writing in to Purdue news paper

[Scutter01]

here is my final version had to cut it down for length

Dear Nick and Mike,
While I fully respect [strike]you[/strike]your decision to be a victim, you and those who think like you should not be allowed to force it on the rest of the population. In your letter you call any one who carries a gun for self defense a [strike]vigilant[/strike]vigilante and someone who would do more harm than good. I can give you a case THIS VERY WEEK where an armed citizen stopped crime and saved lives in Indiana (Man Rescues Two Women from Captor) (include citation). Statistically, people who have a license to carry a gun are the safest and most law-abiding people in the country. Florida has issued more carry permits than any state (1.5 million). Only 166 (0.01 percent) have been revoked due to gun crimes by permit-holders. I would also like to point out that while police officers are trained to use weapons, it does not make them more proficient than other gun owners. It is a great responsibility to carry a gun, and just because you think that you wouldn’t be able to control YOURSELF if you had a gun, which is evident by what you think would happen, doesn’t mean I, or any other person, couldn’t. Also, this is NOT a theoretical attack-evident from recent events in Alabama and Virginia Tech. In Indiana, roughly 10% of the population has a [strike]permit[/strike]license to carry. That means one of every ten people could have a self defense weapon. When was the last time you got shot at while in Walmart? What makes the classroom different than anywhere else? Why should I have to check my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS at the door to make you ‘feel’ safer, when in reality my right to carry MAKES you safer?

.

 

[scottka]

I'm glad someone else saw this. Didn't have time to read the paper friday or Monday, but picked one up today, and couldn't believe what I was reading. I went and found a Monday paper, but haven't read Friday's original letter yet. I was just getting on to post a thread about it.

ETA... haven't read this thread yet. Just wanted to throw this in before I read.

 

[Clay]

I lived on the NW 3rd floor of Wiley Hall in fall of 96 when Jared Eskew shot our counselor, Jay Severson, in the head. Im not saying Jay had a chance, or that given the option he would have had a firearm....... but he didnt have the option to have that chance.

 

[ezdubbin97]

Letter in question as quoted from the Exponent:

Students, under law, can’t defend from shooters
In the wake of the shooting at the University of Alabama, I pose the question: If there were a similar shooting incident at Purdue University, how could the students protect themselves from the assailant? Simply answered: They couldn’t. The shooting at the University of Alabama prompted me to research Indiana’s policy on concealed firearm carrying on academic campuses, and I discovered it is a Class C felony to carry a firearm on campus.
I find it unjust that a person who is eligible to carry a concealed firearm in the state of Indiana cannot lawfully use it to protect themselves on a public college campus. It has unfortunately been seen time and time again that college campuses can be subject to terrible acts of violence. This fact provides a necessity for students to be able to defend themselves.
Would a school shooter be less likely to commit a violent act if there were a possibility that the students he would assault could be armed? Maybe. Would the potential victims of a school shooting be safer if they were allowed to have a concealed firearm for their own defense? Please think about it.

Kyle VanMeter
Senior in the College of Agriculture

 

[scottka]

Thanks for the original EZ.

 

[ezdubbin97]

haha, I've got more:

Gun laws make campus safer, not less safe
This is a response to Kyle VanMeter’s letter, “Students, under law, can’t defend from shooters” printed Friday. Mr. VanMeter, the law against having concealed weapons on campus makes our campus safer, not less safe. I personally like knowing that I may ride my bike to class and if I should accidentally run into somebody, I won’t be shot. You may think that scenario is outrageous, but that kind of stuff happens a lot. Now let’s look at a recent accidental death this past August when some friends thought it would be funny to scare their friend with a loaded gun.
I don’t want to go home to my dorm and have drunk people running around with guns. This law protects students more than it hurts us. Purdue has an excellent police force that is quick to respond and they are all over campus. Wouldn’t you rather see firearms in the hands of those who protect us, or would you prefer to see them in the hands of some friends trying to prank you drunk? Think about that.

