Good letter to the editor on NYSAFE

[WNYBuckHunter]

This guy did a great job writing this. Lots of facts and great points used....

 

http://www.rbj.net/article.asp?aID=206641

 

[Doc]

Every town and city has some form of newspaper that publishes letters. And yet we seldom see any pro-gun letters. One would think that somewhere in each municipality there would be at least one gun owner that is fairly skilled at writing.

 

This guy has a very organized, clear and credible way of writing and has reached one news outlet. How about all the others. It's a free, widely read mode of putting a point across. Why is it always left for anti-gun/anti-hunting individuals to use? 

[Mr VJP]

It's a venue open to anyone who cares to use it, but many NY gun owners and hunters don't seem to care. Besides, you can't sway emotional thinking, which is what SAFE Act supporters have, with facts.

[tuttled]

Good read on the issue. I will agree that you can't always sway emotional thinking, however presenting real time facts and statistics can help alleviate some of the issues. Being up to date on the issues and the actual facts can help go a long way. In conversations I've had with people either on the Safe Act or Firearms issues, when the actual facts can be presented it can help people who support the Safe Act see the true reality. Unfortunately, the media portrays firearms in a negative light and this article is a step in the right direction. This could be a beneficial step if more gun owners and hunters were willing to use it. Definitely something to look into.

[virgil]

This type of letter makes a whole lot better impression than a rant from Ted Nugent.  There are probably a lot more people on the fence on this issue than you might think; and a rational, intelligent letter is much more likely to sway people than a crazy rant.

[fasteddie]

Wow . Excellent read !

[Doc]

Just to present the other side of the coin..... Those of us who use the power of the editorial page can also do quite a bit of harm when presenting the gun owner's side of the Safe Act if not done carefully, thoughtfully and properly. An article that is written in any way that can be construed as extreme or written with poor grammar, spelling and word choices can really help the anti-gunners more than gun owners. It really is as much about perception as it is about the facts and the arguments.

 

I think it would be a good idea to get a second opinion on whatever you compose from somebody that would not pull any punches about what they thought of your letter. Better yet, post it here and ask for a critique. We know that nobody pulls any punches here ..... lol.

[NFA-ADK]

This was written very well, so I posted it. 

 

SAFE Act bad for business and N.Y.

 

Rochester Business Journal

February 28, 2014

Dear Editor:
I’m a little behind reading my RBJs but felt very compelled to respond to the letters to the editor in your Jan. 31 issue. In that issue you ran two pro-NY SAFE Act letters from writers from New York City, one week after your Snap Poll had clear results showing that 62 percent oppose the NY SAFE Act and 53 percent think it should be repealed.

First, I’d like to state that most people who are against the SAFE Act are not against stricter enforcement of the current laws and have no issues with laws that put and keep criminals in jail. What the writers fail to understand is that criminals are called that for a reason. They do not respect the law, and taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens will do nothing to make us safer; it actually makes us less safe. Criminals by nature will not adhere to the law and will find a way to get firearms without a background check, whether on the black market or by stealing them.

Leah Gunn Barrett (the author of one of the letters) from New Yorkers Against Gun Violence has blasted papers throughout upstate with letters and opinion pieces trying to change the “perceptions” of upstate citizens regarding the SAFE Act. I’ve lived in the Rochester area since 1969 and have always been very concerned about how New York City controls so much of the laws that Upstate New Yorkers live and work under and where our tax dollars go.

Barrett noted that polls indicate many favor specific aspects of the law; what she does not say is that it’s very small parts like the Webster provision that people favor and hence the huge push for a repeal. This law makes no one safe by limiting the ability of New Yorkers to protect themselves. As an example of how poorly written this law is, people are concerned that if, God forbid, they need psychological help or an anti-depressant for a death in the family, they will be reported to the state and have their firearms confiscated, so they have chosen not to seek help.

