Trying Again to Write a Letter to My University Newspaper

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ohio Rifleman

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
904
Location
Ohio
Here it is:

The weapons policy at Wright State University is irrational, foolhardy and dangerous. This is the policy that I took from the Student Handbook, word for word:

“4. B The use, possession, or carrying of weapons, including, but not limited to, pistols, rifles,
shotguns, airsoft guns, paintball guns, pellet guns, dangerous knives, ammunition, any
stun device, or other dangerous weapons is prohibited while on University owned
or
controlled property, or at University sponsored
or supervised activities, except by police
officers and other persons specifically authorized by the University.
5. B The use or possession of explosive devices, including, but not limited to pipe bombs,
bottle bombs, incendiary devices, smoke devices, fireworks and ammunition, are strictly
prohibited from all university owned
or controlled property, or at university sponsored
or
supervised activities except by university or other persons specifically authorized by the
University.”

And this is the policy at Virginia Tech, taken directly from their student handbook, also word for word:

“2.2 Prohibition of Weapons
The university’s employees, students, and volunteers, or any visitor or other third party attending a sporting,
entertainment, or educational event, or visiting an academic or administrative office building or residence hall, are
further prohibited from carrying, maintaining, or storing a firearm or weapon on any university facility, even if the
owner has a valid permit, when it is not required by the individual’s job, or in accordance with the relevant
University Student Life Policies.
Any such individual who is reported or discovered to possess a firearm or weapon on university property will be
asked to remove it immediately. Failure to comply may result in a student judicial referral and/or arrest, or an
employee disciplinary action and/or arrest.”

They both forbid students from having any kind of self-defense tool, even if one has a concealed carry permit, which allows the holder to carry many other places. This policy does not work, as we saw with the tragedy at Virginia Tech in April. All this policy does is make sure that law-abiding students are defenseless before a murderous lunatic.

My point is simple. Allow students, at the very least, to carry non-lethal stun devices, such as tasers and pepper spray, both of which are perfectly legal in the state of Ohio.

Holders of concealed carry permits in Ohio must be 21 years of age at least, have a clean criminal record, and must pass a firearms course. What possible harm could come from allowing these people to carry on campus?

Before the law allowing concealed carrying of handguns went into effect, many people thought this would lead to shootouts over parking spaces and the like. This has been proven utterly false. The law has been in effect for over a year, and nothing of the sort has happened.

Some may call me paranoid for wanting students to be allowed to have these tools on campus. I believe it is no more paranoid than wearing a seatbelt when you get into your car. Or, perhaps, keeping smoke alarms or fire extinguishers on hand. They are simply precautions taken if something bad happens, which likely will not. It is the same with carrying a self-defense tool such as a handgun or pepper spray.

Others might say that the police will protect you should something happen. The police could not save the 32 people murdered at Virginia Tech, nor the many others who were wounded by the attacker. Every time you hear of someone being attacked or murdered on the news, that is another instance in which the police could not save someone. The police perform a valuable service at Wright State, but they are not supermen. There is no guarantee that they will be there to save you.

I would rather depend on myself for my own safety, rather than a uniformed stranger.

In conclusion, Wright State’s draconian weapons policy should be changed immediately, and at the very least, allow students to carry non-lethal tools for self-defense such as pepper spray or stun guns.

Tell me what you think, and what I can improve on.
 
I might take a bit more outraged tone.

Why does the university insist on making us a sitting duck? Why must we risk our lives to get an education? The university policy is not to protect the students from crazed gunmen, it is to protect the university from the lawyers hired by the families of dead students after the next VT style massacre.
 
Blackbeard-

When I was first writing this (in my head) I took a tone and wording pretty much what you put there. And, while it would express my disgust at the university policy perfectly, it's less likely to get published, I think. And the best argument in the world won't amount to a hill of beans if nobody sees it.
 
I think you should try to make the point that is it the individual's responsibility to protect themselves, not to rely on "4 B" or campus police who are not capable of being everywhere at any given time.

