A Letter to the Editor

Status
Not open for further replies.
P5 Guy

P5 Guy

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
4,090
Location
Tampa Bay area
Moms Demand Action, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and on and ad nauseam. With the billionaire supporters like Bloomberg and Soros and the cadre of hollywood celebrities all on board to disarm the American people, the people who do not and should never give up their firearms. "You have to invest in life" says Joe 'just buy a shotgun' Biden.
We the people are investing in life and LIBERTY!
We all abhor violence no matter what the tool that is used to commit the mayhem why focus on just firearms?
The Bath School disaster perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan, killed 38 elementary school children and six adults in total, and injured at least 58 other people. Kehoe first killed his wife, fire-bombed his farm and set off a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.
Forty four killed and fifty eight injured without a shot being fired. All the gun control restrictions in the world would have had no effect on this violent episode.
The world is a dangerous place and restricting firearms only increases that danger. 'Gun Free Zones' do not work and never will. And Bath School disaster is proof that evil intent will find a way.
Taking the firearms, restricting their sales, limiting the ammunition capacity, and outlawing certain styles of firearms the law abiding can have will never stop insane people from murdering should they so intend.
If those billionaires were concerned at all about violence they sure are going after it the wrong way. Invest your cash in making schools safer, finding a way to keep the insane from the law abiding populace would be a place to start, or do you have another agenda in mind?


Any criticism would be appreciated before I post this on the local paper's web sight. Thanks for looking my intention is to go on Sunday the 15th of December.
 
Moms Demand Action, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, aligned with their millionaire supporters like Bloomberg, Soros, and the cadre of Hollywood celebrities are all on board to disarm the American people who do not and should never give up their firearms.

"You have to invest in life," says Joe 'just buy a shotgun' Biden. We the People are investing in life and LIBERTY!

We all abhor violence no matter what tool is used to commit the mayhem. Why center the focus on just firearms? The Bath School disaster perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan, killed 38 elementary school children and six adults in total, and injured at least 58 other people. Kehoe first killed his wife, fire-bombed his farm and set off a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.
Forty four killed and fifty eight injured without a shot being fired. All the gun control restrictions in the world would have had no effect on this violent episode.

The world is a dangerous place and restricting firearms only increases that danger for decent, law abiding citizens. 'Gun Free Zones' do not work and never will. The Bath School disaster is proof that evil intent will find a way regardless of the legal "roadblocks" it may encounter. Taking away firearms, restricting their sale, limiting their ammunition capacity, and dictating which styles of firearms should be available to the law abiding citizenry will never stop the insane from murdering should they so intend. Furthermore, if those billionaires are concerned at all about violence they sure are going about it the wrong way. They should instead invest their cash in making our schools safer. Finding a way to keep the insane segregated from the law abiding populace would be a place to start. Or is it that they have an agenda other than our safety in mind?
Click to expand...

^^I did a little summary cleanup while trying my best not to change what you are trying to convey. The Bath School tragedy is an excellent example to use, I've used it numerous times myself. Something else you may want to read up on and mention is the Pearl High School shooting, in which an assistant principal used a privately-owned firearm to thwart the continuance of a school shooting. Personally I believe that simply sticking to your argument without delving into the roles played by the rich and famous would make for a more appealing article. Remember, the folks you're trying to reach via newspaper are likely not as researched on the topic as you are and as such may not be privy to names, celebrities and rich people or the roles they may play in the topic; or worse, may have favorable views of such individuals and will only be able to focus on that aspect of your article rather than on your pro-2A argument. I'm sure other members will have more suggestions concerning semantics, wording and reasoning.

It's funny you should post this, I've been thinking about writing a letter to the editor of my own newspaper. I'm getting tired of reading the anti-gun op-eds the editor posts. Good on you for taking the time to write the editor and caring enough to be open for for critique! The 2A movement needs more folks like yourself.
 
While the Bath School attack is relevant it is a bit dated and it is important to point out that the rate of murder in the U.S. continues to drop even with highly publicized shootings while the rate of firearms ownership and issue of carry permits has gone up. The rate of one can't fall while the rate of the others rise if firearms harm society.
 
For those of us who are strongly supportive of the 2nd Ammendment, we should argue the facts, not as we see them, but the actual statistics, and then explain by example that the opposition's methods of decreasing violence by restricting legal gun ownership simply do not work. There are enough legitimate statistics out there to make the argument. While citing examples of other methods of mass murder is interesting in a historical sense, it is not a strong argument for not changing the gun laws.
 
I like the rewrite. Need more positive stats.

Didn't the clown with the shotgun on Friday in CO just off himself when the armed guard came in the library (good guy with a gun)

Read this site daily: http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/#

ALSO IN ANOTHER THREAD:

Originally Posted by Dr 2 B:
During the 1960's and 1970's, unless I'm mistaken, some police forces issued that rifle (M1 Carbine) in part because it didn't appear as foreboding as certain others. That was back during the days when the GOVERNMENT had to be concerned about appearing militaristic... not the people.
Click to expand...

