UPDATED LINK - Penn State Collegian Article on Campus Carry - Fail

[customloaded]

After reading the article, I am convinced it was written by an Anti-gun person posing as a real gun owner. There are toooooooo many typical anti-gun statements that Mr. Marsh is in favor of to be anything but an anti in disguise. Excellent way to get people to think "GUN OWNING, Concealed Permit HOLDERS" think like they do. Yup, definately a wolf in sheeps clothing.

UJ, I tried to rep ya but I got to spread it around a bit.

CL

[9orangeletters]

After reading the article, I am convinced it was written by an Anti-gun person posing as a real gun owner. There are toooooooo many typical anti-gun statements that Mr. Marsh is in favor of to be anything but an anti in disguise. Excellent way to get people to think "GUN OWNING, Concealed Permit HOLDERS" think like they do. Yup, definately a wolf in sheeps clothing.

UJ, I tried to rep ya but I got to spread it around a bit.

CL

I got him for ya.

Interesting how he uses some of the Brady catch phrases... he calls it a CFP, appeals to the police who "have taken an oath to protect the citizens" and puts safety over liberty.

I do believe there is a quote befitting such an occasion...

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[bluedog46]

I bet no such aarticle would be written at the University of Alabama!!!

He mentions being a LTCF holder and NRA member yet thinks college is not the place to carry?

Someone needs to tell this kid what he thinks most of the victims of the Virginia Tech or Northern Illinoise would say about that?

[Pistol Packin Preacher]

I believe it was correctly stated when it was said this is an anti-gun author.

He states "In an ideal situation."
Life is not ideal - it does not happen that way - movie endings occur only in the movies.

Somehow he gets this idea when an incident happens, help is immediately there.
This is absolutely not true.
Most emergency services get there in time to clean up the mess.
The police only have so many to patrol an entire town and most fire and ambulance personnel are volunteer ad must leave their home or work to get to the station to get the needed equipment to do their job.
I spent 10 years dispatching fire, police, medics, and ambulance and I know.
How many lives could have been saved at Columbine, Va. Tech, or Fort Hood if someone was carrying at that moment.
All these incidents prove help is not "just around the corner."
So, help does not walk in the door as the actor pulls his gun out of his backpack.

He compares the potential to a "Wild West Shoot-out."
Again, that is a movie view.
History of the wild west has shown they did not occur like this.
Many of the outlaws did not kill as many as their reputation affords.
Even the Shoot-out at the OK Coral was said to have lasted 15-30 seconds with a top of no more than 60 seconds.
Real west history, though it may have is moments here and there of a shoot-out or two, speaks of many lonely and desolate nights for many.
So, again, that is comparing fantasy to reality.

And after spending 10 years dispatching I found no incidents from people with a LTCF.
Every firearms incident was from someone totally illegal.
Obtained against the law, carried against the law, used against the law.
They are criminals in every sense of the word.
I bet they have no idea what a LTCF is.

I hope and pray the Mr. Steven Marsh would check onto this forum, read all the way through, and realize these are voices of reason with literally hundreds of combined years of experience carrying concealed firearms in hundreds if not thousands of communities and businesses not only across the United States but Canada, Australia, and I have no doubts there are other countries represented here on the forum.

Steven - These men and women have been there, lived it, and can speak from lives experiences - things you will never get from a book.
Please, take what they say to heart.

Thank you.

God bless!!

PPP

[reverserboy]

If a situation would arise on campus when students had the right to hold concealed weapon it would be absolute nightmare.

Like the massacre at VT or Columbine were not an absolute nightmare??
This kid lives in a dream world.

[ViperGTS19801]

Matthew is more patient than I am.

This is what I submitted. Thanks to lildobe for bulleting the points I had wanted to touch on - I read the whole thing, then I saw lildobe's post and thought, "Thank you!!"

Please do not ever get into politics. You're as blind as a brick, and this is one of the poorest examples of literature I have ever read in my life.

"I am about as pro-firearms as they come; I am an NRA member, target shooter and hunter, and speaking as a student with a concealed firearm permit, I still believe this campus is not the place to be carrying. There is absolutely no reason to carry a concealed firearm on-campus."

