All THR members: dismantle this editorial piece by piece


PDA






Monkeyleg
July 22, 2005, 12:15 AM
Background: months ago, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel invited "guest columnists" to audition for "guest status" on the paper's glorious editorial page. Not surprisingly, the majority of those selected were of the Sheeple persuasion, including the writer below.

Ms. Moore's column includes all of the half-truth's, distortions, lies, and deceptions worthy of a paid VPC staffer. Her only credit is that she writes such baloney for free.

At any rate, THR members need to either write the Journal Sentinel, or provide WI THR members with bullet-point, one-paragraph disputations for Ms. Moore's claims. It's far better to have sixteen one-paragraph responses than one sixteen-paragraph response that most won't read.

So, please, have at it. Here's Ms. Moore's column from today's paper:

What the gun bill conceals

By LOIS MOORE

Posted: July 20, 2005

It worked well for the GOP at the national level in selling the poorly planned war in Iraq and the inadequate prescription drug program for seniors. So apparently state Sen. Dave Zien (R-Eau Claire) must be trying the tactic in Wisconsin: Repeat a bad idea often enough, and eventually the people will buy it - lock, stock and barrel.

Silenced by Gov. Jim Doyle's veto in the first round during the 2003-'04 legislative session, the concealed weapons bill will be reintroduced by Zien later this summer.

Having already shot down the perfect opportunity for a bipartisan solution to the state's budget woes concerning the truly important issues of employment, education and health care, Republican legislators will waste more time and taxpayer dollars to target the gun lobby and gun enthusiasts for support in the 2006 election.

Just like the rush to war in Iraq, this Republican proposal is offered without consideration of its impact on the very people it is supposed to protect. Simply because someone may pass a set of regulations and background checks, both of which are yet to be defined, does not mean that the person will be able to control himself once a gun is close at hand.

Conversely, the bill is more likely to encourage would-be vigilantes.

Things are scary enough. Drive-by shootings, armed robberies, road rage, bar brawls, revenge murders, violations of restraining orders and stray bullets killing bystanders have become common. Can permit regulations protect law-abiding citizens from such acts? No, and a concealed weapons law could complicate or escalate any of these situations.

Legalizing the right to carry a concealed weapon would only increase the incidence of ill-advised retaliations, overreaction to non-life threatening circumstances and gun accidents.

Even the military, when not in combat, keeps weapons locked up to avoid just such incidents. Recent events have had police using deadly force against unarmed people who appeared to be reaching for a gun. If police think everyone might be carrying a concealed weapon, they might be more inclined to shoot first and ask questions later.

Criminals use the element of surprise. If attacked, who would have time to retrieve a gun from a glove compartment, a holster, a back pocket or - worse - from the bottom of a purse? More likely, the attacker would overpower the victim, possibly using the victim's own weapon during the crime.

What regulation can protect the unsuspecting person from a heretofore unknown assailant? Who can control the passions of others in the heat of the moment; the person with a hair-trigger anger management problem; the drunk who fights perceived enemies; the domestic abuser who avoids prosecution by intimidating his victim; or the mild-mannered religious zealot who goes home to get a gun, returns to a church service and shoots up the congregation from the back of a hotel banquet room? These are all situations that could be made worse by a concealed weapons law.

The fact that the administration of the regulatory aspects of the bill, as well as the funding of its implementation, have not yet been decided after more than a year invites the perception that the legislators are rushing this through to hide a dismal legislative record.

The bill plays Russian roulette with the lives of everyday citizens. It's a clay pigeon for Republicans who know that Democrat Doyle will veto the bill again.

Zien and his Republican posse, rather than gunning for a serious anti-crime bill, will instead go fishing this summer, trolling for the gun lobby votes, hoping that an unwitting public will swallow the bait - hook, line and sinker

If you enjoyed reading about "All THR members: dismantle this editorial piece by piece" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Marshall
July 22, 2005, 12:17 AM
She's an idiot.

Monkeyleg
July 22, 2005, 12:20 AM
To the point, Marshall, but not likely to be published. ;)

joab
July 22, 2005, 12:23 AM
Yeah the streets will run red with blod, just like in Fla in '87

torpid
July 22, 2005, 12:25 AM
Criminals use the element of surprise. If attacked, who would have time to retrieve a gun from a glove compartment, a holster, a back pocket or - worse - from the bottom of a purse? More likely, the attacker would overpower the victim, possibly using the victim's own weapon during the crime.

This is precisely the reason that all police officers in the United States simply stopped carrying handguns for protection in 1900, and have never looked back.

