Extreme Overkill: anti-gun editorial in my local paper...

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

h0ss

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
247
Location
Vermont
Not rabidly anti-gun, but it struck a nerve with me. Im seriously considering sending in a response to this, but i have never done this sort of thing before, and was wondering what you guys have to say about this. Plus i live in a small town and this may sound silly, but i dont really want to sound stupid or "out there" since my name will be shown with my editorial if it gets printed. :eek: I am also not wanting to get into a personal, back and forth debate with this guy, i just dont want this ignorance/bias to go unchecked.

I was wondering if you guys could tear this guys logic and "arguments" apart like THR is so good at :D Maybe give me some ideas for a rebuttal and boost my confidence. This person doesn't seem to write very often in the editorial (i searched his name) because it looks like the last time he was in the paper was August of 2006.

That kind of bugs me because it just seemed like a rant that he wrote because he was bored one day and now its been read by hundreds if not thousands of people in my town. Just what southern Vermont needs... There really isnt a lot of talk about gun control around here really, so i almost wonder if i should not write a response and hope it will fade away. Because after all, if its not on people's minds, why bring it up and risk our second amendment rights being attacked by the new transplants? But i know people have read it and if i dont, it gets left unchecked.

I've looked on the nraila website and they have tips on writing letters to the editor and what-not. It seems like a good start, but i would like some tips and encouragement from fellow THR members.

Oh, and i know this kind of borders on activism, so mods i understand if it gets moved, but i kind of just wanted to post it and see responses and talk about it too. Besides, the General forum gets a bit more traffic i think.

Anyway, here it is:

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/search/ci_9128719?IADID=Search-www.benningtonbanner.com-www.benningtonbanner.com


Extreme overkill
Columnists,
Article Launched: 05/02/2008 03:12:49 AM EDT



Friday, May 2

Charles Putney

Parson Weems is famous for the unverified story about the young George Washington. When asked if he had cut down a cherry tree, he admitted that he had.

The story reminds me of my early days in the Boy Scouts. I had a new short-handled ax. Like anyone with a new "toy" (not really a toy, but bear with me) I had to use it. It was mid-winter and I knew I should not cut down a living tree. I found something that I convinced myself was dead and cut it down. It was not dead, I learned from my scoutmaster. Serious demerits.

When people buy or are given something new — a color printer, scanner, cell phone, food processor — they want to use it. People buy fast cars, motorcycles and boats so they can go fast. Cyclists buy good touring bikes so they can take long bike trips.

Knowing this made me wonder, this past Saturday morning, how anyone would "use" the kind of gun I used to see on "The Untouchables." There it was in an ad in the newspaper: a weapon that looked a lot like a submachine gun with a circular holder for 50 rounds of ammunition. It is not, I would imagine, well set up for deer, or even moose hunting. What kind of animal needs to be peppered with 50 rounds of ammo in order to stop it?
Yes, we can buy something that is akin to a Thompson submachine gun in Bennington. You can also get it on the Web, where an online dealer labels it as a "Roaring Twenties Gangster Model with permanently attached 50-round drum magazine. Nicknamed the Chicago Typewriter."

What possible non-criminal use is there for something like that?

There are, of course, a variety of options to the Tommy Gun. There are assault weapons that get used in wars, terrorist acts and shootings at schools and universities. There's even the efficient model with a cartridge for 15 bullets and a stock that folds up. I guess that would fit conveniently under a raincoat.

The effect of these weapons can also be increased through the use of hollow-point bullets — labeled as "extreme terminal performance" in Saturday's ad. Other people call them dum-dum bullets because they deform and sometimes break into fragments on impact. That is, they're designed to shred the interior organs of the target and cause massive blood loss, therefore guaranteeing death.

Now, before anyone gets the wrong idea: I know Vermont has a lot of gun owners. Most of these gun owners are hunters who take safety courses, treat their weapons seriously and lock them up when not in use. Given the number of guns in Vermont, it is a reflection of our state that the gun violence rate is very low. Nonetheless, hunters don't need Tommy Guns.

