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

Please critique my article!

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Monkeyleg, Sep 15, 2003.

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

    Monkeyleg Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,058
    Location:
    Decatur, AL
    Last year I begged the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to publish a rebuttal to their anti-CCW editorial. I'd asked for just 650 words, and they turned me down.

    Now they've called me and asked if I would write a 1200-word article on concealed carry for the Sunday editorial section. Of course, they're going to have an article by the anti's as well.

    The article right now is 988 words. Anything else I can think of just becomes redundant.

    So, critiques, please?

    ***********

    In October of 2002, a 42 year-old woman was dragged into an alley on Milwaukee's north side by five thugs. There, for 45 horrible minutes, she was repeatedly raped and beaten by her assailants. They made a bonfire of her clothing. Neighbors heard her screams and called the police, who scoured the area. Finally, but too late to save the woman, one officer saw the flames from her clothing.

    Against her will, this woman became one of the 1,100 women who are raped in Wisconsin every year. She will bear the same emotional scars that more than 6,800 victims of assaults in our state have to suffer with each year, the same scars as the 4,500 victims of robbery, the same scars suffered by the more than 12,000 Wisconsinites who are victims of other types of violent crimes every year.

    Had she been able to defend herself, she wouldn't have been attacked at all. But she was unable to defend herself because Wisconsin only allows law enforcement officers to carry weapons for self-defense.

    Those who oppose legalizing concealed carry argue that we don't need a concealed carry system because Wisconsin already has a relatively low crime rate. In essence, these opponents are saying that the numbers of rapes, assaults, robberies and violent crimes cited above constitute an acceptable level of criminal violence. But, really, what should an acceptable level of criminal violence be? Logic would dictate that the only acceptable level is zero; any number higher than zero is purely arbitrary.

    Forty-five states have now recognized that arbitrary levels of criminal violence are unacceptable, and have restored the right of self-defense to their citizens. Just ten days ago, Missouri became the 45th state to pass a concealed carry law, after the legislature overrode Governor Holden's veto of a bill similar to that proposed for Wisconsin. In June, Minnesota passed a concealed carry law nearly identical to the one proposed for Wisconsin, just as Michigan did in 2001.

    In every state where legalized concealed carry has been proposed, opponents have predicted apocalyptic consequences, and have advanced the same arguments almost verbatim. Will their predictions of "blood in the streets" come true in Missouri, Minnesota, or Wisconsin? Will there be, as they argue, "shootouts at every stoplight?"

    No.

    Consider that, from October 1987 to October 2002, Florida issued 828,608 concealed carry permits. During that period only 1,542 permits were revoked for convictions for any offense more serious than a traffic ticket. The majority of those convictions were for offenses unrelated to firearms. Moreover, as of 1996, Florida reported that only five permit revocations were the result of a conviction for a violent crime. Data available from other concealed carry states show similarly miniscule permit revocation rates. Clearly, those citizens who take the time to undergo training, background checks and who are willing to go through the process of applying for permits are overwhelmingly law-abiding.

    Opponents argue that armed citizens have no effect on crime. They argue that a citizen with a gun doesn't have sufficient training to thwart a criminal attack. Incredibly, they claim that a criminal will just take the gun away from the citizen, a suggestion that is countered by data from the FBI, not to mention pure common sense: any criminal who would try to grab a loaded gun from a citizen whose finger is on the trigger is a candidate for the Darwin Awards.

    The US Department of Justice estimates that approximately 500,000 citizens successfully defend themselves with firearms against criminal attack every year. This indicates a one-to-one ratio of citizen vs. criminal uses of firearms. An ongoing study by the criminology department at Florida State University indicates that the number of defensive uses of firearms could be as high as 2.5 million annually, or a five-to-one ratio. The study reports that 86% of the time, no shots are fired; merely threatening a criminal with a firearm is a sufficient deterrent.

    The FBI reports that, for the most recently analyzed year, 215 criminals were killed by armed citizens, including concealed carry permit holders. The above data shows that, not only are citizens capable of defending themselves with firearms, but that they do so with remarkable restraint. Permit holders are not the "shoot-'em-up cowboy" types that opponents portray.

