Hokay, as one of those exceptional writers cited at the beginning-ish, compliments gets you free review. Handily, Monkeyleg, you have given me EXCELLENT material to work with. The piece hangs very well in terms of composition and order. I changed very little of that, (See paras. 10, 11, and 12.) as it's fine to start with. What I've done is go through it para. by para., eliminating duplicated words, substituting a few I liked better, easing flow, tightening sentences and tried to make it "roll off the tongue" better, in pursuit of easy readability. I have no idea of the word count, but I tried to eliminate as much as I could, which wasn't much. It's easier for the paper to deal with it being a hair short, as if it's long, they'll chop it! That we cannot have.
Suggestions: [these are editorial comments from me, and are not included.]
PP I:
In October of 2002, a 42-year-old woman was dragged into an alley on Milwaukee's north side by five thugs. For 45 unendurable minutes, she was repeatedly raped and beaten. Her assailants had even made a bonfire of her clothing. Hearing her screams, neighbors called the police, who scoured the area. Finally, after the attack had ended, one officer saw the bonfire's flames and came to the victim's rescue.
PP II:
This woman became one of Wisconsin's 1100 annual rape victims. [it's the READER'S fault!] She will bear the same emotional scars that 6,800-plus victims of assaults in our state have to suffer with each year, the same scars as 4,500 victims of robbery, the same scars suffered by the more than 12,000 Wisconsinites who are victims of other violent crimes every year.
PP III:
Had she been armed, [It's about CCW, yes? No mincing words.] she might not have been attacked at all. But she was unable to defend herself because Wisconsin restricts the carrying of weapons for self-defense to law enforcement officers. [It's the READER'S fault!]
PP IV:
Those [Substitute Legislaters? Blame where it belongs.] 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 24,000 rapes, assaults, robberies, and other violent crimes every year constitute an acceptable level of criminal violence. [no change, but added a comma.]
PP V: no change
PP VI:
The idea of legalized concealed carry is hardly new. Florida established their concealed carry system in 1987. Washington State did so in 1935. Indiana did so in 1934. And Vermont has had no restrictions on either concealed or open carry since the state was founded in 1791. [only changed date.]
PP VII:
Opponents have predicted apocalyptic consequences in every state where legalized concealed carry has been proposed, and have advanced the same arguments, almost verbatim, every time. Will their predictions of "blood in the streets" come true in Missouri, Minnesota, or Wisconsin? Will the general population, or police officers' lives, be put at risk? Will law-abiding citizens be transformed into deranged killers simply by obtaining a permit? Will ordinary citizens handle their firearms irresponsably and cause accidental shootings? Will their guns be taken from them by criminals and used against them?
No. [I like "Certainly not". But "No" has a savage simplicity. Keep it]
PP VIII:
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 any crime more serious than a traffic ticket, the majority of which were offenses unrelated to firearms. That's less than one-fifth of one percent over a period of fifteen years, or one-eighth of one percent annually. Compare that to the FIVE PERCENT of the general public who are arrested for the same offenses each year.
PP VIV:
Additionally, as of 1996, Florida reported that only five permit revocations were the result of a crime of violence. Data available from other concealed carry states show comparably miniscule numbers of revoked permits. Clearly, those citizens who are willing to go through the permit application proccess, to undergo training, and submit to background checks are overwhelmingly law-abiding, even more so than the general public.
PP X: [sounds like a new Walther handgun. I want one
]
Opponents argue that armed citizens have no effect on crime, in direct contradiction to their predictions of "blood in the streets". They argue that a citizen with a gun doesn't have sufficeint 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.
[Alternately, no inhibiting/reducing/lessening effect on crime. , without the contradiction line.]
PP XI:
The US Department of Justice estimates that approximately 500,000 citizens successfully defend themselves against criminal attack with firearms every year. This demonstrates that for every criminal who used a firearm illegally, somewhere a law-abiding citizen defended him- or herself legally. An ongoing study by the criminology department at Florida State University indicates that the number of legal 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 also reports that 86% of the time, no shots are fired; merely threatening a criminal with a firearm is a sufficient deterrent.
PP XII: [Switch this para. with PP XI. It works better as a trailer fo PP X, and a lead-in to PP XI. Only change was deleted comma.]
The FBI Uniform Crime Report shows 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 successfully 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.
PP XIII: [New subject, permit holders and cops.]
Opponents of concealed carry also argue that police officers oppose such legislation, claiming that armed citizens will put officers' lives at risk by "putting more guns on the street". This presents the fallacy that law-abiding permit holders are criminals. [Uh, yeah. Right.]
PP XIV:
Street-level officers are already trained to approach every encounter with the assumption that the citizen may be armed. A concealed carry permit system gives the officer the advantage of showing if the driver has a permit to carry when he calls in the license plate number on the vehicle. The officer can then, at his own discretion, ask the permit holder to turn over his gun for the duration of the stop, or simply leave it holstered. Permit holders are, by definition, law-abiding. They have never been, nor will they ever be, a threat to the lives or safety of police officers. To the contrary, permit holders have come to the aid of numerous officers in trouble, saving lives in many instances.
PP XV:
Wisconsin can be proud of our law enforcement officers. Their level of professionalism and dedication is unquestioned. It is rare for a citizen, however, to have an officer arrive in time to stop a violent crime in progress. Usually the officers arrive in time to take statements from witnesses or surviving victims after the criminals [perpetraters?] have fled the scene. There's no doubt that the officer who spotted the burning clothing of last October's rape victim was trying his absolute best to rescue her, but with just one officer for every 1200 citizens, police help simply cannot be guaranteed. That's why the majority of street-level officers support legalizing concealed carry for citizens; they know the limitations of police resources.
PP XVI:
Currently, the only legal, easily used means of self defense available to Wisconsin citizens 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 an assailant high on methamphetamines or cocaine. In the event of a criminal attack, a cell phone in the hand can mean help is ten, twenty or even thirty minutes away. A gun in the hand means help immediately when faced with the attack or, far more often than not, that the criminal will turn tail and run, rendering further assistance unneccessary.
PP XVII:
In just a few weeks, our elected officials will have to make a decision regarding concealed carry. Some will decide to uphold the right of self-defense to trained, licensed, law-abiding citizens who want the ability to defend themselves. [Uphold, not restore, rights. Restore implies taken, which legiscritters can't (supposedly) do.]
PP XVIII:
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.
No level of criminal violence should be "acceptable" to the good citizens of Wisconsin. That some elected officials find this "acceptable", and also find that the idea of honest citizens defending themselves against this "acceptable" level of crime is a threat to their position in office is completely unacceptable. [And more properly, contemptible.] The citizens of Wisconsin deserve more from their elected officials than patronization and "Chicken Little" ignorance.
[Ooh, I'm gettin' snide. Feh. The politicians are fired as far as I care. They're fair game, and meat for my roasting.
]
