Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

I need help with a letter to the editor of my school paper...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Moparmike, Sep 15, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Moparmike

    Moparmike Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Oddly enough, a downwardly-plunging firey handbask
    Editorial about AWB:
    :barf: :barf: :barf:

    And my letter:
    I need to shrink it down to 300 words. It is currently at 383, and that was after I decided against a few things.

    Any ideas?


    Thanks,
    MIke
     
  2. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,380
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    272 Words:

    ***********************************************
    After reading the editorial about the so-called “Assault Weapons Banâ€, I felt that I must write to dispel the myths and falsehoods presented as facts.

    First, the Assault Weapons Ban has no effect on machine guns, which can fire more than one bullet per trigger squeeze. These firearms have been HIGHLY regulated and almost impossible to get without lots of cash and ATF red tape since 1934.

    Second, criminals do not use semi-automatic firearms purchased in a gun store, where a background check, conducted through the FBI, is performed. They buy guns off the streets where felons are not prosecuted for buying a gun illegally. Yet, legal firearm enthusiasts are blamed and punished.

    Third, AK-47’s have been banned from importation since 1989, through an executive order from President George H.W. Bush.

    Fourth, terrorists have readily accessible fully-automatic assault rifles in their home countries that can be purchased for less than $100, unlike the $500-1200 semi-automatic clones seen in the US. It would be quite easy to smuggle one across the US-Mexico border. Buying one here would be outright stupid.

    Fifth, a search of FBI crime statistics would point out that “assault weapons†were used in less than 2% of crimes before the ban and during the ban.

    Sixth, if the writer of the editorial would have done any research at all, he/she would know that the ban was strictly cosmetic. It banned features such as a bayonet lug. Would anyone care to tell me about the plague of drive-by bayonetings in 1993?

    The AWB was a feel-good law, plain and simple. Anyone who thinks different is deluding themselves and ignoring the facts.
     
  3. BowStreetRunner

    BowStreetRunner Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,185
    Location:
    North Florida
    ::::taking away basic American rights:::::

    indeed:rolleyes:
     
  4. PromptCritical

    PromptCritical Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    382
    Location:
    The State of the Beaver
    I see only one problem with your response. You give to much information. You know too much about the issue. You know too much about guns. Anyone who knows that much about guns is a psychotic gun nut and not worthy of time or respect.
    /sarcasm off

    Other than that, quite good. Do you think they'll print it?
     
  5. Moparmike

    Moparmike Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Oddly enough, a downwardly-plunging firey handbask
    Thanks Vern. BTW, why take out the part about being insulted?

    Yeah, I think they will. If they dont, I can probably raise a big enough stink about it.



    Maybe I will start up a gun club. :D
     
  6. Andrew Rothman

    Andrew Rothman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,669
    Location:
    MN
    Bold: my additions
    tiny: my subtractions

    After reading tThe editorial about the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban†presented many , I felt that I must write to dispel the myths and falsehoods presented as facts.

    First, the Assault Weapons Ban has no effect on machine guns, which can fire more than one bullet per trigger squeeze. These firearms have been HIGHLY regulated and almost impossible to get without lots of cash and ATF red tape since 1934.

    Second, criminals do not use semi-automatic firearms purchased in a gun store, where a background check, conducted through the FBI, is performed. They buy guns off the streets where felons are not prosecuted for buying a gun illegally. Yet, legal firearm enthusiasts are blamed and punished.

    Third, AK-47’s have been banned from importation since 1989, through an executive order from President George H.W. Bush.

    Fourth, terrorists have readily accessible fully-automatic assault rifles in their home countries that can be purchased for less than $100, unlike the $500-1200 semi-automatic clones seen in the US. It would be quite easy to smuggle one across the US-Mexico border. Buying one here would be outright stupid.

    Fifth, a search of FBI crime statistics would point out reveal that “assault weapons†were used in less than 2% two percent of crimes, both before the ban and during the ban.

    Sixth, if the writer of the editorial would have had done any research at all, he/she would know realize that the ban was strictly cosmetic. It banned features such as [/size=1]a[/size] bayonet lugs. Would anyone care to tell me about the Was there a plague of drive-by bayonetings in 1993?

    The AWB was a feel-good law, plain and simple. To believe otherwiseAnyone who thinks different is deluding themselves and ignoring is to ignore the facts.
     
  7. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,380
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Quote:
    ----------------------------------
    BTW, why take out the part about being insulted?
    ----------------------------------

    Because you aren't insulted. You can't be insulted by ignorant people. You're merely saddened at their lack of knowledge and lack of research.:D
     
  8. Moparmike

    Moparmike Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Oddly enough, a downwardly-plunging firey handbask
    I do feel insulted, they are supposed to represent an institution of education...

    Thanks for all the suggestions!

    Last edit:
    Any last-minute ideas before I send it off?
     
  9. Andrew Rothman

    Andrew Rothman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,669
    Location:
    MN
    Your grammar is off in "...if the writer of the editorial would have done any research at all..."

    A correction would have is been already suggested. :D

    There is no apostrophe in AK-47's.

    Then it's good to go.
     
  10. Moparmike

    Moparmike Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Oddly enough, a downwardly-plunging firey handbask
    That be da ways I's talks. :D


    Done and done.
     