    Currently under Wisconsin law, the only weapon available to citizens for self defense is pepper spray, which is nothing more than an aerosol form of a Cajun condiment. It is effective against attacking dogs, but not against a drugged-up assailant. In the event of a criminal attack, a cell phone in the hand means help is ten, twenty or even thirty minutes away. A gun in the hand means help is just a trigger pull away or, far more often than not, that the criminal will turn tail and run away.

    Wisconsin can be proud of our law enforcement officers. Their level of professionalism and dedication is unquestionable. But it is the rare officer indeed who happens upon a violent crime in progress. Usually the officers arrive in time to take statements from witnesses or victims. There's no doubt that the officer who came upon the burning clothing of the rape victim was trying his absolute best to save her. But, with just one officer for every 400 citizens, police help simply cannot be guaranteed. That's why the majority of street officers support legalizing concealed carry for citizens. They know the limitations of police resources.

    In just a few weeks, our elected officials will have to make a decision regarding concealed carry. Some will decide to restore the right of self-defense to trained, licensed, law-abiding citizens who want the ability to defend themselves.

    Other elected officials will vote with the anti-gun lobby to maintain the status quo. They will vote to maintain the current "acceptable" levels of rapes, robberies, assaults and other crimes of violence.

    For the good people of Wisconsin, such a coldly-calculated, purely political vote should be completely unacceptable.
     
  2. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    What about your "feelings" ..... ? :D
     
  3. AJ Dual

    AJ Dual member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,095
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    I can't really find any significant fault with it at all.

    If you must have some editorial input :D , I would give the Florida revocation stats as percentages, as sheeple readers might let their eyes glaze over at any number larger than three digits.

    i.e. Total Florida revocations: .002%

    But keep the violent felon revocations simply as "five".

    And perhaps mention in that FL stat. paragraph that criminals already carry somehow.

    "Clearly, those citizens who take the time to undergo training, background checks and who are willing to go through the process of applying for permits are overwhelmingly law-abiding, at a rate much greater than the population as a whole. And of course, the criminals by definition, already feel no need to apply for a permit to carry their firearms illegally."

    Aside all the logic and stats, you might also point out un your closing arguments that even if CCW didn't deter crime, that it still stands in recognition of the God-given, pre-existing, inalieable, etc. right to self defense, which dosen't magically dissapear outside your doorstep. In my reading you're hinting around that, but don't come right out and say it.

    Perhaps also replace "It is the rare officer who comes across..." with "It is the "lucky" officer who comes across". ("lucky" denotes the theroretical officer is getting the opportunity to do his job in the greatest context of immediacy, but the quotes signify the double-meaning that we obvioulsy all recognize crime is bad, and we'd rather it not happen...) Makes the point more easily that you are saying that officers who catch criminals in the act is a rarity due to the nature of policing, crime, life in general, there is no implication that the officers are "lazy". And it jives better with your praises above...
     
  4. Devonai

    Devonai Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,850
    Location:
    Connecticut
    AW has some good points. I would submit that if you're going to talk about the unlikelihood of a LEO coming across a crime in progress, put it in terms of the victim.

    "It is a lucky citizen indeed whose victimization is discovered by a police officer during the event of a crime."

    Or, something to that effect.

    Otherwise I very much like the current draft, and I'm glad they agreed to contact you.
     
  5. Col. Mustard

    Col. Mustard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    132
    Location:
    Charlotte
    Or, perhaps, "It is the rare - and lucky - victim who has a police officer on hand to stop a crime..."

    The use of the word "save" sounds like the woman died. But later you state that "She will bear the same emotional scars"; so I'm guessing she did not. Perhaps replace "save" with "prevent the crime"...

    I second Andrew's comment about "total revocations" = .02%

    These are all pretty trivial criticisms. An excellent article.
     
  6. ajacobs

    ajacobs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    519
    Location:
    VT, USA
    What about using the womens name if available. It would make it more real.

    1,100 Should be stressed as reported rapes.

    "Had she been able to defend herself, she wouldn't have been attacked at all. But she was unable to defend herself because Wisconsin only allows law enforcement officers to carry weapons for self-defense." Does not flow well, additionally I would just focus on she could have been able to stop the attack, not nessesarly that she would not have been attacked, all though that may play into the anti's idea that it will be the wild west.

