Previous Post
Next Post

Tarak Andrew Underiner was an Ohio State student, civil rights activist and treasurer of Buckeyes for Concealed Carry. Underiner, who testified in favor of campus carry before the Ohio legislature last year, was killed early Thursday morning in an off-campus shooting in Columbus.

According to The Lantern, the Ohio State student newspaper, Columbus police officers arrived at an off-campus residence early Thursday morning, finding Underiner unresponsive with several gunshot wounds; they pronounced him dead at 12:41a.m. “‘Investigators do not believe this incident was random in nature nor has any connection to the University,’ the report states.” Otherwise, facts about the slaying remain sketchy.

Underiner became a figure of note in the gun rights community in December when he testified before the Ohio legislature in favor of House Bill 48, which eased a few restrictions on the carriage of firearms on college campuses and other places.

“College campuses and the areas surrounding them present environments rich with potential victims,” Tarak Underiner, an Ohio State student and member of university’s chapter of Students for Concealed Carry, told a Senate committee. “They’re willing to gamble we’re unarmed and it pays off.”

Stressing the need for students to be armed, Underiner read off violent-crime statistics this semester for the University District, including 129 assaults and 21 sex crimes.

Ohio Governor John Kasich, a Republican, signed the bill into law on December 19, 2016.

Underiner’s sworn statement came in the wake of the car-and-knife attack on Ohio State’s campus by a logistics student who had immigrated to this country from Somalia. That attack left eleven people injured and the attacker dead after being shot by campus police.

Around the same time, Underiner gave an interview to the student-run Lantern TV show “Scarlet Scoop” on the subject, where he offered the following thoughts on the subject:

If you can’t carry [a firearm] on campus, they are guaranteeing that we’ll be defenseless from the moment that we leave our homes to the moment that we return…. If I come home from the library late at night at 3:00a.m., if I live in a bad neighborhood, I should have that option [to carry a firearm]. I don’t think it should be up to the University to decide that.

“A friend of mine was raped…[at] a different college…. I’ve been robbed before. It was not a fun experience…. I’m not saying a gun would have changed that situation; it would have been nice to have the option….

It is unclear if Underiner had a firearm at the time of the attack, as facts are still sketchy at this point. A gun, of course, is not a talisman that can ward off violent crime by its mere possession; his statement to The Lantern indicates that Underiner was all too aware of this fact.

Michael Newbern, of Ohio Students for Concealed Carry, issued a statement on Facebook:

“I am deeply saddened by the tragedy that occurred last night near The Ohio State University. Tarak Underiner was both a personal friend of mine and a bright young man with a promising future ahead of him. His work as a member of Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus to restore the right to self-defense on Ohio’s college campuses put him in an elite class obtained by very few others in our movement.

[h/t: The College Fix]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Hopefully the assailant will have no connection to the anti-rights crowd. Not that Tarak will return from the dead or anything like that. I would hate to think that the typically wussy antis would be so bold as to murder someone on our side.

    • I’m not hoping anything about this tragedy, but an antigunner killing one of ours with a gun wouldn’t be particularly good press for the Brady Bunch.

    • They said it likely wasn’t connected, and I really don’t think many would do something like that. I guess some crazy might justify it as poetic justice that they would get murdered by the tool he was pushing. But it really goes against everything they believe in to murder someone.

        • I’ve seen Betsy Riot and this goes way beyond their pathetic little vandalism by just a bit.

      • Gun-grabbers are liberal, they don’t give an F about you or anything else. Killing doesn’t go against ANYTHING they believe in. Sh_t they shut down the government if people don’t get to murder the unborn and sell the parts for food and experiments.

        • Whoa there Joe. Take a pill.

          It’s reactions like yours that fuel the anti crowd in fear of folks like you going all postal to prove gun owners won’t go postal.

        • Seriously, fuck right off and get out of your bubble. Liberal, pro-gun, anti-murder. Calm the hell down.

        • I would find it quite difficult to be both a liberal and a gun owner. Guns “shout” self-reliance, self-discipline, self-discipline. Liberalism requires surrender of personal characteristics like that. Government, for liberals, represents the fount of everything: happiness; wealth; health; satisfaction; limitless and effective public safety; riskless society; approval of laziness; tolerance and comfort for criminal behavior; the abandonment of the need to do much of anything other than entertain oneself.