Michael Frost
Freshman in the College of Technology


My personal favorite of this one: " I personally like knowing that I may ride my bike to class and if I should accidentally run into somebody, I won’t be shot." WTF is that supposed to mean?

+1 mms for attempting to make these people understand reason...every intelligent well thought out letter has to count for something!

 

[scottka]

Yeah, I caught that one in yesterday's paper after I tracked one down today, but thanks for posting it; I'm sure other people would like to read it though.

 

[mms]

yea its the 2 in today's paper that got me and i was kinda bored today... so i figured what the heck. scutter thanks for the edits go them in on the one i sent, you other Purdue guys write one to educated responses cant hurt i hadn't even seen those from Monday

 

[mms]

here is the first one

‘We’re better off without vigilante wannabes’
While I’m sure Mr. VanMeter means well (“Students, under law, can’t defend from shooters,” Friday), wanting to provide students the means with which to defend themselves from some theoretical attack, I pose a question: How are you, or anybody else who owns a firearm, trained in its use? Do you visit the range daily? Weekly? Monthly? Do you practice as much as a trained law enforcement officer? I am all for our (reasonable) rights to own firearms, and to some extent carry them for our personal protection. But the range of most pistols, is at most, without significant time put into training, about 15 feet (I’m talking live fire, heat-of-the-moment, not some calm day, range/sport shooting). Anything beyond that and your accuracy goes down exponentially. Meaning you’re not going to be hitting your target. Meaning you’re going to be hitting other things, including other people. And the power of even a 9mm handgun is significant enough to penetrate and exit the human body, causing unpredictable secondary damage to anything behind the target. Can you say that in the heat of the moment you would check your line of fire to see what is behind this would-be assailant?
This is an issue I have thought about, at length, long before you made the suggestion to do so. If you want to have the right to carry a gun with you, by all means, become a deputy, police officer, whatever, get those LEO credentials, and you can train and carry to your heart’s content. But until we require people to qualify with their firearms on a regular basis to maintain their legal ability to carry them, I’ll stick with my opinion that we’re better off without some vigilante wannabes toting guns around so they can “feel safe” while the rest of us are always looking for possible cover should the proverbial feces hit the fan.

Nick Peelman
Staff

 

[mms]

and the second
student’s gun proposals don’t go far enough
I’m writing in support of Kyle VanMeter’s plea to be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, in order to protect us from irate professors who have been denied tenure, such as the recent events in Alabama he cited (“Students, under law, can’t defend from shooters,” Friday).
But I need to ask if Mr. VanMeter is being completely fair and just in his thinking. Do his proposals go far enough? Why should only those eligible to carry a concealed weapon have this right to retaliate against crazed professors? Why should they be the only armed students on campus?
Murderous, gun-wielding professors are less common at Purdue than one might first guess. I haven’t encountered one in, well, months. And there’s also the possibility that a student with a concealed weapon permit might also become a threat. (Not everyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon on campus is as reasonable as Mr. VanMeter.) So why shouldn’t all of us have the means to retaliate if the need arises? And shouldn’t Purdue help us protect ourselves?
If the answer to crazy people on campus with firearms is more firearms, wouldn’t a loaded shotgun in every room (maybe next to the fire extinguishers) or a pistol under every desk make Purdue the safest campus in the nation?
Please think about it, Mr. VanMeter.

Mike Sloothaak

 

[IBTL]

The Purdue Exponent is written by LIBERAL arts majors and they have deliberately misrepresented people on a continuous basis. I don't waste my time reading their garbage. They very rarely choose strong defenders of opinion with their "Letters to the Editor". I think they have done this on purpose to further prove their point. I know this because my Department has recently come under attack. They did a week long "expose" on the waste and abuse of University funds. I don't think that the got a single fact correct, except maybe spelling the names. The next week they published ONE letter to the editor poorly written by a student, instead of allowing a thoughtful, knowledgeable student/faculty member to explain the other side of a story.