    "Forty-five states have now recognized that arbitrary levels of criminal violence are unacceptable, and have restored the right of self-defense to their citizens. " While I realize you are trying to tie this into the previous paragraph I would just leave it as 45 states recognize the right for citizens to >>>> I don't think restaing the arbitrary levels thing does anything for your argument, all though it is a good point in the previous paragraph.

    I think you also spend to much on the defensive of what the anti's think. I

    THis is just my two cents, I don't really know anything.
     
  7. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    18,942
    Well done Monkeyleg.

    CCW is about ensuring the right of the individual to self defense. Not all of us are proficient or knowledgeable in martial arts nor can we be. Family obligations, time restraints, limited resources or even physical disabilities see to that. While God made Man, Colt made Woman equal.

    How can government which cannot assume responsibility for our individual safety deny us or a hapless woman in particular her right of self defense? Self-defense is a "self evident" natural right that is recognized by all societies and to dispower someone from that right so that (s)he can be victimized is contrary to the very purpose of government: order. A government that tolerates victimization of its citizenry forfeits its right to govern. It breaches its fiduciary duty and encourages crime since criminals have little or no fear of retribution.
     
  8. cordex

    cordex Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,714
    Location:
    Indiana
    My suggestion is to rephrase the ratios.
    Maybe something like ...
    Might be a little more clear.
     
  9. RKBA 4 Ever

    RKBA 4 Ever member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5
    Your quote: But she was unable to defend herself because Wisconsin only allows law enforcement officers to carry weapons for self-defense.

    Perhaps you could add: But she was unable to defend herself because Wisconsin only allows law enforcement officers (and criminals) to carry weapons for self-defense.

    By the way, great article.
     
  10. Graystar

    Graystar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,756
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Some people might not know what a Darwin award is.
     
  11. Ohen Cepel

    Ohen Cepel Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,639
    Location:
    Where they tell me to go
    Great article!

    I think I would maybe mention the impact that all of those rapes have on the woman's children, husbands, siblings and family. If you multiply it out the scumbags victimize about 6 people for everyone that they actually touch.

    Maybe speculate on the % of crime it may reduce and the money it will save the state.

    I know the liberal will bring up money and kids so you should try to cover it also. # that die in cars, swimming pools, etc maybe.

    I wish you the best with it!
     
  12. TheOtherOne

    TheOtherOne Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    1,422
    Location:
    Ogden
    Yeah, that's the only thing I noticed. I thought she had died after reading the first paragraph too, and then the next one had me confused for a second.
     
  13. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    That's very well said. I think your article needs subheadlines to indicate major topics that follow. The subheadline for that paragraph would be: Acceptable level of criminal violence

    Well done!
     
  14. Stickjockey

    Stickjockey Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,902
    Location:
    Happy Valley, Oregon
    Well done! If you're just looking for "filler" to get you to the required number of words, you might give some more detailed information about how OC spray affects different people. Something like:

    "Tests indicate that about X% of people in a condition of rest will be affected in way A, while of people in a "heightened" condition, say under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or maybe just amped on adrenaline, will be affected in way B."

    Anyone know where to get data on this?
     
  15. Monkeyleg

    Monkeyleg Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,058
    Location:
    Decatur, AL
    Thanks for all the advice. Here's the re-write, if you have the time to read it.

    Now I'm OVER the 1200 word limit. ;)

    This column is important. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is the number one newspaper in the state. Our message will reach more of the undecided voters than we could possibly reach doing six months of gun shows. I want this article to be the best that's ever been written in this state. Because the Journal Sentinel has bought up many of the small-town papers throughout the state, this article could reach even further.

    We have some exceptional writers on THR. If any one of them wants to wade into my article with pen and knife, please feel free to do so. This article isn't for my ego; I have no ego. It's about getting one shot at convincing people to not punish legislators whom we feel we can get to vote for concealed carry. It's about education, and calming the fears fueled by anti-gun legislators.

    The override vote in Missouri was like a burst of nitrous to the manifolds of the concealed carry bunch here in Wisconsin.

    Take your pens, pencils, and yellow highlighter pens, and make your suggestions. We need every hand and eye that we can get.

    Oh, BTW: Jeri Bonavia of the Wisconsin Anti Violence Effort is probably checking this forum right now, and re-writing her arguments to address each point made here.

