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

[funsized]

UPDATE: Somehow there are multiple links for this story, with multiple different comment threads going. Here is the main link, with many more comments:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive...ossession.aspx
___________________
There is so much FAIL in this article, I don't know where to begin. Anyone want to help draft a rebuttal?

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive...on.aspx?mid=51

Protection does not outweigh safety
By Steven Marsh

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.

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.

Despite personal beliefs, we need to respect university policy. Ideally, we would not need weapons to protect ourselves from others.

One point to think about is if, and a very big if at that, 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. Practice is one thing that many amateur shooters lack and a crowded campus where all hell breaks loose would be a time when every inch of accuracy matters.

Many citizens, despite their confidence in their skills, may not be prepared to handle an emergency situation. We need first responders to be skilled. To be skilled in my opinion, not only should the firearm shooter go to the range and shoot at targets, but have also gone through situational target practices including scenarios that deal with large crowds. From my experience, people with this level of expertise who have concealed weapon permits would by no means consider shooting into a crowd and try to be heroes.

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.

Firearm applications should be standardized across the state and every applicant should receive a very extensive background check. In Allegheny County, where I obtained my permit, a background check is required and takes about two weeks to complete. You cannot walk into the courthouse and walk out in the same day with your permit.

But to ensure further protection. I think anyone wishing to carry a concealed firearm should be required to pass a vision and shooting test. The shooting test should include both moving and stationary targets. Through these added precautions, we could be assured that we are placing firearms in skilled hands.

If a situation would arise on campus when students had the right to hold concealed weapon it would be absolute nightmare. But 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. At any point a responder could lose their life. Each one knows the risk, but they accept it because they have taken an oath to protect the citizens.

No matter what form of emergency the first step is to size up the problem; the better the size up of the problem faster the emergency will get solved. If the responders can not figure out who and what the problem is ultimately a life of Penn Stater might be lost.

While we can only hope a situation like this never arises, we can’t predict the future. We can only encourage those with permits to carry responsibly and to not bring their firearm on to campus.

Steven Marsh is a junior majoring in agricultural systems management. He is a member of the National Rifle Association and a volunteer firefighter and emergency medical technician. Email him at sfm5089@psu.edu.

[lardmonkey2]

This article definitely deserves a face-palm.

[lildobe]

There is so much FAIL in this article, I don't know where to begin. Anyone want to help draft a rebuttal?

I wouldn't know where to begin. It's so full of fail that it makes my head spin! But let's break it down a bit...

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

We are our own worst enemy... And the old "I can't possibly be anti-gun because:" trope is played out here.

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.

Along with the moral and legal rules against murder... No, I don't think laws/rules/policies are enough to stop someone determined to cause mayhem. As the above cited examples prove.

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

But we live in a world that is FAR from "ideal".

One point to think about is if, and a very big if at that, 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.

Do you have any data to back up this assertion? From the data that I have, most gun fights are over in a matter of seconds. Not the "wild West" type gun battle that you envision.

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 show off your ignorance here. As we all know, the LTCF application process is uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and is dictated by state law. Oh, and again you show that you are among the gun owners who are in favor of gun control.

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

It already is - and already does.

In Allegheny County, where I obtained my permit, a background check is required and takes about two weeks to complete. You cannot walk into the courthouse and walk out in the same day with your permit.

And the background check here in Allegheny County was the exact same one done in every other county in the Commonwealth, and it takes about 10 minutes. They just drag their feet getting your yellow card out to you.

But to ensure further protection. I think anyone wishing to carry a concealed firearm should be required to pass a vision and shooting test.

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

The mere act of requiring a license is questioning it - yet you suggest we further question it by requiring testing as well?

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.

It's trite, and cliché, but... "When Seconds count, the police are just Minutes away."

We have emergency responders for a reason: protection and safety. It is their job and we have to stand behind them.

The police have NO Affirmative duty to protect us:
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856)
Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975)
Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982)
(And there are more examples as well)

While we can only hope a situation like this never arises, we can’t predict the future. We can only encourage those with permits to carry responsibly and to not bring their firearm on to campus.

You contradict yourself here. You say that we can ONLY HOPE that it never happens to us, yet we should do nothing to protect ourselves should the unthinkable actually HAPPEN.

Steven Marsh is a junior majoring in agricultural systems management.

Let's hope he never decides to get into politics.

[GregorOneEye]

I feel violently ill after reading his little essay. It literally sickens me.

[thebearpack]

There's no point writing a rebuttal because as a college student the author is almost certainly convinced that he knows everything.

[camper]

There's no point writing a rebuttal because as a college student the author is almost certainly convinced that he knows everything.

