It’s time that the Ohio University campus had a legitimate discussion about our rights not only as students, but as human beings.
I, like many, was anxious about heading to campus the morning of Wednesday, Jan. 30, after receiving a text-message alert from OUPD notifying me of an “armed fugitive” near campus. The robbery took place at the Station Street Apartments, a location I walk through numerous times a week on my way to and from campus. My rights to self-defense on my commute are curtailed, if not virtually eliminated, by the university’s policy of being a “gun-free zone.”
The ability for me to exercise my second amendment rights and protect myself and others throughout the course of my day is inhibited by the university’s pipe dream that criminals will obey their arbitrary rule. The argument goes that if the university (or the state) were to ban guns from a particular area like schools or courthouses, then we would in effect ban shootings or violence involving guns from those locations.
However, that argument conflicts with reality. All mass shootings in recent history occurred in so-called “gun-free zones.” Sandy Hook, the Aurora movie theater, Virginia Tech and Columbine were all places that banned the possession of firearms on their premises and yet horrific shootings still took place there.
In Aurora, Colo., shooter Jared Loughner deliberately drove past several movie theaters on his way to the one that had a gun-free zone posting. Why would Loughner single out that movie theater when he could go to any number of closer theaters that would have had more people in attendance? He chose it because he wanted to maximize the damage he could do and he knew that there was a lower chance of meeting armed resistance at the theater with a posted gun-free zone.
Gun-free zones defy common sense. We hire armed guards to protect our president and congressmen and our money and our airports. But we openly publicize to any sadistic mad man that all schools we send our children to are to be deemed gun-free zones. When I see those signs, what I read in my head is, “All law-abiding citizens have been disarmed for your convenience.”
But my solution is not what the NRA quickly advocated for. I do not want to see a greater police presence in our schools. Images of police patrolling hallways or setting up checkpoints outside of schools strikes me as Orwellian, to say the least. Instead, I am simply calling for the legalization of the second amendment.
In spring of 2012, I took and passed the class required by the state of Ohio to be certified to carry a handgun concealed on my body for self-defense. Walking down the street, you would have no idea that I was carrying a handgun, but the data suggests that you would be safer as a result. States that have increased their issuance of concealed carry permits have seen their violent crime rates drop by as much as 25 percent, according to a report released by GunFacts.info in May of 2012. According to a study by Clayton Cramer, 11 percent of police shootings result in the death of an innocent person, while only 2 percent of civilian shootings result in the death of an innocent person. If these numbers are correct, then you are 5.5 times more likely to be shot by an on-duty police officer than by a civilian concealed-carry permit holder.
It’s time that Ohio University acknowledges that while their policy is clearly well intentioned, it does more harm in that it disarms peaceful, responsible gun owners eliminating their ability to protect themselves.
Nathan Kelly is a senior studying political science and economics and an executive board member of Ohio University Students For Liberty.