    Good evening, Jeri. Are you gathering facts and figures, or are you just going to write one long emotional angst piece for next Sunday? The paper prints words, not pictures, so leave your photos of 16,000 empty shoes at home, and bring your best minds to bear to this debate.


    *******

    In October of 2002, a 42 year-old woman was dragged into an alley on Milwaukee's north side by five thugs. There, for 45 horrible minutes, she was repeatedly raped and beaten by her assailants. They made a bonfire of her clothing. Neighbors heard her screams and called the police, who scoured the area. Finally, but too late to stop the attack, one officer saw the flames from her clothing.

    Against her will, this woman became one of the 1,100 women who are raped in Wisconsin every year. She will bear the same emotional scars that more than 6,800 victims of assaults in our state have to suffer with each year, the same scars as the 4,500 victims of robbery, the same scars suffered by the more than 12,000 Wisconsinites who are victims of other types of violent crimes every year.

    Had she been allowed to defend herself, she wouldn't have been attacked at all. But she was unable to defend herself because Wisconsin only allows law enforcement officers to carry weapons for self-defense.

    Those who oppose legalizing concealed carry argue that we don't need a concealed carry system because Wisconsin already has a relatively low crime rate. In essence, these opponents are saying that the numbers of rapes, assaults, robberies and violent crimes cited above constitute an acceptable level of criminal violence. But, really, what should an acceptable level of criminal violence be? Logic would dictate that the only acceptable level is zero; any number higher than zero is purely arbitrary.

    Forty-five states have now recognized that arbitrary levels of criminal violence are unacceptable, and have restored the right of self-defense to their citizens. Just ten days ago, Missouri became the 45th state to pass a concealed carry law, after the legislature overrode Governor Holden's veto of a bill similar to that proposed for Wisconsin. In June, Minnesota passed a concealed carry law nearly identical to the one proposed for Wisconsin, just as Michigan did in 2001.

    The idea of legalized concealed carry is hardly new. Florida established their concealed carry system in 1987. Washington state did so in 1962. Indiana did so in 1934. And Vermont has had no restrictions on either concealed or open carry since the state was founded in 1791.

    In every state where legalized concealed carry has been proposed, opponents have predicted apocalyptic consequences, and have advanced the same arguments almost verbatim. Will their predictions of "blood in the streets" come true in Missouri, Minnesota, or Wisconsin? Will there be, as they argue, "shootouts at every stoplight?"

    No.

    Consider that, from October 1987 to October 2002, Florida issued 828,608 concealed carry permits. During that period only 1,542 permits were revoked for convictions for any offense more serious than a traffic ticket, the majority of which were for offenses unrelated to firearms. That's eighteen one-hundredths of one percent over a period of fifteen years, or twelve one-thousandths of one percent annually. Compare that percentage to the general public, 5% of whom are arrested for the same offenses annually.

    Moreover, as of 1996, Florida reported that only five permit revocations were the result of a conviction for a violent crime. Data available from other concealed carry states show similarly miniscule permit revocation rates. Clearly, those citizens who take the time to undergo training, background checks and who are willing to go through the process of applying for permits are overwhelmingly law-abiding, and more law-abiding than the general public.

    Opponents argue that armed citizens have no effect on crime. They argue that a citizen with a gun doesn't have sufficient training to thwart a criminal attack. Incredibly, they claim that a criminal will just take the gun away from the citizen, a suggestion that is countered by data from the FBI.

    The US Department of Justice estimates that approximately 500,000 citizens successfully defend themselves with firearms against criminal attack every year. This indicates that for every criminal who used a weapon illegally, somewhere a law abiding citizen defended himself or herself. An ongoing study by the criminology department at Florida State University indicates that the number of defensive uses of firearms could be as high as 2.5 million annually, or a five-to-one ratio of defensive versus illegal uses of firearms. The study reports that 86% of the time, no shots are fired; merely threatening a criminal with a firearm is a sufficient deterrent.

    The FBI reports that, for the most recently analyzed year, 215 criminals were killed by armed citizens, including concealed carry permit holders. The above data shows that, not only are citizens capable of defending themselves with firearms, but that they do so with remarkable restraint. Permit holders are not the "shoot-'em-up cowboy" types that opponents portray.