My point:

The Exponent appears to be a tool in the hands of liberal Liberal Arts students. Even if you write a poignant letter, you will have to appear unintelligent. You can't use pesky things like facts, or illustrations, and sure as hell cannot write anything that would make them appear stooopid.

I applaud your effort at doing the honorable thing. Sincerely, I wish you good luck and thank you for being a force of good, and not evil.

 

[mms]

yea i know its a long shot to even get it published.....
btw are you referring to the flight department?? week long cost series

 

[finity]

u realize that you can NOT win against a ANTI-2A liberal right?
Using reason & logic on them will not work. They are not resonable people

Or a anti-2A righty either.

Neither political persuasion has the corner on reason.

 

[IBTL]

yea i know its a long shot to even get it published.....
btw are you referring to the flight department?? week long cost series

Bingo. I would explain the many, many gross errors of that series, but I don't want to thread jack. Like I said, at least they got the names spelled correctly.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

I lived on the NW 3rd floor of Wiley Hall in fall of 96 when Jared Eskew shot our counselor, Jay Severson, in the head. Im not saying Jay had a chance, or that given the option he would have had a firearm....... but he didnt have the option to have that chance.

I used to swim with Eskew when we were kids. We weren't necessarily friends, but would pal around a little at the Pleasant Meadows Community Pool.

When this happened, I was a freshman at USI. Was a little weird knowing that I USED to know the guy.

 

[schafe]

I would tell them to stop pestering you (as an Alum) for money, if they haven't, they will, until they change their stance on CC (Campus Carry).

As a Purdue alum,(EET '69,'71) I can tell you that they do call you for donations, and I have responded with small amounts--trying to give a little something back. I never thought about the leverage that average donations have, especially my meager ones. I'm going to consider a way to put my views into the conversation when they call the next time. Good idea!

 

[Z-Glock23]

 

[Bill of Rights]

here is my final version had to cut it down for length

Dear Nick and Mike,
While I fully respect [strike]you[/strike]your right to make the decision to be a victim, you and those who think like you should not be allowed to force it on the rest of the population. In your letter you call any one who carries a gun for self defense a [strike]vigilant[/strike]vigilante and someone who would do more harm than good. I can give you a case THIS VERY WEEK where an armed citizen stopped crime and saved lives in Indiana (Man Rescues Two Women from Captor) (include citation). Statistically, people who have a license to carry a gun are the safest and most law-abiding people in the country. Florida has issued more carry permits than any state (1.5 million). Only 166 (0.01 percent) have been revoked due to gun crimes by permit-holders. I would also like to point out that while police officers are trained to use weapons, it does not make them more proficient than other gun owners. It is a great responsibility to carry a gun, and just because you think that you wouldn’t be able to control YOURSELF if you had a gun, which is evident by what you think would happen, doesn’t mean I, or any other person, couldn’t. Also, this is NOT a theoretical attack-evident from recent events in Alabama and Virginia Tech. In Indiana, roughly 10% of the population has a [strike]permit[/strike]license to carry. That means one of every ten people could have a self defense weapon. When was the last time you got shot at while in Walmart? What makes the classroom different than anywhere else? Why should I have to check my natural, fundamental, God-given, and CONSTITUTIONALly protected RIGHTS at the door to make you ‘feel’ safer, when in reality my right to carry MAKES you safer?

.

(Scutter's edits are in red. Mine are in blue.)

Good letter; here are my thoughts:

I don't respect anyone's decision to be a victim. I respect their right to make the choice, but all they do is empower the criminal to try again on the next poor sap, and frankly, I don't want to have to pick up the pieces because someone else decided to wuss out on their responsibility for themselves. Also, those rights are listed in, not created by, the Constitution. They existed before that document and will continue long after the parchment it's written on fades to dust.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dburkhead]

A few edits that may help a bit (edits in blue):

Dear xxxx
While I fully respect your decision to be a victim. You and those who think like you should not be allowed to force it on the rest of the population.