No, you are not. You are pro-rhetoric, since you clearly only regurgitate what you're told and what you see on TV. You can hunt and target shoot and put NRA stickers on your car, but that doesn't make you immune to violent or dangerous criminal activity. Believe it or not, college campuses are not magical places where people suddenly lose the ability to rape, murder, kidnap, and assault others. Firearms are used for several things - while hunting, collecting, and target shooting are perfectly valid reasons to own firearms, there are only two reasons to BEAR them - either to commit violent crimes, or to protect yourself against them. Look at Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Did any of their victims have a reason to be carrying a firearm for self-defense purposes on the days of their executions? Do you think you would be able to look at those kid's parents and tell them that their children didn't deserve a chance to protect themselves, just because you project your romantic, childish view of how the world "should be" onto the way the world really is? Do you not realize that prohibiting the carrying of firearms is only going to disarm people who obey the law, and that if someone is intent on causing harm, they don't care what the campus rules are in regard to weapons?

"The one thing no one should ever sacrifice is safety. Events such as the shootings at Virginia Tech and Penn State are very rare. But they arose, because people did not follow university rules and precautions."

The odd thing here is that, if you take this portion out of the context you wrote it in, it makes perfect sense. But, it's totally contradictory to your entire writing. I never sacrifice my safety, which is why I carry a firearm at all times, everywhere I go. I hope to God I never have to use it, and I don't show it off every chance I get, I simply like to carry it openly rather than concealed. As such, I don't feel like I have a disadvantage when it comes to someone who might wish to do me harm. And, again, you're right - the shootings at VT, PS, and Columbine occurred because someone didn't care that there was a "No Guns" policy - they shot the place up anyway, and no one was able to stop them, because everyone else was following the rules. Why do you like making people helpless?

"Ideally, we would not need weapons to protect ourselves from others."

Do we live in a perfect world? No. Get your head out of the sand and look around you. Watch the news. You'll see how "ideal" the world we live in really is. Pretending the world is perfect when it really isn't will never change reality, it only makes you look like a fool.

"One point to think about is if...permits were to be issued specific to University Park grounds and a situation occurred in which there was a shooting on campus the campus would turn into the Wild West."

This never happens, no matter how many times you hear about it from politicians, police, or lawyers. With proper training, people who carry firearms to defend themselves know when to engage a deadly threat and when to de-escalate a situation. Why not, instead of banning firearms and creating a "Victim Zone," provide NRA-instructed training to teach people who have a License to Carry Firearms how to properly defend themselves if they are attacked, and how to safely and responsibly handle firearms at all times?

I'd love it if you could provide any citations of a "Wild West"-style shootout involving someone who felt the need to defend themselves against a violent crime using a legally owned and carries firearm.

Except, you can't. Self-defense shooting are over in seconds, because, unlike what people like you seem to think, not everyone is itching to use a gun to take another person's life. Speaking for myself, I just don't want to become a victim, and if someone presents a potentially deadly threat to me, I want that threat to stop. That's all.

"Unfortunately, it’s too easy to obtain a concealed firearm permit in Pennsylvania, and sometimes this leads to weapons in the wrong hands. Each county in Pennsylvania has its own standards for obtaining a concealed weapon permit."

You have to pass a background check proving that you are a) not a convicted felon, b) not someone who is mentally unstable, and c) not someone who likes to touch children inappropriately. How is this "too easy?" And who, in your opinion, qualifies as "the wrong hands?" Felons? Kiddie-fiddlers? The insane? Well, gee, it's a good thing the process of acquiring a License to Carry Firearms, which, by the way, is uniform throughout the state of Pennsylvania and does not change it's standards from county to county, doesn't allow these types of people to obtain one.

Also, a very similar background check must be passed before buying most firearms as well.

"Firearm applications should be standardized across the state and every applicant should receive a very extensive background check."

Really? Did you do even the tiniest bit of reading or research before this write-up, or did you just spout off the same crap you've heard from fear-mongering media personalities and gun control politicians?

"If a situation would arise on campus ... the people to bring calm to a situation like this shouldn’t be students or staff members — the people to calm the situation would be the emergency responders." "We have emergency responders for a reason: protection and safety. It is their job and we have to stand behind them."

Do you pay for a police officer or other "emergency responder" to walk around with you and keep you safe all the time, everywhere you go? Or are you just not able to wrap your head around the concept of individual responsibility for your own safety, and want to rely on someone else to look out for you since you're too scared to do it for yourself? The police have no duty or responsibility to keep you, as an individual, safe - this has been proven in court time and time again, such as in South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856), Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975), and many others.