    Opponents of concealed carry also argue that police officers oppose such legislation, claiming that citizens carrying concealed will put officers lives at risk. Certainly many of the top brass from our large cities oppose the legislation; by and large they are political appointees who know which side their bread is buttered on.

    Street-level officers are trained to approach every encounter with a citizen with the assumption that the citizen may be armed. Notice where an officer is standing during a traffic stop: slightly behind the driver's shoulder. He will be in a position where he can watch for any sudden movements, and be ready to react. This is true whether the driver is a gang-banger type or an 80 year-old grandmother.

    A concealed carry permit system gives the officer another advantage. He will know, when he calls in the license plate number on the vehicle, if the driver has a permit to carry. This gives the officer more information than he would have when dealing with those without a permit. He will know that he's dealing with a citizen who has undergone a thorough background check, and who is demonstrably more law-abiding than the average citizen. Permit holders have never been, nor will they be, a threat to the lives of police officers.

    Wisconsin can be proud of our law enforcement officers. Their level of professionalism and dedication is unquestionable. But a citizen is extraordinarily lucky if an officer arrives in time to stop a violent crime in progress. Usually the officers arrive in time to take statements from witnesses or victims. There's no doubt that the officer who came upon the burning clothing of the rape victim was trying his absolute best to save her. But, with just one officer for every 400 citizens, police help simply cannot be guaranteed. That's why the majority of street officers support legalizing concealed carry for citizens. They know the limitations of police resources.

    Currently under Wisconsin law, the only weapon available to citizens for self defense is pepper spray, which is nothing more than an aerosol form of a Cajun condiment. It is effective against an attacking dog, but not against a drugged-up assailant. In the event of a criminal attack, a cell phone in the hand means help is ten, twenty or even thirty minutes away. A gun in the hand means help is just a trigger pull away or, far more often than not, that the criminal will turn tail and run away.

    In just a few weeks, our elected officials will have to make a decision regarding concealed carry. Some will decide to restore the right of self-defense to trained, licensed, law-abiding citizens who want the ability to defend themselves.

    Other elected officials will vote with the anti-gun lobby to maintain the status quo. They will vote to maintain the current "acceptable" levels of rapes, robberies, assaults and other crimes of violence.

    For the good people of Wisconsin, such a coldly-calculated, purely political vote should be completely unacceptable.
     
  16. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    regarding the effect of CCW on crime rates:

    Whether CCW reduces crime or not, unquestionably, it has not resulted in an increas in crime in any state when the right to this means of self defense was restored.
     
  17. Partisan Ranger

    Partisan Ranger Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    672
    Location:
    Virginia
    I use www.profnet.com to get expert sources for my queries to publications. I have found this site an absolutely outstanding writing resource. Registration and querying is free. Most experts on the site want to be quoted in as many places as possible, so they are usually very prompt in getting back to you.
     
  18. Gunfyter

    Gunfyter Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    225
    Location:
    Western Maryland
    I think that you need to change the statistic on how many states recognize right to carry. There are now 36 states that have "Shall Issue". I happen to live in one that has a permit system, but only for VERY SPECIAL REASONS, i.e. practically no one has one. The good old PRMD.
     
  19. Andrew Rothman

    Andrew Rothman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,669
    Location:
    MN
    Great piece!

    My edits are mostly for grammar and readability:

    pp1

    change:
    42 year-old
    to:
    42-year-old

    (can you add the name? It would help to tie back in pp17)

    pp2

    change:
    Against her will, this woman...
    to:
    This woman...
    (obviously it is against her will to get raped)

    or maybe change:
    Against her will, this woman became one of the 1,100 women who are raped in Wisconsin every year. She will bear the same emotional scars that more than 6,800 victims of assaults in our state have to suffer with each year, the same scars as the 4,500 victims of robbery, the same scars suffered by the more than 12,000 Wisconsinites who are victims of other types of violent crimes every year.

    to:
    This woman became one of the 1,100 women who was raped in Wisconsin in 2002, and one of the more than 24,000 Wisconsinites who are victims of violent crimes including rape, assault and robbery every year.

    pp3

    change:
    ...she wouldn't have been attacked at all
    to:
    ...she may not have been attacked at all

    pp4

    change:
    Those who oppose legalizing concealed carry argue that we don't need a concealed carry system because Wisconsin already has a relatively low crime rate. In essence, these opponents are saying that the numbers of rapes, assaults, robberies and violent crimes cited above constitute an acceptable level of criminal violence. But, really, what should an acceptable level of criminal violence be? Logic would dictate that the only acceptable level is zero; any number higher than zero is purely arbitrary.

    to:
    Those who oppose legalizing concealed carry argue that citizens should be denied the right to protect themselves with a concealed weapon because Wisconsin already has a relatively low crime rate -- that 24,000 violent crimes per year is an acceptable level of criminal violence.