This could be a GREAT point to make properly. Done well you can box the anti's in their own (loose) logic.
 
Thanks to all. I like the clean up and I'm likely going to use most of it.
I'm taking the year anniversary of Sandy Hook and the CO school shooting. Finding out now that he had a backpack loaded with firebombs brings this closer together.
 
I agree with HSO, SC Shooter, and OilyPablo. Good start but maybe include some stats in the discussion. Here are a few ideas in no particular order:

I do think it is a good idea to point out that mass murder can be committed without guns, such as your example of the Bath School Disaster (9/11 is also an example for that matter). The example of the Pearl High School shooting is good too since it shows how an armed person can stop a school shooting in progress ( he may have been able to stop it sooner if he didn't have to run out to his car to get the gun). Here is a good article about this subject by Dave Kopel: http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm

Dave Kopel also wrote a great article about gun free zones and how deadly they are: http://uconn.lawreviewnetwork.com/files/documents/Kopel.pdf This was published in the Connecticut Law Review and, sadly, his findings were proven once again in Newtown, Connecticut.


If you don't mind a little research, the FBI's crime stats break down crimes by type, by weapons used, and even by state. You could even look at the before and after gun crime stats in various states who have passed CHL laws - most went down significantly after the laws went into effect (Also, recent studies have shown that CHL holders are less likely to commit crimes than the general population).

This thread has some good national stats going back into the 1960s:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=703633

But, ultimately, most murders committed in the past 100 years world-wide have been by governments against their own disarmed people: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Sadam Hussein, Hitler, etc. Gun control worked for them...
 
Last edited:
I think using an example from 1927 is a pretty bad idea.

Laws around the tool used (explosives) have been changed since 1927, making this type of thing more difficult. Replicating the Bath attacks today would be INCREDIBLY difficult BECAUSE of laws. That is a poor argument for saying that we should NOT pass laws around guns, given that it seems to have been successful in regards to explosives. If it worked for dynamite, why would it not work for guns?

"All the gun control restrictions in the world would have had no effect on this violent episode."

True, but try and go out and buy the one ton+ of explosives he used today. You can't, because the laws around EXPLOSIVES have changed to prevent things like this. Now people are using guns, why won't changing the laws around GUNS prevent things like this?

Also, if your argument is:

"Back in 1927 someone ONCE had a more deadly school attack than all the recent ones with guns!"

The easy reply is:

"Ok, in the last 20 years we have had Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, etc. Why are you bringing up something that hasn't happened in 90 years when people are getting SHOT today with guns?"

Truth is that yes, if properly used explosives CAN be more deadly than guns. Reality is, explosives are more difficult to obtain and deploy and they simply DON'T get used as much as guns for any type of homicides, school shooting or otherwise. Thugs don't try to rob convenience stores with sticks of dynamite, they use guns. Rapists don't threaten their victims with a stick of dynamite, they use a gun. Mass killers may TRY to use explosives (Columbine), but they SUCCEED in killing with the guns.
 
From a strictly rhetorical standpoint, this whole sentence is pretty bad as a closing:

"If those billionaires were concerned at all about violence they sure are going after it the wrong way. Invest your cash in making schools safer, finding a way to keep the insane from the law abiding populace would be a place to start, or do you have another agenda in mind?"

What is your goal?

Are you making a call to action to billionaires?

The billionaires aren't reading your letter to the editor.

Are you trying to convince people that they should change THEIR minds about gun control?

I am guessing this is your goal. If so, make your closing relate to those people, not complain about billionaires lobbying techniques.


Also, cryptic closings like "do you have another agenda in mind?" are generally poor at convincing people of your position. If you want them to know what you think, tell them what you think. Don't ask questions that have no answer and just leave people asking "what is he talking about?" State your message, be clear and precise, don't try an insinuate somethign you aren't willing to state.
 
Maybe using some other bombings? Like OKC, Boston Marathon. The point I was after was that firearms are no essential tools for mayhem.
Yes instead of those billionaires campaigning for more legislation to restrict firearms possibly their resources would do a better job if they went to a cure for the greater problem violence in general. Many tools can and are used to cause mayhem why not try to stop the mayhem instead of trying to take away one of the many tools?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Deadliest school mass murder happened in 1927 not last week
Replies
9
Views
982
joab
J
Skribs
  • Locked
Help me with this letter to gvt
Replies
0
Views
346
Skribs
Skribs
T
  • Locked
4 myths of gun control
Replies
2
Views
581
telomerase
T
Hypnogator
  • Locked
My Ltr To The Editor
Replies
2
Views
550
MDMadrid
M
D
  • Locked
PRESS RELEASE: U.S. Representative Massie Proposes Repeal of Federal Gun Free School
Replies
2
Views
385
Ryanxia
Ryanxia
Back
Top