Some who want to interpret the Second Amendment as permitting all gun ownership say, "guns don't kill people; people kill people." That's true, but it's a lot easier to kill a whole bunch of people all at once with a Tommy Gun than with a deer rifle. A recent court case relates to someone who allegedly threatened a woman as part of a domestic violence incident. He had one weapon with him and many more weapons at home.

All I know is people want to be able to use their "toys."

I hope no one buys the submachine gun advertised last Saturday.

Charles R. Putney is a consultant with non-profit organizations. He lives in Bennington.
Click to expand...
 
So I've been doing it wrong all these years? When I get a new gun, I should want to go on a murderous rampage, not to the range to punch holes in paper? Thank you, Charles Putney, for showing me the light.
 
I think i have read about Charles Whitman before. That is a good reference.

From the very start of the editorial, "When people buy or are given something new — a color printer, scanner, cell phone, food processor — they want to use it." to the end "I hope no one buys the submachine gun advertised last Saturday.", it seems as though he is implying that buying one of these guns or a similar high capacity firearm will make people want to use it to hurt or kill other people. I hope he doesn't sincerely think that there is nobody in this town who owns a tommy gun. Or an ak. Or an AR-15, etc...
 
I would find the ad he's discussing and verify whether it's an actual SMG or the long barreled semi-auto version commonly sold on the market. I would then point out that the fact that we don't hear about that particular gun being used in a violent crime is because it's simply not an occurance that warrants close scrutiny. I've never heard of anyone using the long-barrelled Tommy in a crime, and would challenge someone to put forth a verified report.

What you're going to have to school the guy, and the readers on, is the fact that these guns (The Tommy, the AK and ARs, etc) are no different than any other semi-auto rifle. They are no more dangerous, not insidious. Ownership of one is no more proof of intention to mass-murder innocents than owning a butcher's cleaver. Many people that have a cleaver hardly use it. Or how about people that decide to buy a big vehicle instead of a small one. A big SUV can mow down a lot of people in a crowd. Maybe those people want to be murderers.

What the guy is looking for is a justification to restrict ownership on an item based on the belief that it is not useful or more capable of harm than another item not-so-different. Your approach shouldn't be to prove that a Tommy is useful. It should be to explain the difference between the actual full-auto Thompsons and the one he saw in the paper (which would likely make a nice HD gun, IMO).
You should probably base most of your opinion on the concern that he was asking that the government tell us what we can own based on flawed information and "feeling". The guy clearly links gun ownership and the 2A to hunting. If the gun isn't useful for hunting (or even SD) then why is it sold? Why do people buy commemorative plates, or beeny babies, or fancy knives, or luxury cars? Because we can. Some people like the novelty of an item.
I buy mil-surp rifles not because I hunt, and they're not all that great for precision shooting, but because I want to, and there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to. Does that make me a murderer in waiting because I own guns I'll likely never hunt with?

Remember to keep your article on topic, focused on a few central points, and to keep it short enough that people don't get tired of reading it. Also stick to facts, because that usually sways better than feelings.
 
Quote:
Charles R. Putney is a consultant with non-profit organizations.

BTW, this says a good deal. Any bets on which ones?
Click to expand...

Yeah, i thought the same thing when i first read that.

BTW, thanks. You are right that i should not try to point out the usefulness of a tommy gun. Thats probably what i would have done had i just written an instant response.
 
It's always interesting to hear what is needed by a person who has no clue as to what firearms are all used for (other than killing, in his mind I'm sure).

So a person who buys a car that goes faster than the speed limit is automatically going to break the law with it ?? That's seems to be his logic . I wonder what he drives, and how fast it will go, and wether he always has to drive it with his foot to the floor ? Just like he had to chop down the tree with his little axe ! :rolleyes:
 
First off, I apologize for any overlap between this response and others that have been posted in the meantime. It took me a little bit of time. It's good of you to take up the issue in the first place and I don't think you should be ashamed of your beliefs. Then again, if you're preaching, THR is the choir. Given that his full name is posted, you may want to write a response to him, and not to the paper. While I think there are excellent responses to a lot of his claims (hollow-points guarantee kills, school shooters using assault weapons), I would focus on two elements.