(paragraph break) In your letter you call anyone (one word) who carries a gun for self defense a vigilante and would mostly likely just do more harm than good. I challenge you to present a case of this happening (you may want to tone this down--somewhere in the country someone may well do this but it would be exceedingly rare). I can give you a case this very week where an armed citizen stopped crime and saved lives in Indiana. Man Rescues Two Women from Captor,. statistically people who have a license to carry a gun are the safest and most law-abiding people in the country ( need sight--here's one Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers:Law-abiding Public Benefactors | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA).

I would also like to point out that while police officers are trained to use weapons that does not make them good shots or better than any other gun owners I know several officer that know next to nothing about guns and don’t like them. (replace the green with something like this) While police officers are trained in the use of their weapons, that training is not as extensive as you may think. Visit a gun range sometime and watch police officers shooting compared to other recreational shooters. You might be surprised particularly when you realize that the police officers are those who take time off duty to shoot. Many don't.

(paragraph break) It is a great responsibility to carry a gun. Obviously you do not consider yourself to capable. I applaud for you of knowing this about your self. Now don’t force it on the rest of us.

And btw it is not a theoretical attack it Attacks are not theoretical. They can and do (make plural verb) happen. Do I really need to list all of the school shootings??

(Paragraph break) It is not a felony to carry on campus you may face punishment from purdue ( fired expulsion). An you can be charged with trespassing if you do not leave if asked but that is all ( a School is defined in indian code ( it is K-12) need in codes for both) (School property: IC 35-41-1-24.7* School Corporation: IC 20-18-2-16** Criminal trespass: IC 35-43-2-2***)

Text of the cited codes:
*

"School property" defined
Sec. 24.7. "School property" means the following:
(1) A building or other structure owned or rented by:
(A) a school corporation;
(B) an entity that is required to be licensed under IC 12-17.2 or IC 31-27;
(C) a private school that is not supported and maintained by funds realized from the imposition of a tax on property, income, or sales; or
(D) a federal, state, local, or nonprofit program or service operated to serve, assist, or otherwise benefit children who are at least three (3) years of age and not yet enrolled in kindergarten, including the following:
(i) A Head Start program under 42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.
(ii) A special education preschool program.
(iii) A developmental child care program for preschool children.
(2) The grounds adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure described in subdivision (1).
As added by P.L.296-1987, SEC.4. Amended by P.L.34-1991, SEC.27; P.L.9-1991, SEC.95; P.L.2-1992, SEC.880; P.L.81-1992, SEC.38; P.L.1-1993, SEC.240; P.L.160-1994, SEC.1; P.L.1-2005, SEC.227; P.L.145-2006, SEC.370.

**

"School corporation"
Sec. 16. (a) "School corporation", for purposes of this title (except IC 20-20-33, IC 20-26-1 through IC 20-26-5, IC 20-26-7, IC 20-30-8, and IC 20-43), means a public school corporation established by Indiana law. The term includes a:
(1) school city;
(2) school town;
(3) school township;
(4) consolidated school corporation;
(5) metropolitan school district;
(6) township school corporation;
(7) county school corporation;
(8) united school corporation; or
(9) community school corporation.
(b) "School corporation", for purposes of IC 20-26-1 through IC 20-26-5 and IC 20-26-7, has the meaning set forth in IC 20-26-2-4.
(c) "School corporation", for purposes of IC 20-20-33 and IC 20-30-8, includes a charter school (as defined in IC 20-24-1-4).
(d) "School corporation", for purposes of IC 20-43, has the meaning set forth in IC 20-43-1-23.
As added by P.L.1-2005, SEC.2. Amended by P.L.2-2006, SEC.77.

