This letter is in response to the column "Right to protect one's self does not translate into right to carry" (CT, March 20). I feel the author misses the whole point of concealed carry.
Concealed carry is not about giving everyone over the age of 21 a firearm so they can protect themselves. It's about people who have demonstrated their competence in the ability to own and carry a firearm and their right to defend themselves wherever they are.
I ask that people read up on the subject before they start making blatant accusations about what things would be like if concealed carry was permitted on campus. I use the word "permitted" because it is not a law, but a university policy, that prohibits it.
People who have a concealed carry permit have all been deemed in the eyes of the state as being competent with a firearm, just as you must be deemed competent while driving to have a license. And to be honest, I trust people who have CCW permits more than most drivers. If you are caught violating any of the concealed carry laws, such as being under the influence of alcohol or drugs and possessing a firearm, it results in immediate revocation. In fact, if you are convicted of a "drunk in public" offense, you are ineligible to possess a concealed carry permit for three years. There go all the "Main Street shootouts" that some people are concerned about.
I am OK with people expressing their opinions on the issue; I just ask that you look at the facts, particularly what it takes to get a concealed carry permit, which can be found on the Virginia State Police Web site.
The university has spent $10.4 million largely so they can tell us there is an incident, but the fact is, unless there is an immediate defense to an aggressor, all that money is just for show, making us think we are safe.
John Havranek
junior, aerospace engineering