

I think that the word "defend" will be used a lot in attacking this policy but it is too simple a word for academics. There are also connotations to that word that academics don't like, starting with the concept that the world is not always a wonderful place.

 

[physics]

You should not use the centered font, as I have been told in a freshman technical writing class that it reduces comprehension by a lot, can't remember how much though.

 

[MD_Willington]

You should not use the centered font, as I have been told in a freshman technical writing class that it reduces comprehension by a lot, can't remember how much though.

+1 to that, I go friggin cross-eyed trying to read it.

 

[Ohio Rifleman]

Sorry about the centered font, guys. I thought it would make it a bit easier to read. Problem fixed!

 

[erikm]

I might add a bit about concealed handgun permits and the like. Stress that people getting them are checked out by the police and can generally be assumed to be 'good guys'. Use packing.org as starter material.

Good luck,
EM

 

[Reddbecca]

Review mine please.


In the wake of the tragedy that has befallen us on April 16, 2007 in Blacksburg, VA, there has been a gross exploitation of the deaths of the 32 students at the hands of one rogue individual with no regard for the value of human life.

Proponents of gun control jumped on the bandwagon not 12 hours after the students were killed, calling for more gun restrictions in the name of preventing such from happening again. What they don’t understand is that no law could have preventing the Korean student from carrying out the slaughter in the way that he had.

Under Federal law it’s already illegal to even be within 1,000 feet of a school building while in possession of a gun, the punishment of which is five years in prison and permanent loss of the right to own a gun. It’s also illegal to hold people captive against their will, but the doors of the college were still chained shut from the inside, forcing some students to leap out of third story windows. None of these laws made any difference or swayed the Korean student from shooting 32 innocent people execution-style before killing himself.

The call has come swift and hard for more gun control laws, to solve a problem that’s unsolvable on the legislative level. Back in 2006 in the wake of the Amish School slaying, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell was quoted in saying "he did not know of any gun-control law that could have prevented Roberts from carrying out the killings," and "I think we should all understand, no proposed law, none that I would think of or none that I've seen, could have ruled out this situation.”

Laws only work when somebody is willing to abide by the laws. But when someone decides that they’re not going to obey the laws, then all it does it put the innocent people at a disadvantage, making them vulnerable to harm and danger.

A question that everyone needs to be asking themselves and others is “How do you use a law to stop someone from killing, when they’re not willing to obey the law in the first place?”

A bill that would’ve possibly prevented this tragedy from occurring, HB 1572 was voted down in January, the rationalization being the killing of said bill would allow parents and students to “feel safe by knowing that nobody would be carrying a concealed gun.” As we’ve seen “feeling safe” and actually “being safe” are two different things and far from interchangeable.