    (Don't say "logic would dictate" - people often say that when it does no such thing. Instead, rub their face in all its obviousness.)

    pp5


    change:
    Forty-five states have now recognized that arbitrary levels of criminal violence are unacceptable, and have restored the right of self-defense to their citizens.

    to:
    Forty-five states have already rejected this notion and recognized the rights of citizens to defend themselves against criminal acts.

    pp6
    change: Washington state
    to: Washington State

    pp9

    change:
    That's eighteen one-hundredths of one percent over a period of fifteen years, or twelve one-thousandths of one percent annually

    to:
    That's less than one out of every 500 permits over a period of fifteen years, or less than one out of every 8000 permits annually.

    pp13

    change:
    The above data shows that, not only are citizens capable of defending themselves...

    to:
    Not only are citizens capable of defending themselves...


    pp14

    change:
    Opponents of concealed carry also argue that police officers oppose such legislation, claiming that citizens carrying concealed will put officers lives at risk.

    to:
    Opponents of concealed carry also argue that police officers oppose such legislation, claiming that armed citizens will put officers at risk.

    delete:
    Certainly many of the top brass from our large cities oppose the legislation; by and large they are political appointees who know which side their bread is buttered on.

    add:
    However, there are no documented cases, in any of the 45 states where concealed carry permits are issued, of a permit holder shooting a police officer. There are, however, many documented cases of armed citizens coming to the aid of police officers.

    pp15: delete paragraph ("Street-level officers...")
    pp16: delete paragraph ("A concealed carry permit system...")
    (these don't seem particularly relevant to me)

    pp17
    change:

    Usually the officers arrive in time to take statements from witnesses or victims.

    to:
    Usually, the police arrive in time to take statements from witnesses or surviving victims.


    change:
    There's no doubt that the officer who came upon the burning clothing of the rape victim was trying his absolute best to save her.

    to:
    There's no doubt that the officer who came upon Jane Doe's burning clothing was trying his best to save her.

    change:
    But, with just one officer for every 400 citizens, police help simply cannot be guaranteed.

    to:
    But, with just one officer for every 400 citizens, police help simply cannot be guaranteed. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that the police are under no obligation to protect citizens from crime!


    pp18

    change:
    Currently under Wisconsin law...
    to:
    Under current Wisconsin law...

    change:
    ...but not against a drugged-up assailant.
    to:
    ...but not against an assailant who is high on speed, crack cocaine or methamphetamines.

    change:
    In the event of a criminal attack, a cell phone in the hand means help is ten, twenty or even thirty minutes away. A gun in the hand means help is just a trigger pull away or, far more often than not, that the criminal will turn tail and run away.

    to:
    While a cell phone is a useful tool in many circumstances, violent attackers rarely allow their victims to dial 911 and request assistance before perpetrating their crimes.
     
  20. Keith

    Keith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,784
    Location:
    Kodiak, Alaska
    To be effective, you need to rebut the arguments that the anti-CCW article will use.

    I hope you follow what I'm saying - your article is a nice piece as written, but you'll lose points for every unanswered point the "anti" will present. Divide your article into two general categories; the first being a positive defense (as covered very effectively already), but then a follow-on that deals with all the Chicken-Little "Sky is Falling" arguments that these anti-CCW screeds always employ.

    All of these things are cut from the same cloth and you'll just blow them out of the water if you deal with each of these in your own article.

    The following link contains most of the arguments that your opponent will use - deal with these specific points and you will be far more effective!

    http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/ccw.asp

    Keith
     
  21. Monkeyleg

    Monkeyleg Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,058
    Location:
    Decatur, AL
    Thanks for all the advice. I'm doing some re-writing of the article now.

