He works for the WSJ and has a liberal agenda to spread.
Originally Posted by Chris RickertOriginally Posted by Doug Huffmancrickert@madison.com is a jerk with an unearned bully pulpit.Originally Posted by Chris Rickert
He works for the WSJ and has a liberal agenda to spread.
Well, I haven't engaged in any futile and pointless activities today so I sent the following to Mr. Rickert:
" Sir -
In your story found at the link below you assert, "seeing as how the proliferation of guns has been repeatedly associated with a proliferation of violence...it seems like a right that might need a little less exercising."
1. I hope you are familiar with the Uniform Crime Reports that have been maintained by the FBI since the 1930's so that crimes committed in different states can be recorded and tracked using a common definition and classification. Please site your sources demonstrating the Uniform Crime Reports support the position that the legal ownership and carry of firearms leads to increases in armed or unarmed violence.
2. Since 1987 more than half the states in the U.S. have passed legislation providing for the legal carry of concealed firearms. Please site your sources indicating the Uniform Crime Reports support the position there has been an increase in armed or unarmed violence in those states that have passed concealed carry legislation.
3. In the a past two decades there has been an observable increase in the legal ownership of firearms in the U.S. Please site your sources demonstrating that for the same time period, the Uniform Crime Reports support the position there has been an increase in armed violence in the U.S., including homicides.
4. Within a few hour's drive of Madison, the city of Chicago has all but banned the legal ownership & possession of firearms and ammunition. Please ask Mayor Daley why these measures have failed to stem the flood of robberies, shootings, and homicides involving firearms in his city.
While there are people who will accept opinion, supposition and appeals to "it's only common sense" (when it matches their own positions), I challenge you to adopt a higher standard. Do the research and do the math before you proclaim to others you have a particularly clear and insightful perspective on "the truth".
Oh well. I just couldn't help myself.
"I didn't say the "legal ownership and carry of firearms leads to increases ... ."
I sent this futile response:
"Since you indicated, "the proliferation of guns has been repeatedly associated with a proliferation of violence,...it seems like a right that might need a little less exercising" then please quote your sources indicating the *illegal* ownership and carry of firearms is a "right".
A multinational task force of engineers, mathematicians and psychologist gathered on the Azores islands to discuss stabilization methods. It was found that the tilt of opinion was increasing in combination with the softening of foundation along the left side of Chris's brain. After over two years of stabilization studies, Chris's opinion was closed to the public. The pulpit was removed to relieve some stress, cables were cinched around the 2nd amendment and anchored several hundred years ago. Apartments and houses in the path of the Chris were vacated for safety. The final solution to prevent the collapse of Chris's opinion to the left was to slightly straighten the opinion to a safer angle, by removing 38 cubic metres (50 cu yd) of BS arguments from underneath the raised end. After half a decade of corrective reconstruction and stabilization efforts, the opinion was reopened to the public on December 15, 2013, and was declared stable for at least another 2 years.
I tried to read the article and made it to Pistol-Packing in the first half of the first sentence and said to myself. This article is going to lean more than the leaning tower of Pisa. Might as well argue with a brick.
I sent chris an email.
I can't even begin to describe the number of errors in your article. While you mostly avoid stating any facts to keep from being proven wrong, you manage to question a persons decision to protect himself or others from harm. Is your argument that because the chances are remote that you will be killed in a car accident, that seat belts aren't needed? Would you buy a car without an airbag because the odds that you will crash are low? Would you drive your family in that car without seat belts and airbags? Seat belts and oxygen masks are also included on airliners despite the odds of an incident being low. Would you fly on an airline you knew to not have these safety features? I noticed you wrote an article called "We aren't Chicago, but gangs are here". I suppose you'd rather throw your life at the mercy of such thugs without a means to defend yourself. I don't advocate shooting first, but if your life or that of your loved ones are in jeopardy, wouldn't you want every advantage to defend them?
Having obtained a job at a prominent newspaper, I hope I would be correct to assume that you have a college education. I noticed you paid attention to the history course where they discussed the Battle of Waterloo. Intriguing metaphor. Did you skip the courses that covered making effective arguments? In order to have an effective argument you need a claim, and evidence to support that claim. Since you have neither, your entire article is unsubstantiated opinion. I fail to see how unsupported opinion deserves to be published. Your position as a reporter makes your opinion no more important than mine or any other persons. It does obligate you to conduct research to ensure that you know at least a general overview of all aspects on a topic. Here is where you have failed.
I wonder where you would have people exercise their rights? Open carry has no purpose other than to defend yourself if needed during your day-to-day activities. If I open carry, it isn't to make a point. It is because I want to be able to protect myself. I certainly don't agree with your "reporting", but I won't advocate that anyone prevents you from doing so.
You have some major factual errors, most notably where you claim that " proliferation of guns has been repeatedly associated with a proliferation of violence". Not only is this factually wrong, it is egregiously misleading. There exists no federally funded study pointing to an increase in gun violence as a result of open or concealed carry. The only groups claiming this are anti-gun political groups. As I hope you know, Wisconsin is one of only two states lacking concealed carry. If it wasn't working, I'm sure one of the other states that passed such legislation would have revoked it shortly thereafter, yet none have done so. I would suggest you do some research for future articles, rather than letting your fears and preconceived objections babble out onto a word processing document and passing it off as journalism.
I've also noted that in your fifth paragraph, you use the word "glock". That is a proper noun, and therefore should be capitalized. A Google search if you are unsure will help in the future. I'll be reading future articles you write and hope to see some kind of improvement. Citing sources that support claims would be a good start. In hopes that your paper will think about this, I've emailed some editors, who should be reviewing your work and your claims before they are published.