Here was my reply:
Ms. Harris,
I recently read your editorial, Hide and Seek. It was obviously filled with emotions, and very little logic or thought. While you did a very small amount of research, this editorial might not have even been necessary had you done more.
First, I contend that by simply writing this editorial, that you do not support the constitution. I find it infuriating when members of the press, which you claim yourself to be, make comments like your first line, then try to point out in every way why we should not have firearms. Ms. Harris, whether you like it or not, the 2nd Amendment is a guaranteed right, just like your beloved 1st Amendment is. I will go even further to say that without the 2nd, there would be no 1st. You should perhaps read some of the works of our Founding Fathers. Perhaps your for limiting the 2nd, not allowing semi auto rifles, etc. Perhaps there are those who think that you should not have the right to publish freely; maybe you should have to pay ridiculous amounts of money in order to be a member of the press. Maybe the press should only be limited to one article per month, and then have article heavily regulated, or even censured. I'm willing to bet you wouldn't want that to happen. Am I right?
Secondly, I would like to address your desire to "live in a society free of guns". Ms. Harris, the entire world, every single country, will always have guns. That will never change, no matter how much you and other lofty dreamers may want it. I do not know if you have studied the human specie, but we are essentially predators, and with predatory behavior, comes violence. The human race is very violent; there is plenty of history that documents this. If there was a society free of guns, that society would be utterly wiped out because of those who would prey on them. Guns do not make humans violent, our nature does. But I will grant you a theoretical gun free society. Then those predators would simply kill you with some other device. My firearm gives me the possibility to protect myself from those who would prey on myself and my family.
I will go even further to give you a very small history lesson. Two nations in the first half of the 20th Century implemented strict gun control. As a result of their doing so, upwards of 40 million citizens were massacred. Clearly, those two gun free societies were happy and peaceful. Those two nations were Germany, and the Soviet Union. One of the greatest purposes of our 2nd Amendment is to protect Americans from an unjust and despotic government. Look at Great Britain and Australia. They passed sweeping gun control laws. Now their rates of violent crime have sky-rocketed. Gun free is certainly working for them. Look at South Africa. Citizens aren't allowed to have guns, and violent crime is an hourly occurrence there.
Then there was this comment: "Living in a country that condones gun ownership and growing up in an era of school shootings, I feel safer knowing that adequately trained men and women will protect me if called upon." You go on from here to say leave the shooting to the professionals. Again, I thought it was the responsibility of the media to do research. You failed in this aspect. Most police departments only qualify with their service weapons once or twice a year. And even then, many officers fail their qualifications. A large number of citizens who have their concealed carry permits do not stop with the minimum 8 hour (your reference) safety class. Many go on to training classes that are far more advanced than what your average police officer or sheriffs deputy are trained in. Not only that, but many firearms owning citizens shoot several times a year. Did you interview your campus police to see how often it is that they train and qualify with their service weapons? I don't believe that you did your research, since you did not cite it.
"Too much could go wrong and the potential for innocent bystander or death grows exponentially." Again, a basic lack of research. A study conducted in 1994 showed that 11% of police shootings killed innocent people. Only about 2% of shootings by citizens resulted in the death of an innocent person.
"Think of all the students whose backpacks are stolen on campus each year. A lover’s quarrel? A sports team rivalry? An excuse to get out of finals week?" This is the same, basic drivel that has been asked by every opponent to concealed carry. It has also been completely dispelled as nonsense. Did "blood flow in the streets" as some suggested when Florida passed it's concealed weapons permit? No. "Or maybe, just maybe, a crazed madman disarms a person licensed to carry a firearm and turns the weapon on the campus population.
There are just too many “what ifs.” " Again, emotions will always lead you to the wrong conclusion. By allowing LEGAL concealed carry by students, there would be no way that your fictitious crazed madman would know who had a firearm, and who does not. There are not too many "what ifs", as you suggest.
Finally, I will address your last line: "As one professor pointed out, “I’d like to be able to fail a student without worrying about getting shot.”
Shouldn't we all?" This is just emotional garbage. That one professor should try to utilize a little logic as well. There are several college campuses in America that do allow it's students who are legally licensed to carry concealed, and not one of them have had this theoretical incident happen. As someone who is trying to earn a degree, shouldn't you be required to think about a topic with logic, and not run away emotions?
Ms. Harris, I urge you to do some further research. Legal gun ownership in America has been shown to have prevented an average of 2 1/2 million violent crimes per year, and in many of those cases, a shot was never fired. It is a fundamental right guaranteed to us, just as is our right to free speech. Who should say that you do not have the right to protect yourself against someone who would want to violate you in a hideous manner? Who says that the single mother doesn't have the right to prevent someone from violently killing her children when they broke into her house?
Ms. Harris, why don't you find one of the students on your campus who is a proponent of concealed carry, and have a dialogue with them. Ask them to take you shooting, and teach you the basics of shooting and safety fundamentals? Why don't you interview a citizen who could have perhaps averted a violent crime against them, had they only had a firearm available? Please, Ms. Harris, do some research. I would like to see you do so, and then write another article explaining what you have learned.
Sincerely,