;)

iamkris
July 22, 2005, 12:32 AM
Is Wisconsin so different that other places than the facts below wouldn't apply?

From Gun Facts 4.0(sources contained in the report)

Myth: Concealed carry laws increase crime
Fact: 35 states (and the majority of the American population) live in “right-to-carry” states, and in
each, the crime rate fell after the law became active.

Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1989.

Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below the national average and remains below the national average to this day.

Fact: The serious crime rate in Texas fell 50% faster than the national average after a concealed carry law was passed in 1995.

Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over
80%

Fact: "Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense".
· The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000).
· The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000).
· The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (183.1 per 100,000).
· The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the restrictive states (455.9 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (398.3 per 100,000).

Fact: People with concealed carry permits are:
· 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
· 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public

torpid
July 22, 2005, 12:42 AM
"Repeat a bad idea often enough, and eventually the people will buy it - lock, stock and barrel...
The bill plays Russian roulette with the lives of everyday citizens. It's a clay pigeon for Republicans who know that Democrat Doyle will veto the bill again."

Wow, she really stuck to her guns and shot down that evil CCW idea. She really hit the mark when she used those clever gunny terms to target the pro-CCW folks in her volley. Some would criticize many of her examples as hollow points, but I think her rapid-fire style of speedloading doomsday scenarios into the reader's sight picture really groups the various ideas into a cohesive center mass of concept.

:rolleyes:

Silent-Snail
July 22, 2005, 02:06 AM
Could someone piont me to info on Lois Moore. Some of the stuff written reminds me of one of my high school english teachers by the same last name.

ravinraven
July 22, 2005, 02:16 AM
Man, o, man. What a load! When I read the blatherings of such folks, I think, "There but for the grace of God go I." I'm beginning to feel a sort of pity for such beings.

A friend of mine said that you can get along with these types of people if you just treat them as non-violent, possible-trainable retards. You know, it works. These people don't seem to be such a threat to civilization as I once thought them to be.

rr

bigun15
July 22, 2005, 02:23 AM
the person with a hair-trigger anger management problem; the drunk who fights perceived enemies; the domestic abuser who avoids prosecution by intimidating his victim; or the mild-mannered religious zealot who goes home to get a gun, returns to a church service and shoots up the congregation from the back of a hotel banquet room? These are all situations that could be made worse by a concealed weapons law.

Actually, they could be made better. If someone there had a CCW, they could save the innocent person(s) and stop the crazy killer.

joab
July 22, 2005, 08:18 AM
the mild-mannered religious zealot who goes home to get a gun, returns to a church service and shoots up the congregation from the back of a hotel banquet room? She's an idiot, Why would he have to go home to get the gun if he's got a CCW?


iamkris
Can you provide a link o those stats
They could be useful in a discussion I'm having on another board

ravinraven
July 22, 2005, 09:19 AM
" She's an idiot, Why would he have to go home to get the gun if he's got a CCW?"

Great point and great example of the "thinking" of these poor souls.

rr

Gfrey
July 22, 2005, 10:07 AM
Guys,
for non Locals,

the "go home to get a gun and shoot a church" quote is from an incident earlier this year where a not so gruntled church goer did just this,
he went home, got a gun, went back and shot several people in the congregation, even (As the reporter put it) calmly reloading.


She is trying to imply that there will be MORE of these incedents as a reason to continue the current course.

She is as described above.


Ger

dcloudy777@aol.com
July 22, 2005, 10:21 AM
Hey, I gotta agree wholeheartedly with one thing she wrote:

What regulation can protect the unsuspecting person from a heretofore unknown assailant?

Sounds alot like the reason why I started carrying a gun in the first place.

DanO

Nightfall
July 22, 2005, 11:19 AM
Legalizing the right to carry a concealed weapon...At least she acknowledges it is indeed a right being denied by "law". Purely by accident no doubt.

entropy
July 22, 2005, 03:39 PM
Sounds like she got the 'formula letter' from Sarah Brady and localized it, adding in the church incident. :rolleyes: We will get CCW passed here, it is only a matter of time.

jefnvk
July 22, 2005, 03:52 PM
Now, she'd probably be having a hissy fit if the Govenor vetoed something near and dear to her heart, and proclaiming how the legislature should wok to override that senseless veto.

And anytime those R and D words start being thrown around, as either praise for one or insult to another, I quickly lose interest in the article. At that point, it becomes 'my side is better than yours', rather than, 'here is why my point is better than yours'.

iamkris
July 22, 2005, 04:54 PM
joab

Every gun owner interested in countering the blissninny's bleating and emotional arguements with FACTS should download this .pdf.