        • Well, I’ll agree there. But they’re only fine with it as long as the government does it for them and they can delude themselves into thinking they’re being virtuous and trying to help the poor. That’s pretty hard to do when you’re murdering someone directly.

          And most of the actual Communists seem to have this idea of “We can do it right this time!”

      • Haha is that a joke? Leftists go straight to murder as their first idea on how to deal with an ideological opponent. Do you not see and hear the things they say about our president elect and his supporters?

      • The anti-2nd amendment folks are progressives, and what the progressives believe is domination. After Trump won the election, these “benevolent” people rioted, burned down people’s businesses and homes, pulled people out of their cars and assaulted them, and they actually beat a few to death. They have attacked people on planes and in other public places, they have publicly encouraged people to assassinate conservatives, and recently, they kidnapped a kid and tortured him. I can go on and on with what they have told us they would like to do..and what they have done to us for their cause. Do not believe for a moment that they will not kill for their cause. Do not believe these people hate guns so much that they will not kill you with one…or command someone else to do it for them.

    • I would doubt an anti killed him.

      More likely he was targeted for robbery due to his public stance. People who make public statements like that tend to own guns. Guns attract thieves and robbery boys.

      A friend of mine lived in the OSU campus area. It wasn’t a very nice place to live. He was attacked a couple of times for wearing certain colors (just like a shirt or shorts or something) because it was a “gang color” and the rival gangs would attack anyone wearing it.

      He eventually changed his entire wardrobe and remarked to us at one point that he hoped that tan and white didn’t become gang colors or he was going to have to resort to wearing nothing but his tattoos and hoping they didn’t contain a gang symbol.

    • Was he carrying at the time?

      Keep in mind that there is not just the vocal anti-Second Amendment crowd, but every single criminal predator out there is also anti-gun. Not that they would generally be that well-planned, but wouldn’t they have an incentive to take out some guy who was threatening their livelihood by advocating concealed carry on campus?

      • Criminals generally don’t think like that. They think about cash and in their world stolen guns are quick cash.

        Publicly known gun owner = target for robbery/theft. Especially in that super nice area just East of OSU.

  2. I wish you wouldn’t share stories like this. It’s ammo for liberals and anti-gunners to say “We told you so.”

    • That’s silly. What exactly is the big “I told you so” here? That armed killers are out there stalking victims? Duh. Everyone knows that. The only controversy is what to do about it.Antis argue we should disarm the victims and expect violent criminals to disarm themselves.2A supporters argue that people should have the option to arm and defend themselves against armed violent criminals.This event changes none of that.

      • “This event changes none of that.”

        You are way underestimating the enemy. Facts are irrelevant. The anti-gun industry will use the emotion of futility to parade this one throughout the country. Proves that having a gun does nothing to protect the owner. That is all they need.

        • You are correct…. facts are irrelevant to them, which is why we should not concern ourselves with what they think or what “ammo” we are giving their demented little agenda.

        • You are assuming he was armed. If they caught him on his way back from campus, probably not. That would drive home his point that an unarmed person is helpless prey for the criminals.

    • The points above notwithstanding, we lost one of our own today, and I for one think it behooves us to honor his memory. He testified in Ohio, but he helped all of us.

  3. My youngest went to OSU. We found many areas around the campus sketchy. The students are adults and should be able to protect them selves. I am all for carry on campus. RIP to the young man who lost his life.

  4. Was the “off campus” location where he was killed university property?
    Didn’t OSU recently signal intent not to comply with the new law?

  5. I doubt that an anti-gun campus activist would have shot him. Beaten him with a large rubber dildo, maybe, but not shot him.

    RIP, buddy.

  6. Liberalism (and Conservativism) are systems of belief, just like religion. No amount of logic or facts will change ones core beliefs. When I saw the Pulse shooting, I thought “If only someone had a gun”. The guy next to me said “If only Guns were banned “. Same facts, different core beliefs.

