Ohio University snubs tuition-paying students in Second Amendment Club - 3 times

The Ohio University Second Amendment Club and Ohioans For Concealed Carry recently promoted an event at which John Lott, economist and author, spoke on that campus.

Lott's appearance was part of the OU Second Amendment Club's effort to raise awareness about the falsehoods and misrepresentations associated with Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine movie, which has been shown on campus television throughout the month of September.

After exhaustive but failed attempts to convince campus officials that director Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" film - which is under investigation for rules violations in association with his Academy Award entry - did not belong on campus television, the Second Amendment Club at Ohio University decided to promote an event on campus to ensure that the truth had it's say as well. Thus Lott's appearance.

Curt Winzenreid, Club President, reported that the event was well-attended - Rep. Jim Aslanides and other pro-CCW elected officials were in attendance. But there were a few empty seats - NO media, from campus or otherwise, accepted invitations to attend the event.

So Club members were more than a little surprised, two days after the event, to read an editorial in The Post, OU's campus newspaper attacking John Lott and condemning statewide concealed carry reform efforts. (There was STILL no mention of Lott's appearance on that campus just two days previous.)

Winzenreid's response, in the form of a letter to the editor, has been published in the campus newspaper. Click here to read it on The Post Online website, or click on the "Read More..." link below for an archived version.

Editor,

In the Sept. 24 edition of The Post, the editorial staff published an article attacking concealed carry legislation reformation. This article attacked the work of Dr. John Lott, whose research is supported and renowned by many more than those who attack it. However, since statistics have been presented on both sides of the argument, absolute facts should be the primary reference.

Forty-five states have some form of concealed carry law. Thirty-five states possess shall issue concealed carry laws, meaning that anyone over 21 that has completed a course varying from three to 10 hours in length must be given a permit assuming they passed the criminal background check. Ohio is surrounded by states that have shall issue concealed carry laws. The same comments and concerns that are being repeated throughout Ohio have been echoed throughout 45 other states. The simple fact remains that the blood baths and cowboy style shootouts haven't happened. The school shootings and other violent tragedies so often referenced have nothing to do with concealed carry. Individuals in these extremely rare occurrences used assault type weapons, and obviously had no intent of following the law. The fact that it was already illegal for them to possess those weapons wasn't enough to deter them; maybe arming law-abiding citizens would, as was the case at the Appalachian Law School in 2001.

Concealed carry laws only allow law-abiding citizens to carry a weapon for defense. The gang bangers and drug dealers are by definition criminals, and won't be applying for permits; they already have guns. Who is the editorial staff or any other individual to tell me or any other would-be victim that I do not have the right to make an attempt to defend myself? The staff stated that they agreed that one has a right to defense, but apparently doesn't believe in allowing one to defend themselves in a manner equal to the attack of the criminals. I challenge this staff to find these cases of concealed carry permit holders who committed mass murder or were involved in some blood bath.

Hundredths of one percent of CCW holders will commit a crime that will revoke their license. These crimes need not be violent, and nearly all are non-violent. However, the real challenge is for The Post editorial staff to show their unbias by printing the literally thousands of reports of a CCW holder defending themselves. Dr. John Lott's work shows that 90 percent of encounters are ended with just brandishing the weapon and without a single shot being fired.

Now the question, "Is Ohio any different than other states in the union?" is required. If the answer is "yes" and law-abiding Ohioans are in reality bloodthirsty lunatics looking for an opportunity to kill anything that moves, then maybe there is a case against concealed carry. However, I believe Ohio is no different than the other 45 states. Each day someone is killed in a mugging or car jacking is another life that could have been saved had Ohio passed a concealed carry law sooner.

— Curt Winzenreid
President, Ohio University 2nd Amendment Club