There are two kinds of vehicles that show up after a violent crime has occurred - ambulances and police cars. Only if you take responsibility for your own protection do you have a chance to choose which one you ride away in.

"While we can only hope a situation like this never arises, we can’t predict the future."

Which is why it is wiser to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. You can't predict when you'll get a flat tire, but I bet you have a spare in the back. And you can't predict when you might have a fire in your home, but I bet you have a fire extinguisher.

Protection IS safety.

Mark

Don't flame me too hard - I have very little patience for willful ignorance. The part that irritated me the most is that the writer made no attempt to actually do any research before writing this up, and it's obvious from his staggering misunderstanding of the facts.

[XD40coyote]

He stinks of Michael Moore-ishness. You know the " nra member, but we need gun control because of teenagers shooting their school up, and ghetto parents leaving guns around".

I'm no first responder, but I am a Sheepdog. It is my duty. I haven't done any target shooting in a while, but my "talent" is still intact. I could go out right now and my ability will still be the same. I also constantly run scenereos through my mind, and sometimes they even occur in my dreams!

[legendarylorot]

UncleJimbo, I am sorry I can't rep you at this time. Gotta spread the love first, apparently.

Your response was very well written. I had considered doing something similar, but it looks like you got the bases covered in regards to the author. I'm considering sending something to the Collegian's editing staff to request they fact-check before running something, in order to catch mistakes such as the licensing requirement errors, and to include references such as PA C.S. § 6109, and the above referenced court cases pertaining to the mythic affirmative duty to protect. After all, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it's important for the paper to ensure that opinion doesn't include false information presented as fact. But first, I'm just going to enjoy a well-written, intelligent response from a fellow member.

To Mr. Marsh, I do hope you read this thread. I can recognize simple oversight and forwarding of misinformation where I see it, but you've made a lot of people mad here. We don't intend to anger you with our responses, but instead are frustrated that our own fellow gun owners could be so misinformed in the subtle, yet all-important nuances of pertinent law. I can only speak for myself, but I welcome you to a treasure trove of information from fellow owners, law enforcement personnel, and lawyers regarding our common pastime.

[Storm88000]

As someone else said, it's almost a pointless effort because the author thinks he knows everything.

I wouldn't worry too much because he didn't even do proper research on the topic.

[IronSight]

That's an interesting point you make, that "the chances of having a flat tire, a house fire, or being in a car crash are so much higher than being shot on campus". This is indeed a good thing, but it completely misses the mark in relation to this issue.

A gun-free zone like a State campus is often supported by the argument that the safety of the community as a whole is better off for it than the safety of the minority that would like to carry in the chance they do find themselves faced with a threat to life and/or limb. Yet there isn't any data supporting that a campus, town, city, or state is actually made safer by such a ban. Armed robberies, assaults, rapes, and other violent crimes still occur on campuses, but in relatively small numbers that I suppose it is easy for you and others to ignore the calls of victims to have self-defense options available to them. The name Amanda Collins comes to mind, you can search on your free time to read up on that.

The working theory that banning firearm possession by the law-abiding protects against those who aren't law-abiding fails on its face for targeting the wrong crowd. It is on exactly the same level as the hypothetical proposition to "banning stairs on campus in the wake of the Dado tragedy". The HUB shooting only proves that even in a very safe area deranged criminals can and will strike. It also shows that again, by targeting the wrong crowd of people, gun-free zones are really hardly gun-free. After all, the areas bordering Penn State aren't gun free zones, and thousands of people in the County have a license to carry a firearm there (along with hundreds of thousands across the State, and millions if you count those with licenses in States that share reciprocity with Pennsylvania).

I actually find it interesting that you are calling others paranoid, yet you seem to be the one worried about other law-abiding citizens having the ability to defend themselves in your hometown. If you feel your fellow students are irresponsible enough to legally carry than your argument that the town is safe falls apart because by default you're admitting that you don't really trust their judgement, which tells me that you are concerned for your safety. If your town is safe enough that you can trust the people in it enough to walk around "without being concerned for [your] safety" than why would letting your fellow responsible citizens carry bother you?

You are the one suggesting that others have to give up liberty to support your care-free life for the illusion of increased security. Carrying a firearm does not require sacrificing liberty, and I do find it interesting you've failed to support the assertion that it does.

Just posted in response to one of the commenters, awaiting approval.