It used to be that people only knew everything until they were no longer teenagers, but since society has created a generation who can't function like an adult until nearly 30, colleges are filled with geniuses who can't figure out that a bachelors in psychology is a useless degree and paying 6 figures to get it is not a wise decision.

camper

[pamedic]

I sent the author an email linking him to this post. Hopefully he gives it a read and sees how drastically wrong he was.

This is the future leaders of America......

[unclejumbo]

I sent this to Mr. Marsh. I viewed it as an opportunity to offer some reasoned counter arguments and perhaps make him a stronger ally

Mr Steven Marsh,

Hello, my name is Matthew Maxey and I am an alumnus class of '91 and an NRA Endowment member. I read your article and you may have read my letter to the editor. You wrote a good article but, in my opinion, some of your reasoning is flawed.

I was 22 when I went to main campus. I had already held a job as a corrections officer before I started school and while attending Penn State Berks. I had a License To Carry Firearms and having had a job in corrections I chose to violate the policies of Dear Old State and bring a handgun into the dorms. Corrections officers, like police, can make enemies of some bad people. I kept it secured and did not let anyone other than my roommate know of its existence. I wish I had a story to tell of how it proved to be a lifesaver but I don't; nothing occurred and I eventually moved off campus. The point is that there are many that attend college that already have backgrounds in law enforcement, corrections, the military services and various occupations utilizing firearms. There are also many like you that work in emergency services where decisions can be life or death; others have simply lived according to prescribed law and have clean backgrounds. There are professors and staff that have similar backgrounds as well. To arbitrarily deny the rights of these good men and women, people that have taken on great responsibility and/or are law abiding citizens, the right to carry a firearm for no other reason than it being a college campus, is wrong. No, I don't think that an eighteen year old should be allowed to have firearms on campus and I certainly don't think that they should be issued an LTCF. However, being that twenty-one is the minimum age to obtain and LTCF, that is a non-issue. I would argue that someone that has obtained an LTCF should be allowed to securely possess a firearm in on-campus housing and be allowed to carry just as they can elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

Addressing some of your other points: PA already has standardized law for issuance of a LTCF. In smaller counties, the Sheriff may personally know the applicant. After a background check, he will issue the LTCF without further delay due to his persoanl knowledge of the character of the person. Further, even if the Sheriff does not know the person, a background check is sufficient. The reason being, if that person can purchase a handgun, they can carry it openly without an LTCF. There is no reason to fear a non-criminal carrying a firearm, concealed or not. I promise you that no bank robber has ever obtained an LTCF so he could get his gun in the bank undetected.

The requirement to pass shooting and eye tests: On the surface, it sounds like a sound idea. Police have to qualify to carry, why shouldn't a citizen? I thought it was a good idea at one time. After hearing the counter argument and seeing how government can subvert the intent of any law or regulation, my opinion changed. Consider the requirement of having to pass a qualification test. A gun friendly Governor may sign off on a bill from a gun friendly Congress. Fifteen shots, five shots each from, five, ten and fifteen yards with a 70% hit rate. Any NRA certified instructor can qualify you. No problem, sounds good. As the political winds change, an anti-gun congress sends a revised requirement to an anti-gun governor in the interest of safety. The common sense restrictions that antis are so fond of. Now you must fire 300 rounds out to fifty yards. You must pass with a score of 90%. Any misses of the silhouette is automatic disqualification, no retest on the same day. By the way, only those approved by the State Police can give the qualification test. There are currently two approved instructors for the state. Make your appointment now for your test in 14 months.

The first responder comments show a naivety of the real world. My background is in order here. I just retired as a Corporal from the Pennsylvania State Police with twenty years of state service. I was a firearms instructor and Troop trainer. Many of my co-workers fired their duty weapon two times a year. Other than those two times, the pistols would not be unholstered. A few were exceptional shooters, the majority were adequate shooters and a few on the other end of the bell curve were barely proficient. Most gun enthusiasts I know shoot far more than my co-workers did. Most of the exceptional State Police shooters are also firearms enthusiasts. To put your faith in the exceptional ability of law enforcement is faith that is misplaced. I do agree that first responders, as a whole, deal with crisis situations more competently than the general populous due to training and experience. The problem with police response to crisis is one that is best represented by a quip I have heard repeated often: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. As I said in my letter, the police generally arrive in time to secure the scene and start documenting what happened.

In closing, to reduce the God given right self protection to the lowest common denominator of society is indefensible. It is the same rhetoric the antis use to paint us with the same broad brush. No one should have a gun because someone out there will misuse it. Trust in your fellow man and like minded gun owners to do the right thing. Don't imagine a worst case scenario to justify infringing the rights of all. In the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

All the best,
Matthew Maxey

P.S. I learned of your letter on PAFOA.org. A good website for discussions of all things related to firearms. Should you check it out, fair warning, your letter was not well received. My user name is the same as my email, Unclejumbo. I will be including this letter in the thread about your letter.