    Nobody knows the name of the woman who was raped, except for the obvious parties. If I had more time, I'd try to find out who she is and if she'd be willing to talk publicly about her ordeal and her feelings about concealed carry.

    I can't say that no police officer has been shot by a permit holder, because just last year in Texas (Dallas?), an off-duty police officer in civilian clothes working as a bar bouncer was shot in the hand by a permit holder during an altercation. This certainly isn't the same as a permit holder shooting a uniformed cop, but the anti's would seize upon the claim immediately.

    Keith, I thought I had rebutted the usual arguments the anti's present: permit holders are dangerous to the public; they're a danger to officers; they don't know how to protect themselves; etc. If you don't feel the article does so, or does so effectively, please let me know.

    The one anti argument I'd like to rebut is the VPC's statement that "5,314 permit holders were arrested in Texas for crimes including murder." I've looked at the VPC's stats, I know how they massaged the numbers, but dissecting that argument would require an article unto itself. And it would bore most readers to death.
     
  22. Matthew_Q

    Matthew_Q Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Messages:
    295
    Location:
    Austin, TEXAS
    Maybe when talking about preventing crime by using a firearm in regards to the woman who was attacked, provide that statistic that showed you're less likely to be injured when resisting with a firearm.

    Check out the GunFacts PDF over on www.keepandbeararms.com for stats and cites of sources.
     
  23. Powderman

    Powderman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,626
    Location:
    Washington State
    Great article!

    Here's something else that might take the wind out of their sails.

    One of the most often quoted "statistics" the antis use is the Kellermann study. Here is a quote from the NRA/ILA research site, linked at www.nra.org:

    "Firearms are used three to five times more often to stop crimes than to commit them,1 and accidents with firearms are at an all-time recorded low.2 In spite of this, anti-firearm activists insist that the very act of keeping a firearm in the home puts family members at risk, often claiming that a gun in the home is "43 times" more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder, based upon a study by anti-gun researchers of firearm-related deaths in homes in King County (Seattle), Washington.3 Although Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay originally warned that their study was of a single non-representative county and noted that they failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed, anti-gun groups and activists use the "43 times" claim without explaining the limitations of the study or how the ratio was derived."

    And, the cite for this research is:

    Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay, "Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, pp. 1557-1560.

    Usually, anti gunners will use the magical "43 times!" as a holy grail when citing anti gun stastics, totally disregarding that Kellermann and Reay admitted that their survey and research might be at fault.

    I am in the process of writing a research paper for my class on this very subject. Good luck to those in the Badger State!
     
  24. Top_Notch

    Top_Notch Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2003
    Messages:
    232
    I would mention the Second Amendment that grants citizens certain rights, namely the right to keep and bear arms. It gives credibility as to WHY we have the right to CCW.


     
  25. Double Maduro

    Double Maduro Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,125
    Good article. The things I would change are:

    Give her a name eg "We'll call her Nora." Replace "She" with whatever name you choose, everytime it works.

    "Had she been allowed to defend herself, she wouldn't have been attacked at all. "

    We don't know that "Nora" wouldn't have been attacked. We do know that "Nora" MAY have been able to defend herself.

    You need to be careful here, Why wasn't "Nora" carrying pepper spray and if she was why didn't she use it. If "Nora" was carrying pepper spray and used it, why didn't it work?

    See how using the name makes it more personal?

    When you give statistics it is always a good idea to cite the studies they come from. That way people don't think you are making them up.

    Don't use any cute words or jargon, "Darwin Awards" etc.

    The phrase, " Opponents argue that armed citizens have no effect on crime." would be better as "Some opponents argue that armed citizens have no effect on crime."

    "Other elected officials will vote with the anti-gun lobby to maintain the status quo. They will vote to maintain the current "acceptable" levels of rapes, robberies, assaults and other crimes of violence."

    Would be better as, "Other elected officials will vote with the anti-gun lobby to maintain the current "acceptable" levels of rapes, robberies, assaults and other crimes of violence."

    As a former newspaper editor I can guarantee that if it is over 1200 words it will be cut. Ask that you be the one to cut it. Better yet, make it 1200 words long, exactly.

    Good luck, I hope this helps.
    DM
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page