  11. MAURICE

    MAURICE Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    618
    Location:
    Lincoln, AR
    Count me in!!!
    In all seriousness, Im not attending school at the moment, but will be re-enrolling in January. If you want to start a club at UofA let me know. I am interested. :D

    Good luck on the letter as well. Let us know what happens.

    Robert
     
  12. gaston_45

    gaston_45 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    187
    Location:
    Oregon
    Seventh, I take exception with the insinuation that a firearm enthusiast is a “militant killer.†Owning guns no more makes one a killer than owning computers makes one a hacker.

    You cannot take insult, it can only be given by the other person. You can, however, take exception with an action, or you could be insulted by the insinuation, that would work also.
     
  13. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    I’m probably getting into this too late, but anyway ….

    Most people who are not gun owners, and are concerned because of the media hype, will not be interested in your arguments, even though you are right. I would change directions a bit and point out the following …

    The “anti’s†position is that what they like to call “ordinary citizens†have no business owning “rapid fire, military style assault weapons that are only good for killing people.†They are using this highly emotional approach to scare people into believing what they want them too.

    First I would (like you did) point out that the guns in questions are not machine guns. They only fire one cartridge with each pull of the trigger.

    Second, the AWB was not a real ban. It only prohibited a few specific models and certain cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs (what criminal is concerned with this?) and flash hiders (which again are of no consequence). In addition the ban didn’t touch the literally millions of guns that were made before 1994.

    During the past decade manufacturers and importers added approximately three million guns to the total (exact numbers are hard to come by because the term “assault weapon†is not well defined.) In addition large capacity magazine made before 1994 remained legal and available, but usually at higher prices. Bottom line: The number of guns of this kind did not go down, they increased by substantial numbers.

    So who was buying (or otherwise) obtaining them? Criminals and terrorists? Not really. No, they were being purchased by individuals who were interested in shooting them at targets or simply as collector’s items. Others bought them for personal protection – especially in remote rural areas where law enforcement response to a 911 call might be measured in hours rather then minutes. If you think this is a phony argument ask the ranchers and others that live in isolated places along the U.S./Mexican border.

    But the main point of my argument is that while the number of these guns was going up, government statistics show that they’re use by criminals decreased. The anti’s have trumped the drop in criminal use (which never exceeded 2% of the total of guns used by criminals anyway) while ignoring the fact that the availability of such firearms was actually increasing. Obviously if the ban was really impinging on criminals it would be necessary for the ban to decrease the available supply – which it didn’t.

    All of this is much too long for your purposes, but it may give you another perspective you can use. But push the point that the number of these guns was substantial in the first place, that during the past ten years when the ban(?) was in effect the total number of guns increased, while criminal use decreased, and that more then 98% of the guns are owned by law-abiding gun hobbyists, not criminals and terrorists.

    Would we ban automobiles because a small percentage might be used by criminals or those who would drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
     
  14. Darkmind

    Darkmind Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    922
    Location:
    Grand Rapids MI
    Please keep us updated on the outcome of this letter. I would really like to see what happens.
     
  15. rageman

    rageman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    miami
    This is kind of OT from the original poster's request, but I thought I would share with all of you that I got a reply printed in my school's paper for an editorial they printed on Tuesday. (School is Univ. Of Illinois Urbana Champaign, a far more restrictive place than my homestate of Florida. :()

    Editorial:
    And my response:
    Unfortunately I was the only response printed today.. usually if an article pisses people off there might be as many as 4-5 responses printed per day for an entire week.
     
  16. Moparmike

    Moparmike Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Oddly enough, a downwardly-plunging firey handbask
    Thanks all. I had originally planned to use a car analagy, like "Today's super fast cars are death machines. I think we should ban all wheels above 16" in diameter and ban high-flow exhausts and K&N air filters. It would make about as much sense."



    I got a call today from the editor for confirmation of my letter to print. They want to make sure its me and not someone else sending letters under my name. Should be in tomorrow's paper. I will let you know if there are any other letters about the AWB and responses I get to it. It will probably be Wednesday for the responses.
     
  17. Moparmike

    Moparmike Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Oddly enough, a downwardly-plunging firey handbask
    Good news everyone!
    [​IMG]


    I was but the first with a letter reguarding just how bad the editorial was. My letter and another published on Friday, another 2 on Monday, and 4 today. The "LttE" section were nothing but AWB letters on Friday and today, Wednesday. And they have ALL been pro-sunset! w00t! I can't believe it!

    *jumps, clicks heels*:D
     
  18. MAURICE

    MAURICE Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    618
    Location:
    Lincoln, AR
    Hey Mike,
    Are there any spare copies of the paper laying around? I would love to get my hands on one.
    Robert

    BTW: Love the Futurama reference. Watch that and Family Guy religiously.
     
  19. Moparmike

    Moparmike Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Oddly enough, a downwardly-plunging firey handbask
    Just today's. Unfortunately, they dont put the LttE on the Traveler's website anymore. :(
     
  20. Greg L

    Greg L Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,381
    Location:
    Northern KY
    (coming to this late - congrats on the letter btw ;) )

    Thankfully there were many revisions suggested so I got to read the letter again and again and again. You see, I read
    as "mutant killer" & was having a hard time wrapping my mind around that one :rolleyes: :D .

    Greg
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page