  7. I agree. Not an anti, just a coincidence. Many areas around osu is ghetto. Bet it was a robbery attempt, or burglery gone bad ( not that any burglary is good)

    • The only detail that we know, according to the press release, is that his murder was NOT random. As far as I know, most burglaries and robberies are random when they end in murder and the victim was not involved in some sort of shady or criminal activity.

      If the motive was not burglary or robbery, his murder was not random, and he was not engaged in shady or criminal activity, the only remaining motives that I can think of are jealousy/revenge, victim of a sociopath, or a targeted hit for political purposes.

      • Robberies and burglaries are targeted when someone is known to possess something of value that the criminals want.

        Something I learned living in shitty neighborhoods is that burglaries in those neighborhoods are rare because there’s nothing to value to steal. You go to a nicer neighborhood to break into houses and loot the place. When a house is hit in a shitty neighborhood it’s been targeted very specifically for something that is known or thought to be there (or it’s a wrong address, that happens too). Drugs, guns, cash, jewelry and power tools are all targets.

        People known to have firearms, especially in a kinda sketchy area like the OSU area East of High Street are a target to be relieved of that firearm because it can be fenced on the street so quickly for a relatively high price.

        Living in Ohio, in a shitty neighborhood, my house was targeted for exactly this. It was known we had rifles (very hard to hide this fact). Those rifles were not in the house at the time that it was hit but looking at the place afterwards it was very, very clear: whoever hit the place waited until we were out of town and then hit the house looking very specifically for places you could hide something the size of a rifle. Other places were not touched. For example: cabinets weren’t opened but the fridge was tipped over. A locked door to the attic was taken apart with what was probably an ax (These dudes came prepared, I mean who carries an ax to a random burglary? No one.).

        Most of the house was trashed but nothing was missing. Not one damn thing. A bunch of stuff worth stealing was there, like DeWalt power tools. These guys weren’t there for the computer or the TV or the tools. They were looking very specifically for the rifles.

      • “….his murder was NOT random”

        I found that to be rather odd, since there were/are so few details about the event. We cannot know the type or caliber of weapon, but police are certain the attack was no random. How can they know one and not part of the other?

        • Nothing scares people worse than apparently random violence.

          When my neighbor opened his door and took a few in the chest the neighborhood freaked until a week or so later when it came out that the shooters meant to get the guy across the street and screwed up the address.

          Somehow that made it better. I mean it could still happen to you if the guy across the street pissed off the wrong ignorant and violent people but… Somehow people could process such a mistake better than if it was truly random. That’s pretty much when I realized that George Carlin was right and that people are basically stupid creatures.

          I stick to my theory until other evidence comes out. Based on my experience in that area he was targeted for robbery or theft, probably of a gun or guns he was thought to have, and it all went sideways. I highly doubt he was killed for his political views on firearms.

        • Kinda makes sense about the fear of “random”. Wasn’t thinking about a political “hit”, but merely suspicious of authorities when the put out odd information.

  8. ‘Investigators do not believe this incident was random in nature nor has any connection to the University,’

    So, they presumably know something about the motive. Not random- maybe over a woman? Usually the safe bet.

    Then again it seems that universities try very hard to make crime seem to have no connection to the university, regardless of truth.

  9. “Stressing the need for students to be armed, Underiner read off violent-crime statistics this semester for the University District, including 129 assaults and 21 sex crimes.”

    Now THAT could be the reason that someone murdered him. The last thing a University wants is any suggestion that their hallowed halls are not the utopia that they portray to the world. That, coupled with the fact that he was promoting the carriage of firearms in Universities, could very well be enough to put himself in someone’s proverbial crosshairs. Don’t believe that is plausible? How many thousands of times have gun-grabbers called for the execution of gun-rights activists and their families on websites, blogs, and social media? His public statements and policy positions, coupled with widespread and utter despair over the election, could very well have put someone over the edge.

  10. It is easy to get out of the habit of carrying when your school or workplace is an anti gun murder zone. The practice is a detriment to people everywhere.

  11. God bless him for speaking up for our natural rights. May justice find the evil person that murdered him!

    May we always be on guard so that such evil never finds us unprepared!

  12. Rip brother. Thanks for fighting the good fight while you were here. He truly sounds like someone that left this world a better place than when he started. We should all be so fortunate to take that fact with us when we meet the man upstairs.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here