The first issue is his claim that there are no legal uses for such weapons. Personally, I believe in the militia but that argument can get construed as black-helicopter paranoia. I would avoid it for the sake of the letter. I would focus on collecting, target shooting, and home defense. I don't have access to the ad in question but firearms have tremendous historical value. It's also fun (and legal) to shoot targets, watermelons, cans, and other inanimate objects. Submachine guns were used by the military for a reason, just as short-barrel shotguns were. They fire lower-penetration pistol cartridges and are small and manuverable. These are advantageous characteristics in a home defense situation, another totally legal use.

Secondly, Mr. Putney focuses on the use of hollow-point ammunition as a sign that the only uses of firearms are criminal. Hollow-points do an excellent job of stopping a threat or an animal in their legal uses. According to the 1995 ATF report, there were 223,000,000 guns in private hands. Not many of the "toys" that are begging to get used are getting used in crimes. More importantly, there are more DGUs per year than violent crimes.

This is all just opinion of course but I would point out a few other things as well. First off, the two deadliest school shootings in US history were committed with handguns (VT) and a deer rifle (TX). Secondly, the author didn't use his "toy" axe to attack the neighbor's cat or kill someone. The axe was a tool that he used inappropriately. Guns are tools with many uses, including self-defense and recreational shooting. They are protected by the Constitution with respect to the militia, not hunting, and any restriction on them out of concern for the public safety is historically unjustified and legally untenable.

I hope this hasn't been just a counter-rant, because that would make his logic seem stronger than it is. I don't have much experience writing letters to the editor either but hopefully this will help show what works and what doesn't. You're right to stay impersonal and factual, because you can debunk this point by point. The very last thing I would do, and this is up to you, is offer to take him shooting, to give him a look at what legal uses of guns exist. Best of luck to you.
 
Ninja.of.Love: Thanks for the reply. Lots of good ideas and info. I also toyed with the idea of just sending him a personal letter. And if it came down to it, i would have no problem taking him shooting, except that the places i shoot at aren't exactly "ranges". One of them has a lot of junk laying around that people shot at and left. So i wouldn't want him to get the wrong idea of all gun owners. And the only other range around is private and you need to fill out an application and get voted in by the members as well as an $80 yearly fee. So you can see why i just shoot at the other 'free' places.
 
I think the term that we are looking for here is "transference."

Our writer KNOWS that someone would go on a murderous rampage with it, because that is the first thought that went through his mind.

The first thought that went through my mind was "bowling pins! cool!"

Contact a member at the private club, and ask for an invite for you and the writer.

Also, $80 is CHEAP for a private club. I pay $200 a year, and last year we had a $200 assessment. I have also, on occasion, loaned the club money for short-term projects (and always been repaid, sans interest).

Let me think on the letter... I'm not feeling too charitable, after I discovered today that approximately 40% of THR members -gleefully- support anti-gun folks' efforts...
 
Let me think on the letter... I'm not feeling too charitable, after I discovered today that approximately 40% of THR members -gleefully- support anti-gun folks' efforts...
Click to expand...

I must have missed that one, what thread is it?
 
Also, $80 is CHEAP for a private club. I pay $200 a year, and last year we had a $200 assessment. I have also, on occasion, loaned the club money for short-term projects (and always been repaid, sans interest).
Click to expand...

Yeah, its only $80, but $80 i dont have right now.

Let me think on the letter... I'm not feeling too charitable, after I discovered today that approximately 40% of THR members -gleefully- support anti-gun folks' efforts...
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
It's worth pointing out that almost all police use hollow point ammunition. If it's standard issue for the police, then it should reasonably follow that it is well suited for self defense.

It's also worth refuting Mr. Putney's conception that the only legitimate use of firearms is hunting: "hunters don't need Tommy Guns." :rolleyes: Of course they don't, but that's not the point. I agree with other posters that it's not worth pushing the militia argument, but self defense, home defense, and defense of the community are all worthy causes.
 