I like what you've written.
 
Don't get me wrong, Blackbeard, if this wasn't a University, I'd be wording it much more strongly, but my audience is likely to be made up mostly of antis.

And thanks, Rob. I think the "individual responsibility" angle would play well with university students who are out on their own for the first time, away from their parents.
 
Why do you think that, igor? Allowing stun guns or pepper spray would beat nothing at all, I think.
 
Why does the university insist on making us a sitting duck? Why must we risk our lives to get an education? The university policy is not to protect the students from crazed gunmen, it is to protect the university from the crazedlawyers hired by the families of dead students after the next VT style massacre.

Agree with igor. Compromise doesn't go anywhere. Go for the gusto. CCWers are law-abiding. Gun free zones are victim zones.
 
I suppose it can't hurt... I mean, realistically speaking, I don't think my university is going to go from blissininny to CCW right away. So I was thinking about taking smaller steps, such as allowing other self-defense tools, then eventually moving on to guns.

Maybe you're right, maybe I should just let 'em have it! :evil:
 
I suggest you cite examples like Columbine and Virginia Tech. Policy worked so well then, right?. Please don't be surprised at the lack of action, though. It's a very liberal world you are writing. Make sure you CC: the congressmen, as you might strike a chord with them, and at the least you will show your intended audience that you are serious. Lawmaker attention makes educators fearful.
 
compromise is pointless. Most campuses have no problem with pepper spray, even if it says so in bylaws. Stun guns, well, yes. Either go all the way or don't go at all.
 
I suggest you cite examples like Columbine and Virginia Tech. Policy worked so well then, right?.

That's exactly what I did. This is right after I list the weapons policies for both my university and Virginia Tech:

They both forbid students from having any kind of self-defense tool, even if one has a concealed carry permit, which allows the holder to carry many other places. This policy does not work, as we saw with the tragedy at Virginia Tech in April. All this policy does is make sure that law-abiding students are defenseless before a murderous lunatic.

Prince Yamato-While my university doesn't explicitly say that pepper spray is forbidden, I'd wager that if you're caught with any, you'll be in hot water. And this is OHIO, a free state. And I think you're right, I think I will go out and DEMAND ccw on campus. Ooh, that felt good. I like that. I don't want to come off as a petulant child asking "Pretty please? Will you let us protect ourselves on campus? Pleaaaaaase?" No. I want to come off as a man DEMANDING this right that has been denied. As soon as I get done with this philosophy homework, I'll get cracking.
 
Ah, yes, gunfacts. I think I actually saved a .pdf file of that to my computer somewhere. Thanks for the reminder, though. ;)

I don't want my letter to be too statistic-heavy, but a little here or there couldn't hurt.

Edit: Just in case you were wondering, I attempted this several months ago, but while I was working on it, an incident interrupted me. Suffice it to say that this incident involved both of the bones in my lower right leg being snapped, surgery, and physical therapy.
 
Ohio, as others have asserted as well, offering compromise would be pointless. My take on it is that in case that this were to go any distance, compromises would enter the discussion later anyway. No use weakening your position to begin with - just go for the principle. The best of luck!
 
Its far too logical. It makes entirely too much sense. It uses facts. The school board will never go for it. :neener:

haha. good job though. I would send it to them.
 
I would be tempted to point out that they may be INCREASING the school’s liability by foreseeing a problem with violence, and adopting wholy inadequate policy responses. Sort of like adopting a fire response plan that included locking all exits, and forbidding anyone from keeping a fire extinguisher.

It would be nice if there was some sort of formal legal procedure to put people on notice of “intent to sue under condition X unless …”
 
Alrighty. Here's a slightly modified version, taking a bit more of a hard-line. And any mention of compromise erased. What do you think?

