OSU Student Newspaper Publishes Anti-CCW Editorial

"I want my tax money back. They're obviously not using it to educate who ever wrote this!"

That's what one concerned citizen had to say after reading an anti-CCW editorial, published in OSU's student newspaper, "The Lantern".

Witness the platitudes: "No one should feel the need to have a weapon in his or her pocket, bag or suitcase. Accidents can occur -- guns can still go off. If any random person can carry a concealed weapon, who knows what could happen in the streets. Anystreet Drive could turn into something from "Gangs of New York" just because more people are allowed to carry weapons. It is ridiculous to carry a gun every single second of the day, because the gun can only lead to more danger." Like, ya' know????

To read the entire piece (don't eat lunch first) click here (requires free login), or click on the "Read More..." link below for an archived version.

Fortunately, there are other students at OSU who show signs of being much more worthy of our hard-earned tax dollars.

When a campus rapist prowled campus throughout 2002, victimizing defenseless female students, these students took action. OFCC was one of the first to report on fliers posted at OSU by FreeOhio, a grassroots student group, suggesting that students use Second Amendment rights to defend themselves against the serial rapist.

Updated!: The Lantern has published a pro-CCW response to the editorial, written by an OSU Staff member. To read the entire piece, click here (requires free login), or click on the "Read More..." link below for an archived version.

Guns firing back
Conceal/carry bill re-emerges

Ohio lawmakers are trying to follow other states by enacting a concealed weapons law. The House has already voted 69-28 to allow Ohioans who have passed a criminal-background check and a certified course in handling to carry concealed guns.

It is up to the Senate to decide whether the bill will become a law. This is not the first time state legislators have tried to pass such a bill.

Last year, both the Ohio Senate and House tried to pass a similar concealed weapon bill. Therefore, it's not surprising many senators anticipate overwhelming support in the Senate. However, Gov. Bob Taft has promised to veto any such bill if the majority of the law-enforcement community does not support the bill.

While the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association does back the bill, the State Highway Patrol is holding its thumb down. The State Highway Patrol opposes the bill because it would permit individuals to have loaded weapons in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle.

No one should feel the need to have a weapon in his or her pocket, bag or suitcase. Accidents can occur -- guns can still go off. If any random person can carry a concealed weapon, who knows what could happen in the streets. Anystreet Drive could turn into something from "Gangs of New York" just because more people are allowed to carry weapons.

What is more disappointing is that Rep. Tom Brinkman Jr., R-Cincinnati, tried to eliminate the training requirements and criminal background check for those who want to carry concealed weapons. In essence, Brinkman is handing the weapons over to criminals.

Advocates for the bill, such as the National Rifle Association, could say banning Americans from having concealed guns is a violation of the Second Amendment. Individuals need to have the opportunity to protect themselves from criminals who have the guns. Others may say crimes will still occur, no matter what laws state officials try to enforce. Therefore, keeping guns off the streets will have no effect.

Banning such a law does not prevent Ohioans from being able to defend themselves. Everyone still can own a gun, provided they pass certain requirements. It is ridiculous to carry a gun every single second of the day, because the gun can only lead to more danger.

Believing guns will alleviate the number of crimes is silly. More guns just mean more violence. When there are more guns out on the streets, there is more opportunity for killings, murders and assaults to occur.

The only way a concealed bill should be passed is if schools provided more education on the subject. Americans have already seen what could happen when students sneak weapons into high schools. Ohio does not need its own Columbine.

Officials say we should follow in the footsteps of the other states who have already passed similar bills. Rather than concentrating on how many guns should be let out into the streets, lawmakers should try to imitate states on more important issues, such as ratifying the 14th Amendment. Instead, the lawmakers chose to make a mockery of themselves and the state government.

Study: guns are not cause of violence

In its latest diatribe against self-defense rights, The Lantern again spouts negative claims about concealed carry of self-defense weapons. No criminological evidence is presented, in the form of either study citations or anecdotal accounts. In which states having CCW (concealed carry of weapons) provisions does "Anystreet Drive" turn into "something from 'Gangs of New York' " just because more people are allowed to carry weapons? Why was The Lantern unable to provide an example?

The Lantern asks, "If any random person can carry a concealed weapon, who knows what could happen in the streets?" Why doesn't The Lantern investigate the circumstances in Vermont? In that state, CCW is legal and no license -- or even training -- is required. This is true of either residents or nonresidents. Or how about the neighboring state of New Hampshire, which requires a permit, but no training? Since these states have had these CCW provisions for many years, there ought to be a bottomless cornucopia of gun accidents and "parking lot shootout" horror stories which The Lantern can tap into. I'm waiting ...

The Lantern also states, "More guns just mean more violence." My own studies of the relevant criminological literature indicate that, in our present society at least, the presence or absence of guns (whether legally carried or simply owned) has little or no measurable relationship to levels of violence. I say this having a passing familiarity with the work of Professors Gary Kleck, James Wright, and Franklin Zimring. Would The Lantern care to comment on these criminologists and their work? Has The Lantern even heard of any of them? Has anyone at The Lantern ever cracked open a professional journal and actually critically read a study?

Finally, The Lantern also believes that "the only way a concealed bill should be passed is if schools provided more education on the subject." What "education" do Lantern editors have on firearms and violence? I suspect their education consists mainly of watching Hollywood actors pretending to kill each other on the silver screen as "entertainment." I'm not sure what Hollywood is "teaching" about guns these days (I prefer nonviolent "chick flicks" at the Drexel), but I am willing to sit down with any Lantern folks and give a short class (with citations -- and reservations -- I'm not a "know-it-all") on whatever they would like to know. Or, if they would rather go shooting (after safety training), I could arrange that as well. Is that too scary?

Please e-mail me for my background and to set up a meeting. Or is actually listening to a long-time "student of violence" such as myself too much trouble? I'll even buy the doughnuts.

Karl Spaulding
OSU staff member