Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Roanoke Times article orginal and responses...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Craig County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    Hi all, Jackie Treehorn here (aka Bradford Wiles). It's a lot of reading, but here you go...

    I recently had an editorial in the Roanoke Times published. While I was surprised they published it at all, it was edited for content.

    http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/140318

    Here is what they took out, and my comments about it...

    I should have expected as much from the RT, but wow, I am quite disappointed that they took out what I feel was the most important part of the piece. No hyperbole there, it was the most important part!

    "Emotions play a vital role in policies on gun control, but those of us who are in favor of armed self-defense usually avoid the emotional and thus leverage the logic regarding the lack of effectiveness of gun prohibitions. We often hear claims that gun control is “for the children”, “common-sense” and “reasonable”. Let me counter this with some emotion this time, as logic seems to be ignored by those opposed to citizens carrying guns for self-defense. When I think of those children and adults murdered here at VT, the flow of emotions including grief, regret, and helplessness are overwhelming. I am deeply saddened by the tragedy here, and knowing that it could have been minimized had someone been able to shoot back is truly the most difficult feeling of all. “Common-sense”? “Reasonable”? The common sense and reasonable approach is to ensure that people can fight back. Let me be clear, the opposition does not have a monopoly on emotion, but supporters of citizens’ gun rights have the added advantage of a monopoly on sound logic."

    The stuff in bold is what they took out, it really tied the whole article together, and yet they took it out.

    Anyway, there have been several kind and logical responses to my article in the letters to the editor section. They are below.

    Sorry this is self-serving, but I would like to read your responses to my article, the editing, and finally the response letters. I would URGE any of you to write to them to dissect the letters in opposition, particularly that of Jonathan Reid's position that "Only police should have guns", noting that this was the EXACT scenario that took place on 4/16.

    Thanks for reading.

    For safety's sake, leave the guns at home

    In the commentary "Gun bans defy common sense" (Nov. 19), Bradford Wiles continues to espouse the position that if students, staff and faculty were allowed to carry firearms on campus, the events of April 16 would not have unfolded as they did.

    Wiles still seems to be living in a Wild West fantasy where he would have shot and killed Cho, preventing him from killing 32 people.

    What assurance do I have that Wiles will not snap and start shooting in his classroom? Would it have made a difference if Cho had been legally allowed to carry a gun on campus? Think about the confusion that could have been caused by the presence of more than one person with a gun in Norris Hall. More innocent people could have been killed.

    Only officers of the law should be carrying a gun on the campus of Virginia Tech. They have been trained in the proper use of firearms and know when to use them. I doubt that Wiles has received this level of training.

    Wiles, for the sake of me and your fellow Hokies, please leave your pistol at home. People with guns do not prevent violent crimes. Gun control laws do.
    JONATHAN REID
    BLACKSBURG


    Keep campuses safe, and gun-free

    In response to Bradford Wiles' commentary, "Gun bans defy common sense" (Nov. 19):

    His last statement reveals his ignorance: "Prohibitions do not prevent violent crimes; people with guns do." Based on what evidence? Most of Western Europe and most of the world have stricter gun control laws and yet their levels of gun violence are much lower than in the United States. We have higher levels of violent crime even though we are more armed than elsewhere.

    Places in our country where gun violence is highest -- inner-cities -- are quite heavily armed, but it doesn't seem to prevent much violent crime, especially gun violence.

    The reality is that the more heavily armed the state, the higher the level of gun violence. How long would it take for a college campus to equal the 33 deaths of April 16 if the student population were allowed to be armed?

    College campuses are still very safe places and incidences like that of April 16 are fortunately very rare. Allowing the students to be armed only opens the door to more violent crime, especially when combined with stress levels and drug and alcohol abuse among the student population.
    SEAN SHARP
    BLACKSBURG

    Guns on campus increase insecurity

    Bradford Wiles, in his commentary "Gun bans defy common sense" (Nov. 19), appears to envision a safe and secure college or university campus as one where students are armed.

    I beg to differ. Far from making a campus secure, classrooms and dormitories filled with gun-toting students would experience heightened insecurity and lack of safety, with the possibility of many gun accidents and even impulsive acts of violence.

    Such a paranoid Wild West atmosphere would by definition be antithetical to the development of true communities of peaceful reflection and learning.
    JAMES A. SMITH JR.
    NARROWS






  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Uggh. A hard lesson, I know.

    When writing an LtE against the editorial board's opinion it must be uneditable, otherwise this happens - your letter was gutted! You should protest that editorial dishonesty specifically in a follow-up and demand the unedited original be published.

    And now I'm off to try to read the originals - depending on what sort of scripts they try to run and how burdensome is their security.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP *******

  3. #3
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    jackie treehorn wrote:
    Hi all, Jackie Treehorn here (aka Bradford Wiles). It's a lot of reading, but here you go...
    Holy, Freakin', Crap!

    As the last Pope once said, "It is, as it was". I can make the proud claim that every editorial that I've submitted to what ever paper has been published. But I can also say that the Roanoke Times took my editorial and, using only my words, edited it to say something completely different than what I was originally trying to say.