[pamedic]

I sent this to Mr. Marsh. I viewed it as an opportunity to offer some reasoned counter arguments and perhaps make him a stronger ally

Mr Steven Marsh,

Hello, my name is Matthew Maxey and I am an alumnus class of '91 and an NRA Endowment member. I read your article and you may have read my letter to the editor. You wrote a good article but, in my opinion, some of your reasoning is flawed.

I was 22 when I went to main campus. I had already held a job as a corrections officer before I started school and while attending Penn State Berks. I had a License To Carry Firearms and having had a job in corrections I chose to violate the policies of Dear Old State and bring a handgun into the dorms. Corrections officers, like police, can make enemies of some bad people. I kept it secured and did not let anyone other than my roommate know of its existence. I wish I had a story to tell of how it proved to be a lifesaver but I don't; nothing occurred and I eventually moved off campus. The point is that there are many that attend college that already have backgrounds in law enforcement, corrections, the military services and various occupations utilizing firearms. There are also many like you that work in emergency services where decisions can be life or death; others have simply lived according to prescribed law and have clean backgrounds. There are professors and staff that have similar backgrounds as well. To arbitrarily deny the rights of these good men and women, people that have taken on great responsibility and/or are law abiding citizens, the right to carry a firearm for no other reason than it being a college campus, is wrong. No, I don't think that an eighteen year old should be allowed to have firearms on campus and I certainly don't think that they should be issued an LTCF. However, being that twenty-one is the minimum age to obtain and LTCF, that is a non-issue. I would argue that someone that has obtained an LTCF should be allowed to securely possess a firearm in on-campus housing and be allowed to carry just as they can elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

Addressing some of your other points: PA already has standardized law for issuance of a LTCF. In smaller counties, the Sheriff may personally know the applicant. After a background check, he will issue the LTCF without further delay due to his persoanl knowledge of the character of the person. Further, even if the Sheriff does not know the person, a background check is sufficient. The reason being, if that person can purchase a handgun, they can carry it openly without an LTCF. There is no reason to fear a non-criminal carrying a firearm, concealed or not. I promise you that no bank robber has ever obtained an LTCF so he could get his gun in the bank undetected.

The requirement to pass shooting and eye tests: On the surface, it sounds like a sound idea. Police have to qualify to carry, why shouldn't a citizen? I thought it was a good idea at one time. After hearing the counter argument and seeing how government can subvert the intent of any law or regulation, my opinion changed. Consider the requirement of having to pass a qualification test. A gun friendly Governor may sign off on a bill from a gun friendly Congress. Fifteen shots, five shots each from, five, ten and fifteen yards with a 70% hit rate. Any NRA certified instructor can qualify you. No problem, sounds good. As the political winds change, an anti-gun congress sends a revised requirement to an anti-gun governor in the interest of safety. The common sense restrictions that antis are so fond of. Now you must fire 300 rounds out to fifty yards. You must pass with a score of 90%. Any misses of the silhouette is automatic disqualification, no retest on the same day. By the way, only those approved by the State Police can give the qualification test. There are currently two approved instructors for the state. Make your appointment now for your test in 14 months.

The first responder comments show a naivety of the real world. My background is in order here. I just retired as a Corporal from the Pennsylvania State Police with twenty years of state service. I was a firearms instructor and Troop trainer. Many of my co-workers fired their duty weapon two times a year. Other than those two times, the pistols would not be unholstered. A few were exceptional shooters, the majority were adequate shooters and a few on the other end of the bell curve were barely proficient. Most gun enthusiasts I know shoot far more than my co-workers did. Most of the exceptional State Police shooters are also firearms enthusiasts. To put your faith in the exceptional ability of law enforcement is faith that is misplaced. I do agree that first responders, as a whole, deal with crisis situations more competently than the general populous due to training and experience. The problem with police response to crisis is one that is best represented by a quip I have heard repeated often: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. As I said in my letter, the police generally arrive in time to secure the scene and start documenting what happened.

In closing, to reduce the God given right self protection to the lowest common denominator of society is indefensible. It is the same rhetoric the antis use to paint us with the same broad brush. No one should have a gun because someone out there will misuse it. Trust in your fellow man and like minded gun owners to do the right thing. Don't imagine a worst case scenario to justify infringing the rights of all. In the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

All the best,
Matthew Maxey

P.S. I learned of your letter on PAFOA.org. A good website for discussions of all things related to firearms. Should you check it out, fair warning, your letter was not well received. My user name is the same as my email, Unclejumbo. I will be including this letter in the thread about your letter.

Nice letter. Thanks for taking the high road. No name calling or childish antics. Rep inbound.

[dk99358]

Hope he learns from unclejumbo's well written response.

Dale