Another reporter I emailed.

V

V4Vendetta

New member
Here's the article.

http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2006/as-columns-1015-0-6j14w4257.htm

Here's my reply.

Dear ms. Sanchez:
I want to start off by saying that I'm not going to curse you out or anything. I live in what most people would call a rural area. I've lived on a farm for most of my life. I have guns & I've never murdered anyone. I have no desire to. We still need guns though for rabid raccoons & possum's, wild dogs. We have not yet had a 2-legged predator so far & I hope we don't.

What I'm getting at is that it's not the guns that cause violent crime. It's the people.

You made the comment that you didn't believe in armed teachers. Why? It's worked for Israel. They haven't had any school shootings in over 25 years since they allowed their teachers to carry guns & allowed concerned parents to patrol the school area with guns. It's worked in Thailand as well.

I figure that you are against the bill because you misunderstand the the bill. It does NOT say that teachers HAVE to carry guns on school grounds. It gives them the option to. Same goes for parents with concealed carry permits.

And when you think about it, the reason all these school shootings are popping up is quite simple. Do you know who John Wayne was? I'll bet you do. He made over 250 movies. Unfortunately, a lot of people today don't want to do all that work. They want quick & easy fame. What better way to get it than killing a bunch of unarmed little kids? That will get you known REAL quick. And what better place to commit the murder than a place where you are given a government guarantee that ALL the people inside are dis-armed?

The guy who murdered all those Amish girls had no previous felony convictions or any history of mental illness. He would have passed any background check. The killers at Columbine & the DC snipers all abtained their guns illegally. Do you really believe that a few more laws would have stopped them? I don't.

Please think about what I said.

Sincerely,
A concerned person
Click to expand...

I'll post her reply if I get one. What do you think?
 
A good response to an well-intentioned but ill-conceived editorial...

But I will point out one weakness, only because the same thing happened to me once when I was arguing with an anti. Namely, pointing out that the crazy school shooter would have passed all background checks only leaves you open to an argument that goes something like this: "See? We need to get rid of all guns, because some gun owners have no criminal backgrounds right up until the moment they snap and open fire."

Tim
 
Next time you send this, you might note that there is a HUGE difference between disarming the students, and disarming the homes. I'm all for disarming the students. But, these school shootings do not happen in the homes, and so disarming the homes would be an unnecessary, unhelpful, and incredibly damaging restriction.
 
Here's her response.


Thanks for taking the time to write. The column is not saying that people do not have the right to own weapons, it just begs that more of them would also have sense enough to own them.

That is not the case in far too many situations; the fact that most school
shooters get their guns from home is a clue that many people are not
teaching their children to respect guns.

I would say a better answer than arming everyone is figurig

Thankfully, we are not at the violence in schools level that places like
Isreal was facing; that had much more to do with suicide bombers, etc.
How about truly handling our troubled kids better, doing more to ensure that
people with guns really respect them and teach that respect to their
children? Seems better to me than simply creating a culture where everyone is armed and ready to fire.
 
Other than alarmingly poor English from a professional writer, that's a remarkably positive response! She seems open to a dialog, and she sounds like she could be swayed by reason--very uncommon for a gun-grabber. I would write her back and emphasize that the vast majority of gun owners (and also the NRA) promote responsible gun storage and gun education for kids.

Tim
 
It seems the reporter did a complete 180 on his/her position.

I would wholeheartedly agree that proper respect for gun safety is no longer being taught to mainstream society. (At age 26, I've had to join a whole sub-culture to learn it myself.) I also agree that people as a whole are not taking proper care to secure their weapons and to make sure that their weapons do not fall into "irresponsible" hands. (This is why I support the criminalization of negligent loss of a firearm.)

But, that's NOT what the reporter's article said! The article said that we need to disarm all the homes in the country! It's interesting to see him/her completely backpedal on the issue...
 
Here's what I'm thinking of writing her. Tell me what you think.

Dear Ms. Sanchez:
"The column is not saying that people do not have the right to own weapons, it just begs that more of them would also have sense enough to own them."

Yet the article says quite frankly, "So for once, maybe the suburbs and rural America can take a cue from the cities: “Get the guns out of your homes.”"

As far as Israel's decision having to do with suicide bombers, isn't it true that most killers who attack schools kill themselves anyway? What's the difference between a suicide bomber & a suicidal guy with a gun?

Sincerely,
A concerned citizen
 
Remind her that the suicide bomber attacks in Israel began after the Palestinians tried to walk into schools, restaurants, on buses, etc., and gun down the population. Once the "civilians" began arming themselves and killing the Palestinians, the terrorists switched to bombings. They basically could no longer use firearms as means of terror due to near certainty of being killed before they could do much damage. So, they found those with a death wish and equipped them to carry it out.

You might also remind her that some suicide bombings were stopped by civilians, who saw the bombrig and killed the bomber before it could be detonated.
 