    That said, it surprises me not that they would print your (highly edited) letter to the editor. The reason being that they could then print numerous "replies". It also does not surprise me that the intellectual level, not to mention honesty, of the respondants would be as evidenced. Although I must say these examples are horribly worse than usual. It is well known that the RT&WN is much more liberal than even the Washington Post. Many funny stories I could tell dealing with the RT and their buddy Planned Parenthood.

    I would really like to respond to these replies. But I must say that the ignorant confidence that they have is most mind-numbing. Perhaps that's their plan.... Perhaps I should call the editor first, just to let them know... Unbeliveable.



  4. #4
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    jackie treehorn wrote:
    His last statement reveals his ignorance: "Prohibitions do not prevent violent crimes; people with guns do." Based on what evidence? Most of Western Europe and most of the world have stricter gun control laws and yet their levels of gun violence are much lower than in the United States. We have higher levels of violent crime even though we are more armed than elsewhere.

    Places in our country where gun violence is highest -- inner-cities -- are quite heavily armed, but it doesn't seem to prevent much violent crime, especially gun violence.


    A little off the subject, but there are plenty of facts and proof showing this poster's "ignorance". The "inner-cities -- are quite heavily armed". This is true, but the "inner-cities" with the highestviolent crime rates have the toughest gun laws preventing just aboutanyone but criminals from owning guns. So, it is only the criminals that are armed, ignoring the gun laws in place.Basically, gun laws do not"seem to prevent much violent crime, especially gun violence."

    And based on several of John Lott Jr's books (all the research he has done and provided), Western nations do have a lower gun crime rate, but have a higher violent crime rate. It is very easy to provide evidence. Just look here in America. Areas and states that allow their citizens to arm themselves have lower crime rates than areas with tough gun laws (Northern Virginia has a much lower crime rate than DC and the surrounding Maryland areas).

    These people think they are so smart but they just vomit what they hear from the gun control crowd without researching, or digging into the actual numbers and what they mean.

    Required reading for the gun control crowd: http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statis...694&sr=8-1

    How to Lie With Statistics (Paperback)
    by Darrell Huff (Author), Irving Geis (Illustrator)

    My wife also like to point out that if gun owners were really like all these type of people believe we were... They would all be dead because we would have shot them for fear of that we might catch a case of their stupidity.



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Roanoke, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    I've had many LTE's and one op-ed piece published in the Roanoke Times and caught them making changes that affected the context of my letters. I immediately called Karen Trout and told her that in the future, anything they publish that I wrote must be exactly as it was submitted. She assured me it would.

    So far, so good.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    jackie treehorn wrote:
    Hi all, Jackie Treehorn here (aka Bradford Wiles). It's a lot of reading, but here you go...

    I recently had an editorial in the Roanoke Times published. While I was surprised they published it at all, it was edited for content.

    http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/140318

    Here is what they took out, and my comments about it...

    I should have expected as much from the RT, but wow, I am quite disappointed that they took out what I feel was the most important part of the piece. No hyperbole there, it was the most important part!

    "Emotions play a vital role in policies on gun control, but those of us who are in favor of armed self-defense usually avoid the emotional and thus leverage the logic regarding the lack of effectiveness of gun prohibitions. We often hear claims that gun control is “for the children”, “common-sense” and “reasonable”. Let me counter this with some emotion this time, as logic seems to be ignored by those opposed to citizens carrying guns for self-defense. When I think of those children and adults murdered here at VT, the flow of emotions including grief, regret, and helplessness are overwhelming. I am deeply saddened by the tragedy here, and knowing that it could have been minimized had someone been able to shoot back is truly the most difficult feeling of all. “Common-sense”? “Reasonable”? The common sense and reasonable approach is to ensure that people can fight back. Let me be clear, the opposition does not have a monopoly on emotion, but supporters of citizens’ gun rights have the added advantage of a monopoly on sound logic."

    The stuff in bold is what they took out, it really tied the whole article together, and yet they took it out.

    Anyway, there have been several kind and logical responses to my article in the letters to the editor section. They are below.

    Sorry this is self-serving, but I would like to read your responses to my article, the editing, and finally the response letters. I would URGE any of you to write to them to dissect the letters in opposition, particularly that of Jonathan Reid's position that "Only police should have guns", noting that this was the EXACT scenario that took place on 4/16.

    Thanks for reading.

    For safety's sake, leave the guns at home

    In the commentary "Gun bans defy common sense" (Nov. 19), Bradford Wiles continues to espouse the position that if students, staff and faculty were allowed to carry firearms on campus, the events of April 16 would not have unfolded as they did.

    Wiles still seems to be living in a Wild West fantasy where he would have shot and killed Cho, preventing him from killing 32 people.

    What assurance do I have that Wiles will not snap and start shooting in his classroom? Would it have made a difference if Cho had been legally allowed to carry a gun on campus? Think about the confusion that could have been caused by the presence of more than one person with a gun in Norris Hall. More innocent people could have been killed.

    Only officers of the law should be carrying a gun on the campus of Virginia Tech. They have been trained in the proper use of firearms and know when to use them. I doubt that Wiles has received this level of training.

