"Scandals, shootings make parents jittery" article

V

V4Vendetta

New member
Here is a link to a article about guns.

http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/hunter/91385,CST-FTR-scribble11.article

Here's a letter that I wrote to Ms. Hunter. Tell me what you think.

Dear Ms. Hunter:

You recently wrote a article about guns, school shootings & such. Some of the information in it was incorrect so let me explain about the gun laws in America.

The guy who murdered those girls in Lancaster Counter had no history of mental illness & no felony convictions. He would have passed any back ground check.

Schools are by law "gun free zones". That means that killers who want a quick ticket to fame by killing a bunch of kids have a guarantee by the government that they won't have to face any armed security. Even if a parent has a concealed carry permit, they can't pick up their kids from school if they have their weapon on them. The only people disarmed by gun-control laws are the honest folk.

Take Washington DC for example. Private citizens are forbidden by law to possess firearms there. DC also has the highest murder rate in the country. It wasn't that long ago that the chief of police in DC had to declare a crime emergency because several people had been mugged & then killed even when they handed over their money.

My older brother used to deliver pizzas. Now the pizza establishment that they worked for had a policy that drivers couldn't carry concealed handguns even if they had a permit. One night another driver was mugged. He was jumped by 5 guys. They demanded his wallet. He handed it over. They muggers then got mad that he only had $13 on him. They proceeded to beat the stuffing out of him. They kicked his eye sockets back into his skull. He survived but he was in the hospital for a good while.

Compare that to another driver who ignored policy & carried a pistol with a permit. After delivering a pizza he got into his car & went through his pockets looking for his keys. 2 guys came up to his car. One at the passenger side & the other at the drivers side. They one at the drivers side had a baseball bat. They demanded his wallet. He remembered what happened to the other driver & pulled out his pistol. At the very sight of the gun, the guy at the passenger window ran off. The driver held the other crook there until the police arrived. Never had to even fire a shot.

You stated "Our liberal gun laws have made living in some of our neighborhoods as risky as living in Chechnya."

As I said above, it's the supposed "gun free zones" & other areas that have gun-control laws like LA, New York city & Chicago that are the areas being targeted. I have never heard of a person going & shooting up the NRA headquarters or a gun show or at a firing range.

In closing, I just wish to say that it's the criminals that want gun-control so they can have a safe working enviroment.

Sincerely,
A concerned citizen.


Here's her response.

But both the shootings were in rural areas where guns are much more common....
Click to expand...

Here's my second e-mail.

While it is true that we country folks have guns, the days of Hatfields & the Mccoy's feuding are long gone. I've never murdered anybody & I've lived on a farm all my life.

As far as the availability of guns helping crime, consider this. In 1968 the UK passed laws that reduced the number of licensed firearm owners, and thus firearm availability. The homicide rate has risen steady since then according to A Century of Change: Trends in UK Statistics since 1900", Hicks, Joe; Allen, Grahame (SGS), Social and General Statistics Section, House of Commons.

I don't believe that having guns motivates people to shoot up schools. Do you know who John Wayne was? I'll bet you do. He made over 250 movies. That's a lot of hard work. But other people don't want to do all that work. They want quick & easy fame. What better way to do that than kill a bunch of kids? That's a sure way of getting known real quick.

Sincerely,
A concered citizen
 
Update!

Here's her reply to my second e-mail.


I can just as easily pull up stats about France and Sweden and Canada where very tough gun laws keep the homicide rates way below the U.S. And I still do not believe the framers of the Constitution envisioned an America which is armed to the hilt. Best, Jennifer
Click to expand...


I have not sent her anything since. What should I reply now?
 
She probably couldn't think of anything better to say. She's probably not used to arguing with anyone who actually has an intelligent reply. Way to go V!:)
 
What is the e-mail address you sent that to?

I would bounce her a simmilar screed. I used to live in Chicago, perhaps I would have more luck penetrating her liberal brain-block. I used to recruit musicians to join the NRA all the time up there...
 
If you click on the first link I posted here, you would find her e-mail address at the top left hand side of the screen.

Here's what I sent her.

I'm sending you a link to the best place to get information on guns.

http://www.gunfacts.info/

Just read the link & think about it. At the end of the article there's a section about quotes from the writers of the Constitution really thought on the subject."
 