Well, thinking further about this... yes i could invite him shooting. Yes i could send him a private letter. But then i got to thinking, why? Although i am not against that in any way, its not the point. Im not trying to convert an anti, i am trying to undo some of the damage he may have done mentally on many of the readers. I could try and beg and persuade him to come shooting with me, or i could give people less emotion driven information and let them think for themselves.

Because i am sure that after reading that, there are many people who are thinking "yeah! why do we need those guns around? like he said, you cant hunt with them. They're only made for killing!"

I cant let myself get off of my orignial intent. I could care less about converting an anti that i have never met in real life when there are plenty around me in every day life including some family members.
 
Maybe we can think about a short letter to the editor... We can push the "transference" bit, and maybe suggest that the previous writer should maybe get himself a checkup from the neck up for harboring those kinda thoughts...
 
What the guy is looking for is a justification to restrict ownership on an item based on the belief that it is not useful or more capable of harm than another item not-so-different. Your approach shouldn't be to prove that a Tommy is useful. It should be to explain the difference between the actual full-auto Thompsons and the one he saw in the paper (which would likely make a nice HD gun, IMO).
Click to expand...

From the anti-gun people I know, and from looking back on my past anti-gun beliefs. People like this aren't trying to ban guns because of their belief that such weapons aren't useful for whatever purposes they deem acceptable. They're just afraid of guns. Some fear them on an almost phobic level and remain narrowly focused: guns have the ability to kill, guns are bad. (SheDances syndrome, for those of you that read the Helmke blog) Most people turn their fear outward: guns have the ability to kill: image what would happen if X got a hold of them and went to public place Y. (Its for the children syndrome) The SheDances types, when debating, tend to cite the fears of the for the children people. The for the children people, when debating, to inject reason into their arguments, the king of which we saw in the original post. The supposed uselessness of the guns for legal purposes, as well as their supposed lethal potential aren't their motivations for the ban. Their particular brand of fear is. The other reason he lists are merely justifications of his fears for use in public discourse.


Your approach shouldn't be to prove that a Tommy is useful. It should be to explain the difference between the actual full-auto Thompsons and the one he saw in the paper (which would likely make a nice HD gun, IMO).
Click to expand...

I agree with you that trying to prove to him a tommy is useful is not the way to go. What is the tommy good for? Home defense, fun on a target range, etc. This will do no good, becuase his response will be "Why don't you get another gun to do X"

I also think that trying to explain technical differences to him would not be effectual, either. Its a trap a lot of we gun people fall into. A good example of this is a typical "fully automatic assault weapon" debate. Whenever a news article comes up with that phrase, gun people start talking about "an assault rifle is defined as a select fire rifle firing an intermediate cardtridge" then follow up with a lengthy primer on the NFA and teh 86 ban, etc. etc. If gun classification and terminology classes were offered in public schools so everyone knew all those little nuances, it still wouldn't do any good. They don't like military style guns with large-capacity mags not becuase they mistakenly think that its an assault rifle. They know what it is and the hate it. Giving the thing they hate a new word won't change anything. It may make things worse, because in these discussions, the pro-gun side usually ends up implying that full-auto is bad in an effort to clear up the technical definition of whatever gun was in the news. I don't think the person in the article will be swayed by the fact that its most likely a new tommy that fires one shot at a time. He hates it because it has too many bullets in it. Quoting statistics at him that show guns like that are hardly ever used criminally won't work either. Keep in mind, his fears are rooted in what could be done with that gun, not what has been done with the gun in the past.

