I'm looking for opinions on an editorial piece.

[Airman193SOS]

Due to the closing of the L&P Forum, I find no good place to put this, but nevertheless I am attempting to solicit opinions on my op-ed piece, soon to be submitted to my school newspaper. I will post it in its entirety below.

Incidentally, if the moderators opt to close this, I will certainly understand.






Now that we have a few months of separation from the events of that horrible day at Virginia Tech, perhaps we can speak dispassionately about an issue that was raised in the wake of that tragedy: possession of guns at universities by people legally permitted to carry them.

It is a policy at most, if not all, universities in Pennsylvania that students, regardless of status, are not to carry any sort of weapons on campus. With regard to Shippensburg’s policy, it is plainly stated in the Swataney, Shippensburg’s student handbook, that “No person shall possess or use dangerous weapons”, with several items explicitly named such as knives and guns. While I am cognizant of the desire to maintain an orderly and controlled environment for students to focus on academics and pursue their future, I think that this policy is naïve and shortsighted.

I am a gun owner. As the student body goes, I have found this to be a rarity, to the point that in one of my classes I was the only one to raise my hand when asked if anybody owned guns. This revelation was followed by an audible gasp for the other students, followed by the inevitable “don’t shoot me” jokes. While I find that gun possession and ownership is nothing to laugh at, I can understand the macabre humor involved. That knowledge made people nervous. The irony is that the vast majority of the student body lives off-campus, and that outside of those illusory “walls” approximately 7% of the population of Pennsylvania is licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Think about that for a moment. Seven out of every 100 people off-campus, or approximately one in ten people you speak to, are statistically likely to be carrying a weapon. The average student at Shippensburg University that lives off-campus almost certainly passes a person carrying a weapon every day, and yet they do not walk around in terror for their lives everywhere they go.

I am also a holder of a concealed carry permit. I have chosen to bear the responsibility of carrying a weapon on my person for the purposes of defending myself and others, including my wife and five-year-old son. I have been vetted by the sheriff of Cumberland County and have been deemed suitable to handle that responsibility. I am also in the military, and I have been vetted by the United States government and its assorted agencies. While my credentials may be superficially superior to those of others that does not mean that someone with lesser credentials should be rejected.

This brings me to the main point: as a member of society properly vetted to carry a concealed weapon wherever I go (with the notable exceptions of elementary/high schools and courthouses), why am I forbidden to carry that same weapon in a place that is populated by adults? With few exceptions, all students of Shippensburg University are at or above the age of majority. We are not talking about children here; we are talking about people that are recognized by all as being capable of making rational and informed decisions. Why, then, are we so intent upon treating them as children?

I believe that people legally permitted to carry concealed weapons should be permitted to carry them on campus among their adult, responsible peers. I believe that such permission will act as a deterrent of other people who wish to indiscriminately murder helpless people. I also believe that it is such a policy that makes people helpless in the first place. Would someone have been able to stop the Virginia Tech killer had they been armed? It would be dishonest of me to say unequivocally that it would have happened that way. At the same time, it is equally dishonest to say that the prohibition on weapons carried by people permitted to carry them was effective. The people at Virginia Tech were targets, defenseless human beings. Is it reasonable that they were forbidden to defend themselves? Of course not. Yet that is the net effect of such a broad prohibition.

I realize that such a stance is controversial and that reasonable people can disagree. However, with a blanket proscription there is no room for reason. There is no discussion. It is my intent to start a dialogue on this topic, or barring that to make people think, at a minimum. As college students, isn’t that what it’s all about?





So, what say you, fellow gun owners? I know even as I contemplate submitting this that it is an exercise in futility, but I'm trying to at least influence opinion if not change a few minds entirely.

 

[Juna]

Your letter is well-written and clearly gets across your point. My only concern is its length. Unfortunately, lengthy letters tend to get edited down due to page limits, etc. I tend to write long letters, as well, and I find that as length increases, the number of people who read the whole thing (even if they print the whole thing, which is unlikely, as described above) decreases.

So I give it an 'A,' but I suspect you'll need to shorten it. And I wouldn't say it's an exercise in futility if it even stimulates thought contrary to the inherent anti-gun grain that runs in society and, in particular, in universities. It's not likely to change school policy instantly, but if you can get enough people to at least consider the ramifications of "gun-free zones," perhaps down the road the tide will start to turn.

 

[armedandsafe]

Because it is an editorial, rather than a letter to the publication (editor,) I don't find the length objectionable, at all. Very well written, balanced and the thrust is to spark thought and dialogue. That is good. Much better than hard-line statements of "how it must be."

Pops

 

[Regolith]

Juna...that really depends on whether or not the student paper needs to fill space or not.

I'm the production manager for our college newspaper. Basically, I'm the guy that fits all the content into the limited amount of space we've got to deal with. Sometimes letters will be shortened, sometimes articles. It depends on how much space we've got to work with, and whether or not all of our writers make their deadlines.

If the newspaper isn't very large, there's a good chance they've got a lot of space to fill, and hence its very unlikely they'll shorten any articles. If they're a larger outfit, then they may shorten letters to the editor (or simply not run them) as well as less important pieces to make it all fit.

Anyway....My only criticism of your letter, Airman, is the second to the last paragraph. When talking about policies, you make a switch from one policy to the other without specifying which policy your talking about. IMHO, it should read something like

I believe that people legally permitted to carry concealed weapons should be permitted to carry them on campus among their adult, responsible peers. I believe that such permission will act as a deterrent of other people who wish to indiscriminately murder helpless people. I believe policies that make carrying on campus illegal is what makes people helpless in the first place. Would someone have been able to stop the Virginia Tech killer had they been armed? It would be dishonest of me to say unequivocally that it would have happened that way. At the same time, it is equally dishonest to say that the prohibition on weapons carried by people permitted to carry them was effective. The people at Virginia Tech were targets, defenseless human beings. Is it reasonable that they were forbidden to defend themselves? Of course not. Yet that is the net effect of such a broad prohibition.

Changed sentence is in bold.

'Course, I'm not an editor, so take my advice for what it's worth (i.e. not much).