Following up


tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Earlier this week, I posted a thread on an editorial I saw in my local newspaper.

Link Removed

In the thread, I said that I would write a letter to the editor in response. I think it's pretty good so far, however, it is currently 329 words and I need to cut it down to 300 before I can submit it.

Your thoughts?

Here is what I have so far:


This is in response to the February 19th editorial that seemed to blame the Valentine’s Day killings at Northern Illinois University on the “ease” with which gun purchases can presently be made.

This editorial repeatedly calls for laws making it tougher to purchase firearms, yet produces no evidence that such laws actually decrease crime. In fact, the only thing such laws have historically accomplished is to discourage firearm ownership by honest, law-abiding citizens while creating a safer working environment for criminals.

By recognizing the right to keep and bear arms, the Founding Fathers realized that if people could not take up arms against tyranny, they would eventually find themselves at the mercy of the government; their clairvoyance seemed like prophecy during the Holocaust, when 6 million Jews were systematically exterminated after being disarmed by the Nazis. Today, people without firearms are not only at the mercy of tyrants, but criminals as well.

Because gun control has never succeeded in preventing criminals from obtaining firearms, governments would be wise to level the playing field for law abiding citizens against criminals by loosening, not increasing, restrictions on gun ownership. When this happens, more criminals will encounter armed resistance in the course of their activities, and as a result, their jobs will become less safe.
The NIU shootings should make it clear how utterly ineffective gun control is. Residing in a state that has some of the nation’s strictest gun laws did not stop Steven Kazmierczak from killing five people that day, and as long as these laws are enforced, unarmed students on university campuses will continue to be sitting ducks for madmen like him to kill with impunity.
Disarmament laws effectively deprive law abiding citizens of the tools necessary to protect themselves and their loved ones from those who would do them harm and are disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst, and if they aren’t promptly repealed, there are going to be more, not fewer mass shootings in the future.
 

Mushroom

New member
Well written and to the point.

I hate to say it, but, you need those extra 29 words. It is beyond my poor english to figure out how to shorten it by 29 words and not lose some of the needed points you made so well.

Sorry, perhaps there is an english major out there somewhere that can help?
 
Great work tattedupboy! I'm not an "English Major", but here's what I've come up with. The result will shorten your piece by 33 words. Strike the words in bold, and add the words that are in italics. Edit the words that are underlined.



This is in response to the February 19th editorial that seemed to blamed the Valentine’s Day killings at Northern Illinois University on the “ease” with which of current gun purchases. can presently be made

This editorial repeatedly calls for laws making it tougher to purchase firearms, yet produces no evidence that such laws actually decrease crime. In fact, the only thing such laws have historically accomplished is to discourage firearm ownership by honest, law-abiding citizens while creating a safer working environment for criminals.

By recognizing the right to keep and bear arms, the
"Our" Founding Fathers realized that if people could not take up arms against tyranny, they would eventually find themselves at the mercy of the government; their clairvoyance seemed like prophecy. During the Holocaust, when 6 million Jews were systematically exterminated after being disarmed by the Nazis. Today, People without firearms are not only at the mercy of tyrants, but criminals as well.

Because Gun control has never succeeded in preventing criminals from obtaining firearms, governments would be wise to level the playing field for law abiding citizens against criminals by loosening, not increasing, restrictions on gun ownership. When this happens, more criminals will encounter armed resistance in the course of their activities, and as a result, their jobs will become less safe.
The NIU shootings should make it clear how utterly ineffective gun control is. Residing in A state that has some of the nation’s strictest gun laws did not stop Steven Kazmierczak from killing five people that day. and as long as these laws are enforced Enforcing these laws will continue to result in unarmed students on university campuses University Students will continue to be sitting ducks for madmen like him to kill with impunity.

Disarmament laws effectively deprive law abiding citizens of the tools necessary to protect themselves and their loved ones from those who would do them harm and are disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst, and if they aren’t promptly repealed, there are going to will be more, not fewer mass shootings in the future.


Great writing, hope it gets published.



gf
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
I was able to pare it down to 294 words. If it makes it into the paper, I'll let everyone know. Here is what I submitted:

This is in response to the February 19th editorial that blamed the recent Northern Illinois University shootings on the “ease” with which guns can presently be purchased.

This editorial repeatedly calls for laws making it tougher to purchase firearms, yet produces no evidence that such laws actually decrease crime. In fact, the only thing such laws have historically accomplished is to discourage firearm ownership by honest, law-abiding citizens while creating a safer working environment for criminals.

The Founding Fathers realized that if people could not take up arms against tyranny, they would eventually find themselves at the government’s mercy; their clairvoyance seemed evident during the Holocaust, when 6 million Jews were systematically exterminated after being disarmed by the Nazis. Today, disarmament puts people not only at the mercy of tyrants, but criminals as well.

Because gun control has never prevented criminals from obtaining firearms, governments should level the playing field for law-abiding citizens against criminals by loosening, not increasing, restrictions on gun ownership. When this happens, more criminals will encounter armed resistance in the course of their activities, and as a result, their jobs will become less safe.

The NIU shootings clearly illustrate how utterly ineffective gun control is. Illinois’ gun laws, which are among the nation’s strictest, did not stop Steven Kazmierczak from killing five people that day, and the continued enforcement of these laws will only result in unarmed students at university campuses being sitting ducks for madmen like him to easily kill with impunity.

Disarmament laws, despite their intentions, effectively deny law-abiding citizens access to the tools they need to protect themselves and their loved ones from those who make a living ignoring those laws, which, if not promptly repealed, will result in more, not fewer mass shootings in the future.
 
Looks great! Hope that it gets published. So far most of the stuff I see in the paper is "one sided". They need to publish stuff on both sides of the issue.


gf
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,436
Messages
623,659
Members
74,275
Latest member
zxclord123
Top