An open letter to the Wright State administration:

The weapons policy at Wright State University is irrational, foolhardy and dangerous. This is the policy that I took from the Student Handbook, word for word:

“4. B The use, possession, or carrying of weapons, including, but not limited to, pistols, rifles,
shotguns, airsoft guns, paintball guns, pellet guns, dangerous knives, ammunition, any
stun device, or other dangerous weapons is prohibited while on University owned
or
controlled property, or at University sponsored
or supervised activities, except by police
officers and other persons specifically authorized by the University.
5. B The use or possession of explosive devices, including, but not limited to pipe bombs,
bottle bombs, incendiary devices, smoke devices, fireworks and ammunition, are strictly
prohibited from all university owned
or controlled property, or at university sponsored
or
supervised activities except by university or other persons specifically authorized by the
University.”

And this is the policy at Virginia Tech, taken directly from their student handbook, also word for word:

“2.2 Prohibition of Weapons
The university’s employees, students, and volunteers, or any visitor or other third party attending a sporting,
entertainment, or educational event, or visiting an academic or administrative office building or residence hall, are
further prohibited from carrying, maintaining, or storing a firearm or weapon on any university facility, even if the
owner has a valid permit, when it is not required by the individual’s job, or in accordance with the relevant
University Student Life Policies.
Any such individual who is reported or discovered to possess a firearm or weapon on university property will be
asked to remove it immediately. Failure to comply may result in a student judicial referral and/or arrest, or an
employee disciplinary action and/or arrest.”

They both forbid students from having any kind of self-defense tool, even if one has a concealed carry permit, which allows the holder to carry many other places. This policy does not work, as we saw with the tragedy at Virginia Tech in April. All this policy does is make sure that law-abiding students are defenseless before a murderous lunatic.

Why do you insist on making the students and faculty at our university sitting ducks before a killer? Why must we give up one of our most sacred rights, that of self-defense, in order to get an education?


Holders of concealed carry permits in Ohio must be at least 21 years of age, have a clean criminal record, and must pass a firearms course. What possible harm could come from allowing these people to carry on campus?


Before the law allowing concealed carrying of handguns went into effect, many people thought this would lead to shootouts over parking spaces and the like. This has been proven utterly false. The law has been in effect for over a year, and nothing of the sort has happened.

Some may call me paranoid for wanting students to be allowed to have these tools on campus. I believe it is no more paranoid than wearing a seatbelt when you get into your car. Or, perhaps, keeping smoke alarms or fire extinguishers on hand. They are simply precautions taken if something bad happens, which likely will not. It is the same with carrying a self-defense tool such as a handgun or pepper spray.

Others might say that the police will protect you should something happen. The police could not save the 32 people murdered at Virginia Tech, nor the many others who were wounded by the attacker. Every time you hear of someone being attacked or murdered on the news, that is another instance in which the police could not save someone. The police perform a valuable service at Wright State, but they are not supermen. There is no guarantee that they will be there to save you.

I would rather depend on myself for my own safety, rather than a uniformed stranger.

In conclusion, Wright State’s draconian weapons policy should be changed immediately, allowing students to carry concealed on campus.
 
Looks good, but your conclusion line needs to be stronger and grammatically correct.

How about something like:

"In conclusion, Wright State’s draconian weapons policy should be changed immediately to allow duly tested, licensed, background-checked, adult license holders to protect themselves and possibly others.

This is the only logical defense against a tragedy like Virginia Tech."

This serves disuade the reader from the wild west image that anti's seem to always have in the front of their minds.
 
Too long. Too wordy. Don't quote the law, or regulations, nobody is going to bother reading that part. Cut it down to the bare minimum. The shorter it is, the more likely someone is going to read it.

I was going to post a link to an example I got published in my university paper (which was so popular they made me a columnist) but it's far longer than yours, and I'm trying to get you to trim yours down! ;)

Yours isn't bad. On a second or third read, you really only need to cut down the student regulations. Trim them to the relevant part, if you need to quote them at all. Just assert that they are nearly the same, and give links to where they can be found (not all the slashes and numbers and whatnot - just the base website from which they can find it). I'll post my old letter anyway, so you can get an idea what I'm talking about. http://themissouriminer.com/content/view/231/53/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top