TONS of great stats...the only problem is that blissninnies don't kn0ow how to talk in facts...

http://www.gunfacts.info/

Waitone
July 22, 2005, 04:59 PM
What a goldplated, museum grade idiot. Shame she isn't getting paid for her glittering jewels of wisdom.

Does Brady publish a list of canards used by these original thinkers?

joab
July 22, 2005, 07:10 PM
Every gun owner interested in countering the blissninny's bleating and emotional arguements with FACTS should download this .pdf. Thanks for the link, but I'll pass on the particular blissninny. Nothing short of a catastrophic incident where she has to rely on her cell phone for help that may not get there is going to change her position.

I'm talking with a couple of fence sitters that don't really know why guns are bad , it's just something they heard somewhere.

Standing Wolf
July 22, 2005, 10:54 PM
The leftist extremists might be more interesting if they were bright enough to concoct new lies once in awhile.

wolf
July 23, 2005, 03:30 PM
say it ain't so dept....

Cities like Los Angeles, DC and Chicago...which have partial or complete bans on handguns have some of the highest homicide rates..I live in Santa Monica (pop:87,000), the far west end of Los Angeles..we have "gang activity" and homicides.

There is little coverage on the crime stats in the "media" some of the unmentionable reasons are: It's bad for tourism and it's racist (as being most suspects & those convicted are of "minorities" and there is very little local press to cover "everyday" crime. The Los Angeles Times does not even report many cases of shootings because they have been accused of being "insensitive" by describing the suspects race/color in articles. So they don't report it at all. The Left Angeles Times..ya gotta love em.

So when people rant and rave about gun control and all its glories...and get any coverage at all and get support for their stand..I think, yeah if your only getting one side of the story, I'd support ya too.

I had to do some digging to get the stats that are in my signature...and even there...I could not find a breakdown (and I know they keep stats) of male/female race/color etc.

From my point of view.. its beyond gun control..its social engineering at its most base level.

wolf

JohnKSa
July 23, 2005, 03:42 PM
With opinions like hers, it's not surprising she avoids including statistics or actual hard supporting evidence in her writing.

Kurush
July 23, 2005, 04:34 PM
There are not many actual factual claims in her letter, so the best response would be to direct the argument where you want to take it, rather than writing a refutation. If I were writing it, I think the key points would be:
1) The Lott and Kleck studies, and supporting studies. Try guncite.com.
2) Emphasize that police can not respond in time to protect you from harm. You should be able to find local 911 response times. If I recall correctly they're required to publish them.
3) Give an example of a woman, especially a mother, whose life was saved by a defensive use, preferably in a nearby area. Check out the blog TFS magnum.
4) Point out that the "wild west" predictions have been made in every state that went to shall issue, and it has never happened in any of them.
5) Emphasize that you are a "real person" and not a wacko.
6) Express offense that she characterized you as a vigilante.

JohnKSa
July 23, 2005, 06:28 PM
Ok, if you're actually going to respond, make it SHORT. Two paragraphs, three at the most.

Agree with Kurush that you shouldn't try to do a point-by-point, instead make your response stand on its own.

Don't call names or make personal attacks on the writer or those who share her beliefs. Remember, you're trying to sway people who think like she does--if you make them mad, it's going to be hard to get them on your side.

Ideally you want two very matter-of-fact paragraphs containing lots of supportable facts. Try to get some that aren't stock sound-bites that everyone on both sides has heard before. The tone shouldn't be harshly accusing, but rather that of mild surprise--sort of: "Wow, did you know that there is really a lot of incorrect and misleading information in that editorial?--here's some real data to help you out."

GunGoBoom
July 23, 2005, 06:44 PM
I think what someone *really* needs to do for these last few holdout states like NE, KS, WI, IL, is to compile a comprehensive point-counterpoint for EACH of the 35 or 36 states that have shall-issue carry, with first, a similar doomsday quote - an actual quote from one of the blissninnies published somewhere prior to the enactment in state X, Y, and Z, followed by a succint paragraph that shows how crime fell and doomsday never occured in each state. Making the point 35 times with PRECISELY the kind of dire predictions such as she is spewing would make her look like a complete fool. E.g.

"[doomsday prediction, blood in the streets, blah, blah, blah]" - Police Chief Wiggum, Florida, 1986

Facts: post-87, Crime rate fell, etc, etc.

Then, on and on, times 35!

Boss Spearman
July 23, 2005, 07:30 PM
They should be thinking, who can prevent these types of situations from occuring because the citizens being assaulted aren't allowed to carry arms?

If you enjoyed reading about "All THR members: dismantle this editorial piece by piece" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!