    Wiles, for the sake of me and your fellow Hokies, please leave your pistol at home. People with guns do not prevent violent crimes. Gun control laws do.
    JONATHAN REID
    BLACKSBURG


    Keep campuses safe, and gun-free

    In response to Bradford Wiles' commentary, "Gun bans defy common sense" (Nov. 19):

    His last statement reveals his ignorance: "Prohibitions do not prevent violent crimes; people with guns do." Based on what evidence? Most of Western Europe and most of the world have stricter gun control laws and yet their levels of gun violence are much lower than in the United States. We have higher levels of violent crime even though we are more armed than elsewhere.

    Places in our country where gun violence is highest -- inner-cities -- are quite heavily armed, but it doesn't seem to prevent much violent crime, especially gun violence.

    The reality is that the more heavily armed the state, the higher the level of gun violence. How long would it take for a college campus to equal the 33 deaths of April 16 if the student population were allowed to be armed?

    College campuses are still very safe places and incidences like that of April 16 are fortunately very rare. Allowing the students to be armed only opens the door to more violent crime, especially when combined with stress levels and drug and alcohol abuse among the student population.
    SEAN SHARP
    BLACKSBURG

    Guns on campus increase insecurity

    Bradford Wiles, in his commentary "Gun bans defy common sense" (Nov. 19), appears to envision a safe and secure college or university campus as one where students are armed.

    I beg to differ. Far from making a campus secure, classrooms and dormitories filled with gun-toting students would experience heightened insecurity and lack of safety, with the possibility of many gun accidents and even impulsive acts of violence.

    Such a paranoid Wild West atmosphere would by definition be antithetical to the development of true communities of peaceful reflection and learning.
    JAMES A. SMITH JR.
    NARROWS




    Jackie Treehorn, I got blasted from friends for even suggesting that students who can legallyCC firearms everywhere else, should be able toCC them on campus. When I suggested to those same friends that there are already colleges in the US that allow studentsto legally CC on campus (I believe in UT, CO, one school in VA, and more schools since the VTech incident), they were shocked.

    I applaud you for your article. Keep doing what you are doing, and, maybe therules will be changed (at VTech).

    2nd Amendment........Use it.........Or, lose it!!:X

    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  7. #7
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    You know, it's interesting how people, such as the negative responders to the OP's editorial, can sit around and armchair discuss what they would do or what should or should not be allowed to be done under situations as extreme as the Tech shooting. They cling to the notion that regardless of the slaughter and sheer helplessness, people should not have the best means at hand with which to defend themselves. The naked fact is these people just flat do not like or want guns. But it's not enough that they don't like or want them.. they don't want anyone else to have them either. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people on the alter of their "superior plan". Well the one question that tends to stop them in their tracks is this.

    In the final seconds of your child's life, just before their killer is about to dispatch them to that eternal darkness, what would you rather they have in their hand? A cell phone or a gun?


    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  8. #8
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    You know, it's interesting how people, such as the negative responders to the OP's editorial, can sit around and armchair discuss what they would do or what should or should not be allowed to be done under situations as extreme as the Tech shooting. They cling to the notion that regardless of the slaughter and sheer helplessness, people should not have the best means at hand with which to defend themselves. The naked fact is these people just flat do not like or want guns. But it's not enough that they don't like or want them.. they don't want anyone else to have them either. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people on the alter of their "superior plan". Well the one question that tends to stop them in their tracks is this.

    In the final seconds of your child's life, just before their killer is about to dispatch them to that eternal darkness, what would you rather they have in their hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    My sentiments exactly!! Well said, SouthernBoy.

    2nd Amendment.........Use it.........Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Smurfologist wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    You know, it's interesting how people, such as the negative responders to the OP's editorial, can sit around and armchair discuss what they would do or what should or should not be allowed to be done under situations as extreme as the Tech shooting. They cling to the notion that regardless of the slaughter and sheer helplessness, people should not have the best means at hand with which to defend themselves. The naked fact is these people just flat do not like or want guns. But it's not enough that they don't like or want them.. they don't want anyone else to have them either. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people on the alter of their "superior plan". Well the one question that tends to stop them in their tracks is this.

    In the final seconds of your child's life, just before their killer is about to dispatch them to that eternal darkness, what would you rather they have in their hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    My sentiments exactly!! Well said, SouthernBoy.

    2nd Amendment.........Use it.........Or, lose it!!:X
    Thank you, sir.

    You know, the really ironic thing about that question I suggested is that it puts anti's in an awkward position. If they answer cell phone, they are condemning their child to death. On the other hand, if they answer handgun, they are admitting that everything they stand for with their anti-gun agenda is false and hypocritical. And they are de facto admitting their desire to resort to violence with a firearm in extreme situations. It proves them to be shallow and two-faced.

    So what they tend to do is avoid answering the question.. other than making some blanket statement to the effect of, "Well, if no one had guns, this would be a non-issue". And this proves them to be willing to hide from reality.

    So this simple question basically nails them to the wall and makes them very uncomfortable.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •