Need constructive criticism

[Jose]

Please review and critique this letter than I am firing off to all my elected reps both at the Federal and State level:

I am writing to ask that you stand firm in the face of the inevitable wave of assaults on the Second Amendment that are sure to come from the incredibly tragic crime committed at Virginia Polytechnic yesterday.

Already the hand wringing about guns, their availability, and their “power” has begun. My position on this is very simple. There are literally thousands of gun control laws in the books already. Not a single one of them stopped a violenty criminal from committing murder. Adding more laws is not the answer. Everywhere the availability of firearms for defense has been severely restricted the lawless prey on the law abiding with impunity. Regardless of the claims made by the Brady Center and their ilk, draconian gun control legislation has done nothing to alter the rates of violent crime both in Australia and the United Kingdom. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902 http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3914289.stm Those two nations are the utopian societies that socialists so admire and wish to turn us into. According to BBC reports, it is no difficult task for criminals in the UK to find firearms for their criminal endeavors. The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different outcome. The classic response to armed crime is to pass more gun control laws. Another sensational crime, another set of useless laws, and so it goes.

There is one legislative action I would like to see Congress take. Decriminalize the lawful possession of firearms for self defense in schools and other currently “gun free” locations. Not a single victim at Virginia Tech had the ability to fight back on equal terms if they had wanted to. The laws of Virginia, the laws of the United States, and the policies of the University of Virginia system left these people extremely vulnerable and defenseless. In the cases where quick availability to legally owned firearms for defense existed, rampages like yesterdays were stopped with a far fewer loss of life. I refer you to the Appalachian Law School http://www.uwire.com/content/topops012402002.html http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/topic-appalachianlawschool.html and the Pearl, Mississippi, High School http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Woodham incidents.


Respectfully

 

[Chris]

If this is a written letter (which always has more impact than an e-mail) the the links are too much. If you feel the need to include them, attach a sheet with them.

Keep your letter personal and informational otherwise. Rather than name the "Brady Center and their ilk", simply refer to them as anti-gun proponents or other generic term.

 

[Wingwiper]

Excellent advice Chris and I agree. Otherwise the lette ris good.

 

[number9]

Constructive criticism? I would strike "socialist" and "utopian". If I were an objective reader of your letter, I would think you feel derision towards the U.K. and Australia with respect to their laws. You're entitled to, don't get me wrong, I just don't think you should say so in a letter to a representative. Let the facts about crime do the talking, you don't need to use labels.

And you said "violenty" not "violent" or "violently". Also I disagree with Chris, if you mean the Brady group then say them; although "and their ilk" should be replaced with something like "and their supporters". Ilk, to me, has negative connotations - think hippies.

 

[Jose]

Thanks. It will be proof read several times for spelling and punctuation. I will move the links to footnotes. Yes, this will be a written letter signed by me.

 

[Jose]

Constructive criticism? I would strike "socialist" and "utopian". If I were an objective reader of your letter, I would think you feel derision towards the U.K. and Australia with respect to their laws. You're entitled to, don't get me wrong, I just don't think you should say so in a letter to a representative. Let the facts about crime do the talking, you don't need to use labels.

Agreed. Will do.

 

[Jose]

Revision 1

The Honorable John Boehner
1011 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515


I am writing to ask that you stand firm in the face of the inevitable wave of assaults on the Second Amendment that are sure to come from the incredibly tragic crime committed at Virginia Polytechnic yesterday.

Already the hand wringing about guns, their availability, and their “power” has begun. My position on this is very simple. There are literally thousands of gun control laws in the books already. Not a single one of them stopped a violent criminal from committing murder. Adding more laws is not the answer. Everywhere where the availability of firearms for defense has been severely restricted the lawless prey on the law abiding with impunity. Regardless of the claims made by gun control proponents, draconian gun control legislation has done nothing to alter the rates of violent crime both in Australia (1)(2) and the United Kingdom (3). According to BBC reports, it is no difficult task for criminals in the UK to find firearms for their criminal endeavors (4)(5). The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different outcome. The classic response to armed crime is to pass more gun control laws. Another sensational crime, another set of useless laws, and so it goes.

There is one legislative action I would like to see Congress take. Decriminalize the lawful possession of firearms for self defense in schools and other currently “gun free” locations. Not a single victim at Virginia Tech had the ability to fight back on equal terms if they had wanted to. The laws of Virginia, the laws of the United States, and the policies of the University of Virginia system left these people extremely vulnerable and defenseless. In the cases where quick availability to legally owned firearms for defense existed, rampages like yesterdays were stopped with a far fewer loss of life. I refer you to the Appalachian Law School (6)(7) and the Pearl, Mississippi, High School (8) incidents.


Respectfully


Jose

References

(1) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
(2) http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html
(3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3914289.stm
(4) http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/02/has_gun_crime_touched_your_life.html
(5) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/3263985.stm
(6) http://www.uwire.com/content/topops012402002.html
(7) http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/topic-appalachianlawschool.html
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Woodham

 

[Pilgrim]

remove the where after the everywhere...it doesn't seem correct to me.

 

[bpm990d]

Very nice.

B

 

[number9]

Terrific. Please send royalty checks to my PM box

 

[Wingwiper]

Some minor changes

Revision 1

The Honorable John Boehner
1011 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515


I am asking that you stand firm in the face of the iwave of assaults on the Second Amendment that are sure to come from the tragedy committed at Virginia Polytechnic yesterday.

Already the hand wringing about guns, their availability, and their “power” has begun. My position is; there are literally thousands of gun control laws in the books already. Not a single one of them stopped a violent criminal from committing murder. Adding more laws will accomplish no more than the existing laws Where the availability of firearms for defense has been severely restricted the lawless prey on the law abiding with impunity. Draconian gun control legislation has done nothing to alter the rates of violent crime both in Australia (1)(2) and the United Kingdom (3). According to BBC reports, it is no difficult task for criminals in the UK to find firearms for their criminal endeavors (4)(5). The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different outcome. The classic response to armed crime is to pass more gun control laws. Another sensational crime, another set of useless laws, and so it goes.

There is one legislative action I would like to see Congress take. Decriminalize the lawful possession of firearms for self defense in schools and other currently “gun free” locations. Not a single victim at Virginia Tech had the ability to fight back on equal terms if they had wanted to. The laws of Virginia, the laws of the United States, and the policies of the University of Virginia system left these people extremely vulnerable and defenseless. In the cases where quick availability to legally owned firearms for defense existed, rampages like yesterdays were stopped with a far fewer loss of life. I refer you to the Appalachian Law School (6)(7) and the Pearl, Mississippi, High School (8) incidents.


Respectfully


Jose

References

(1) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
(2) http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html
(3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3914289.stm
(4) http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/02/has_gun_crime_touched_your_life.html
(5) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/3263985.stm
(6) http://www.uwire.com/content/topops012402002.html
(7) http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/topic-appalachianlawschool.html
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Woodham

 

[Jose]

Thank you all.

 

[kevin9]

remove the where after the everywhere...it doesn't seem correct to me.

Or, change it to "In every place where the availability..." Either is good English, your choice.

Very well done overall!

 

[95thFoot]

Using worldnetdaily and wikipedia as sources; yeah, that's a good idea. How about throwing in another equally credible source, such as DEBKAfiles or Paul Harvey? I doubt this will make it past a staffer, esp. when they read the sources.

 

[Jose]

Using worldnetdaily and wikipedia as sources; yeah, that's a good idea. How about throwing in another equally credible source, such as DEBKAfiles or Paul Harvey? I doubt this will make it past a staffer, esp. when they read the sources.

Did you find any inaccuracies in the references I used, or are you just running your mouth off without a clue?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Jose, no insults allowed here!

I think 95th's point is that the readers give no credence to those as "legitimate" (in their eyes) sources.

 

[Jose]

Jose, no insults allowed here!

I found his comments pretty insulting. How about that?

If he didn't bother to actually read any of the citations, then I am not interested in what he has to say.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Point taken!

BOTH Jose and 95th . . . NO insults here. Make your point without being insulting, that's the rules of NES. Thank you.

Jose, what he's trying to say is that regardless of how valid the articles are, legistraitors will NOT give them any credibility due to the source. e.g. Anti-gunners will not accept anything that NRA says, even if just quoting statistics. They will however believe MSM (NY Times, Boston Glob, etc.).

So his point should have been that you try to find some sources which our enemies can accept.

HTH

 

[Jose]

Too late. The letters are gone. It's not my fault that some people cannot look at an article and evaluate its credibility prima facie, instead relying on the letterhead. That only demostrates the shallowness of their analytical ability.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Too late. The letters are gone. It's not my fault that some people cannot look at an article and evaluate its credibility prima facie, instead relying on the letterhead. That only demostrates the shallowness of their analytical ability.

I hope that "shallowness" is not news to you!

Regrettably that is what politics is all about!