Share This Page

Attack at Ohio State: A lifesaving defense

| Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2016, 5:15 p.m.

Frightening and disturbing as it was, Monday's car-and-knife attack on the Ohio State University campus could have been much worse. Yet it should prompt a thorough review that changes the OSU policy and an Ohio state law that sharply limit students' ability to defend themselves.

Somali-born Abdul Razak Ali Artan, an OSU student and legal permanent U.S. resident, drove his car over a curb and into a crowd outside an engineering classroom building, then exited the vehicle and began knifing people. Eleven were injured, one critically. Thankfully, a campus policeman happened to be nearby — and armed. He ended the incident in less than a minute by fatally shooting the assailant, according to The Associated Press.

If that heroic campus policeman hadn't had a gun, the attack likely would have gone on longer and had far worse consequences. That's because, as LawNewz reports, OSU's Student Code of Conduct prohibits possession or storage of firearms on campus. And Ohio state law forbids carrying a concealed weapon — even with a license — on any college campus, though open carrying is allowed.

Did Mr. Artan choose OSU assuming this was a gun-free zone?

This incident vividly demonstrates the value of an armed presence that's able to respond quickly and decisively to such attacks in public areas. It should prompt OSU officials and Ohio lawmakers to change campus policy and state law so that students and university staff are better protected against such assailants.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.