Last edited:
I can just as easily pull up stats about France and Sweden and Canada where very tough gun laws keep the homicide rates way below the U.S.
Click to expand...

You may want to point out to her that that staistical anaylis is flawed..however, since you sent her a flawed statistical analysis (Great Britain), you cant argue that can you

WildseewhathappensAlaska
 
You may want to point out to her that that staistical anaylis is flawed..however, since you sent her a flawed statistical analysis (Great Britain), you cant argue that can you
Click to expand...


I got it from Gunfacts:o .
 
In fact, the mindset and worldview of the Framers, as was the worldview of most of the people living in that time, would very likely offend and disgust the average "spoiled and civilized" journalist today.

Remember, courts of law were VERY different back then, and there was no heavily-structured "police" department in place to patrol for crime. The local "magistrate" was often-times quite ill-equipped to handle a really heinous crime spree. And so, the "pioneers" of early U.S. history were expected to fend for themselves.

What the Framers DID have, though, was a VERY heavily-armed homeland military. In fact, the military, at the time, was actually rather HOSTILE to the citizenry of the Colonies. As such, in addition to having to "fend for yourself" against the dangers of the "common criminal," the Framers also had to arm themselves to defend against a TRULY corrupt (and, I'm not just talking about sex in the White House...) military organization.

When our country was being forged, America was a WILD and wholly DANGEROUS place to live. (Philadelphia was like the equivalent of downtown Baghdad, today. Wars were being fought to maintain trade lines...) I believe that the Framers actually had EVERY INTENTION of drafting the Constitution to ensure that all Americans were "armed to the hilt." One thing the Framers CERTAINLY did NOT intend, however, was a society that trusted its welfare and safety to the Executive branch!

Oh, and a word on the phrase "armed to the hilt." In the days of the Framers, it was the LITERAL truth! A well-refined gentleman with good upbringing and proper financial stability would properly be seen about high-society functions wearing his rapier. It was a fashion accessory, and a sign of social status!

So, when we talk about the "intentions of the Framers," we must all understand that the Framers lived in a time when all people were raised with MUCH less fear and hatred towards weapons. Rather, weapons were viewed as status symbols. As such, it was a reward to be an American that every American be granted the undeniable right to own a weapon.

And, when you write her back, feel free to cut and paste at liberty.
 
I can just as easily pull up stats about France and Sweden and Canada where very tough gun laws keep the homicide rates way below the U.S. And I still do not believe the framers of the Constitution envisioned an America which is armed to the hilt. Best, Jennifer
Click to expand...

I couldn't help but notice her choice of words in "gun laws keep the homicide rates" low. Using "keep" shows enormous amount of bias in the matter. "Coincides with" would be more appropriate for someone without an agenda. You can mention that.

You may also bring Israel and Switzerland into the picture to counterbalance her mention of Sweden and Canada, while reminding that she might've been better off not throwing France into this mix with all the latest riot events there. Here is something more important though: homicide rate is a function of many variables, and gun control, whether it drives those rates up or down, is only one such variable. To judge it effectively, you need to eliminate other variables - for example, by analyzing crime patterns following changes in gun laws within the context of a single locality; area by area where such changes occurred. Available examples to that effect show enormous amount of anecdotal evidence: changes in severity of gun laws are usually in reverse dependency with changes in crime rates. Then you can talk all you want about Washington DC on one hand and Kennesaw, Georgia on the other to support that notion.

This also explains why her example of countries with strict gun laws and low crime rates is fairly meaningless. It involves much heavier variables, such as culture of a country, and doesn't show dynamics. Your example (GB), on the other hand, shows progression - i.e. what happens once you change gun law as a single variable. This is a much better way to judge quality of the adapted change. Anti-gunners manage to dismiss this observation, along with common sense.
 
This also explains why her example of countries with strict gun laws and low crime rates is fairly meaningless. It involves much heavier variables, such as culture of a country, and doesn't show dynamics. Your example (GB), on the other hand, shows progression - i.e. what happens once you change gun law as a single variable. This is a much better way to judge quality of the adapted change. Anti-gunners manage to dismiss this observation, along with common sense.
Click to expand...

:eek:

Guess folks just dont listen:

Lets try one more time: There is no conclusion about the efficacy of gun control that can be drawn from crime statistics IN AND OF THEMSELVES. This goes for both sides.

Repeat 5 times per day and impress folks with you rationality

WildoffwegonowAlaska
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top