It sounds too argumentative to me. I think it might make her defensive, if not turn her off outright. Forget about the original column and respond only to what she wrote to you personally. The column is just sensational blather; her note reveals what she's really worried about, and I doubt that you and she really disagree as much as you think.

Treat her as you would a fence-sitter who you would like to take to the range for some education and shooting fun. In fact, if you live close by, maybe consider that!

Tim
 
I live in NC so that's out of the question unfortunately.

I'll trt to think up something non-arguementive & post it here before I send it.


EDIT:
The suicide bomber attacks in Israel began after the Palestinians tried to walk into schools, restaurants, on buses, etc., and gun down the population. Once the "civilians" began arming themselves and killing the Palestinians, the terrorists switched to bombings. They basically could no longer use firearms as means of terror due to near certainty of being killed before they could do much damage. So, they found those with a death wish and equipped them to carry it out. You might also remind her that some suicide bombings were stopped by civilians, who saw the bombrig and killed the bomber before it could be detonated.
Click to expand...

Got any examples?
 
Last edited:
Appeal to her sense of journalistic responsibility.

Tell her, "If you want to say that people should exercise more care with their guns to keep them out of the hands of children, then you should say so. But it's irresponsible journalism and inaccurate rhetoric to say, 'Get the guns out of the homes,' if that's not what you really want to say."

Don't be afraid to tell her that the article is too sensational. (Note, it's the article that's sensational, not her. Saying that she's sensational is just a personal attack, and it will turn her off to conversation.)
 
What about this?

Dear Ms. Sanchez:
"the fact that most school shooters get their guns from home is a clue that many people are not teaching their children to respect guns."

Sadly, that's very true. A lot of parent's think that if they hide their guns they won't have to worry about their kids accidently hurting themselves. That is a recipe for disaster. Kids are like little Mcguyvers. If you have kids, you know what I'm talking about. You can lock up all the guns in a safe & the kids will figure out how to get in it one day while you aren't there. They are clever little rascals. My parents tried that with me. One day I was going through their closet looking for candy & there was a shotgun. Fortunatly, I left it & went looking for mom. Had I been curious instead of smart I might be deceased.

The best way to educate them about guns is to take your gun & make sure it's unloaded. Then let them feel it & look at it while you watch. Teach them the 4 universal rules of gun safety.

1. Treat all guns as if they were loaded.
2. Never point the muzzel at anything you don't wish to shoot.
3. Be sure of your target & what's beyond it.
4. Keep finger off trigger until ready to shoot.

There's a website by a mother & she has a entire section devoted to help parents teach their kids about guns. Here's the link.

http://www.corneredcat.com/TOC/TOC.htm#Kids

I hope I have been helpful.

Sincerely,
A concerned person

What do you guys think?
 
YES!! Now you're talking! Educate her, rather than argue, and next time she might write a column that's actually helpful rather than the uninformed fear-mongering she started off with. I didn't have time to read the whole thing, but the link you suggest appears to be especially good--written by a mom, for moms, but without the usual gun-fearing hysteria.

Tim
 
In this draft, you make it sound like no matter what you do, you cannot safely have a gun in your house with a child. They WILL find it...

Try not to take such a hard-line stance on it. Guns are dangerous, but they CAN be managed safely. The REAL point, (and it's a point she already agrees with you on) is that a parent who owns a gun (really ANYONE who owns a gun) needs to keep tabs on the gun and KNOW where it is. The problem is not people OWNING guns, it's people letting their children OUT THE DOOR headed to SCHOOL with a gun!

Shift the focus from "gun control," i.e. locking all the guns up, in favor of "personal responsibility," i.e. whether your child is old enough to respect a gun or not, if you own one, KNOW WHERE IT IS!!!

Try to ease her to your side by easing into hers. It's a good rhetoric tool...
 
Here's what I'd like to know: Taking career criminals out of the picture, how often do previously law-abiding people snap and murder someone? Now, put that up against the number of other law-abiding gun owners. I'd bet that is an infinitesimal percentage. You can't predict that nor have any prevention for it anymore than you can with a non-drinker that gets plastered one night and kills someone while drinking and driving.

As for the career criminals, then you know what they are, but they are released to continue their assault on civilized soceity. Reminds me of the story (loosely retold here) of them showing a guy's picture on TV, and saying that the guy is wanted for such-and-such violent crime. A little girl watching TV turns to her Dad and asks, "Why didn't they keep him when they took his picture?" Ahhhhh, the kids, in their simple logical minds, get it.
 
Got any examples?
Click to expand...

The one that comes to mind is the Israeli grandmother who saw wires under a Palestinian's jacket, and the terrorist sweating. He moved his hand under the jacket and she dropped him. He was wearing an explosive vest.

The incident was reported in the overseas media I believe, and copied here. Finding a domestic source will be difficicult because they changed it to "Israeli security" being the shooters, excluding any mention of the grandmother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top