The main point in Barrett’s letter is that the SAFE Act is good for business. Let’s take a look at some hard facts. In October, American Tactical Imports, a Rochester-based importer, announced that due to the SAFE Act it will be leaving the state and taking 117 jobs and $2.7 million of investments to South Carolina. Beikirch’s Ammunition in East Rochester has opened two locations in Pennsylvania, not New York. Downstate, Kahr Firearms will be expanding in Pennsylvania. On Feb. 18, Remington announced plans to expand in Alabama, creating 2,000 jobs and investing $110 million. In addition, ancillary manufacturing and other jobs will be lost or not created because of this major business exodus. This represents millions of dollars and real jobs and people leaving New York for good.

Along with pushing jobs and money out of New York, the implementation of this legislation is going to cost taxpayers $36 million a year and has created a hostile environment for both in-state and out-of-state sportsmen and -women who now risk committing crimes because of the countless technical criminal violations created by the SAFE Act for possessing items that can be purchased over the counter in neighboring states.

I find Barrett’s comments about the SAFE Act being good for business baseless when her main goal is to disarm law-abiding citizens and vanquish any firearms-related businesses and manufacturers from New York.

Barrett also mentions the power of perception as a reason to implement laws that affect only law-abiding citizens. I’d prefer to use hard facts from the Department of Justice rather than perception, as gun ownership has increased dramatically, according to a report from the department’s Bureau of Statistics. It says that between 1993 and 2011, non-fatal gun crimes plummeted 69 percent, from 1.5 million to 467,300. Gun-related murders dropped 39 percent, from 18,253 to 11,101. Although one school shooting is one too many, the report also shows that the media-created hysteria over school shootings is wildly misleading. Between ’93 and ’11, the murder rate in schools dropped from 29 a year to 20.

Background checks have been exposed as another bogus narrative that the media has crafted out of thin air. The report proves beyond any doubt that closing the so-called gun show loophole will accomplish next to nothing. Less than 1 percent of state prisoners caught with a gun purchased it at a gun show.

Pew Research Center researchers observed that the huge amount of attention devoted to gun violence incidents in the media has caused most Americans to be unaware that gun crimes have dropped significantly from 20 years ago. In fact, gun-related homicides in the late 2000s were “equal to those not seen since the early 1960s.” Yet their survey found that 56 percent believed gun-related crime is higher; only 12 percent of those polled thought it was lower. It’s a sad state of affairs that most people do not know the hard facts as the anti-gun media refuse to properly report them.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo used the message of necessity to bypass the public and get his poorly written law passed in the middle of the night by a Legislature that did not have time to read it. Regardless of one’s opinion of the SAFE Act, all New Yorkers should be very concerned about how this law was written and passed in the dead of the night.

Barry Alt
Palmyra

[Mr VJP]

Just to present the other side of the coin..... Those of us who use the power of the editorial page can also do quite a bit of harm when presenting the gun owner's side of the Safe Act if not done carefully, thoughtfully and properly. An article that is written in any way that can be construed as extreme or written with poor grammar, spelling and word choices can really help the anti-gunners more than gun owners. It really is as much about perception as it is about the facts and the arguments.

 

I think it would be a good idea to get a second opinion on whatever you compose from somebody that would not pull any punches about what they thought of your letter. Better yet, post it here and ask for a critique. We know that nobody pulls any punches here ..... lol.

Too bad the same doesn't apply to anti-gunners when they write letters that attack, belittle, insult and flat out lie about hunters and gun owners. Seems a double standard is OK when it is used against the vilified side. They never present facts, but are allowed to spew venom with impunity. Imagine if they wrote a letter about gays that way.

I saw a good e-mail the other day that said, "If burning an American flag is free speech, why would I be persecuted, arrested and prosecuted for burning a rainbow flag?"

It's a political agenda folks. If it ain't P.C., it ain't allowed, no matter what the Constitution says!

[Geno C]

very well written, what he is saying is pretty clear if you ask me... good read

[BKhunter]

Well articulated