I say ignore the gun completely. You have to go after his fear if you want to be effective. Ask him what makes them so bad. Let him know the people buying these guns either collect them or use them as range toys (phrase that better) Keep up questions like that, and eventually you'll get to the fallacy that holds their entire argument together: these weapons are designed to kill en masse that's the only purpore they can perform, the people that buy them must have fantasies of such situations or be crazy, etc. Once this chink in their armor is exposed, further questioning will make their arguments sound increasily irrational. Ask them if they think an inanimate object like that would affect them way a person behaves. Of course, his answer will be yes, and they'll start to make an ass of themselves. They'll justify their answer with the usual logic - something along the lines of 'you'll always be tempted to use it' etc. etc., i'm sure you've heard them all. Ask him if you put a gun in his care for a month, if he could manage to resist the tempation to use it inappropriately. From there, and with a little skillful wordcraft, he'll either have to deny that guns affect the way you think (a major tenet of his fear and belief system) or that he couldn't store a gun safely because of the urge to use it, which makes him sound crazy, and calling into question his previous statements by anyone else in the conversation. Of course, there's third response: pure arrogance where he claims he wouldn' thave the same desires the use the gun as other gun owners, becuase he loves peace, doesn't love guns, etc. This also will expose him as an elitist ass. You don't have to win a debate, just make the other guy look bad. If you want to debate the "i won't have the urge thing", well, this is getting long, and Its getting late. I'm sure you can figure it out on your own. In conclusion, though, the best part of a debate focused on their fear stears the pro-gun debater away from arguments that hurt us overall (like the assault weapon machine gun thing i mentioned before)


PS: This post ran longer than I expected. I took my sleeping pill and got on THR while I wiated for it to take affect, and it appears to have taken affect some time while I was typing. If i've got grammer errors, non-sequitar logic, etc. That's the reason. If I scwered something up really bad, please don't come down too hard on me for it. I'll re-read the post in the morning and see if it needs a total we-write.
 
Well, although i would love to tear him apart personally about his ignorance regarding firearms, i think the best approach (IMHO) would be more along the lines of not being directed personally, because i want to display facts and common sense that is not easily disputed.

Im liking the bit about showing how a tommy gun is no more dangerous than your average hunting rifle considering it shoots pistol caliber rounds. Yes it may hold a lot more than 5 rounds, but why is that bad? Thats what i need to be able to argue. Why is a high capacity gun no more evil than a hunting rifle?

And he is right, when people get something new, they usually want to use it. But only psycho's immediately would want to use a gun on other people. The thing is, there are a lot of very sane gun owners out there. To say that buying a tommy gun would make me want to start spraying bullets at anyone and everyone is absurd.
 
The Wiry Irishman: I posted my last post after yours and just now read it. That is a very good idea about questioning him until it puts him between a rock and a hard place. However, that would make for one long, drawn out battle if we were to debate back and forth through the newspaper editorial section. But, that would be the best place for it to happen :)

Yeah, its getting late and i can't quite think straight myself. I feel like i cant make sense of what im trying to say in my posts and i am having trouble focusing. Thanks for all the replies, guys. I really appreciate it.
 
I think the ad that scared this guy so much may have been for a toy.

The Roaring Twenties gangster model with permanently attached 50 round drum magazine. Nicknamed 'The Chicago Typewriter'. This is a non-functioning model molded of solid resin with no moving parts. A perfect prop for a Gangster costume. Weighs a hefty 9.8 lbs. Length 35 inches.
PRICE $288.00
Click to expand...

http://www.retrocollection.com/pages/36ca700.htm
 
Ah ha. Hahaha. Hahahahaha.

Someone should really let him know he's a moron.

Well, to be fair, it is possible the newspaper ad he mentions is from a gun dealer actually selling a real firearm.

Also, some of the stuff he says is just stupid (the term dum-dum came from the city in India where a factory first started making jacketed soft-point bullets, not because the term dum-dum somehow has something to do with what the bullets do when you shoot someone with them). Also, I want to know where I can get a "cartridge for 15 bullets."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Editorial in the paper
Replies
17
Views
840
misterwhipple
M
B
  • Locked
Anybody see anti-gun USA Today editorial?
Replies
24
Views
1K
TCB in TN
T
F
  • Locked
Nice article in my local paper...
Replies
0
Views
359
Finch
F
A
  • Locked
An opinion I got published in the local paper
Replies
5
Views
516
ZeBool
Z
G
  • Locked
Denver Post Editorial
Replies
18
Views
983
frogomatic
F
Back
Top