***

Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;
(3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control over the vehicle;
(4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;
(5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the dwelling of another person without the person's consent;
(6) knowingly or intentionally:
(A) travels by train without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent; and (B) rides on the outside of a train or inside a passenger car, locomotive, or freight car, including a boxcar, flatbed, or container without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent;
(7) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters or refuses to leave the property of another person after having been prohibited from entering or asked to leave the property by a law enforcement officer when the property is:
(A) vacant or designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be abandoned property; and
(B) subject to abatement under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36; or
(8) knowingly or intentionally enters the property of another person after being denied entry by a court order that has been issued to the person or issued to the general public by conspicuous posting on or around the premises in areas where a person can observe the order when the property:
(A) has been designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be a vacant property or an abandoned property; and
(B) is subject to an abatement order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36;
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if it is committed on a scientific research facility, on a key facility, on a facility belonging to a public utility (as defined in IC 32-24-1-5.9(a)), on school property, or on a school bus or the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same property.
(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written;
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public; or
(3) a hearing authority or court order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36.
(c) A law enforcement officer may not deny entry to property or ask a person to leave a property under subsection (a)(7) unless there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred or is occurring.
(d) A person described in subsection (a)(7) violates subsection (a)(7) unless the person has the written permission of the owner, owner's agent, enforcement authority, or court to come onto the property for purposes of performing maintenance, repair, or demolition.
(e) A person described in subsection (a)(8) violates subsection (a)(8) unless the court that issued the order denying the person entry grants permission for the person to come onto the property.
(f) Subsections (a), (b), and (e) do not apply to the following: (1) A passenger on a train.
(2) An employee of a railroad carrier while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(3) A law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency response personnel while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(4) A person going on railroad property in an emergency to rescue a person or animal from harm's way or to remove an object that the person reasonably believes poses an imminent threat to life or limb.
(5) A person on the station grounds or in the depot of a railroad carrier:
(A) as a passenger; or
(B) for the purpose of transacting lawful business.
(6) A:
(A) person; or
(B) person's:
(i) family member;
(ii) invitee;
(iii) employee;
(iv) agent; or
(v) independent contractor;
going on a railroad's right-of-way for the purpose of crossing at a private crossing site approved by the railroad carrier to obtain access to land that the person owns, leases, or operates.
(7) A person having written permission from the railroad carrier to go on specified railroad property.
(8) A representative of the Indiana department of transportation while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(9) A representative of the federal Railroad Administration while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(10) A representative of the National Transportation Safety Board while engaged in the performance of official duties.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.43; P.L.151-1989, SEC.12; P.L.242-1993, SEC.2; P.L.164-1993, SEC.11; P.L.1-1994, SEC.168; P.L.259-1999, SEC.3; P.L.158-2009, SEC.7; P.L.88-2009, SEC.4.

Hope this helps.

 

[mms]

here is my final version had to cut it down for length

Dear Nick and Mike,
While I fully respect you decision to be a victim, you and those who think like you should not be allowed to force it on the rest of the population. In your letter you call any one who carries a gun for self defense a vigilant and someone who would do more harm than good. I can give you a case THIS VERY WEEK where an armed citizen stopped crime and saved lives in Indiana (Man Rescues Two Women from Captor). Statistically, people who have a license to carry a gun are the safest and most law-abiding people in the country. Florida has issued more carry permits than any state (1.5 million). Only 166 (0.01 percent) have been revoked due to gun crimes by permit-holders. I would also like to point out that while police officers are trained to use weapons, it does not make them more proficient than other gun owners. It is a great responsibility to carry a gun, and just because you think that you wouldn’t be able to control YOURSELF if you had a gun, which is evident by what you think would happen, doesn’t mean I, or any other person, couldn’t. Also, this is NOT a theoretical attack-evident from recent events in Alabama and Virginia Tech. In Indiana, roughly 10% of the population has a permit to carry. That means one of every ten people could have a self defense weapon. When was the last time you got shot at while in Walmart? What makes the classroom different than anywhere else? Why should I have to check my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS at the door to make you ‘feel’ safer, when in reality my right to carry MAKES you safer?

i sent this versions in with scutters edits last night... but it didnt make todays paper. as others have said its a super liberal paper so they probably wont publish is since it is actually a decently written compared to the other pro gun one's that make us all look bad