Check out this tripe from the "U". It almost made my head explode.

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/04/25/68195


April 25, 2006 Rate this Article


Fewer guns, fewer dead people
Cleansing the streets of guns can start with the guns sitting in Wal-Mart stores.




ast week marked the sixth anniversary of the Columbine school shootings. Along with it, two high school students in Kansas soon will face charges for planning a similar attack. Shootings in Minneapolis also have been surprisingly common lately. The occurrence of these violent acts can be lessened by one thing for sure: gun control.
Shooting after shooting, it becomes clear the problem is that too many people are able to legally acquire handguns in America. Too many people who do legally own handguns aren’t keeping them safe from their children.

What do people even need handguns for? Protection, right? However, if no one could buy or carry a handgun legally, no one would need a handgun to protect themselves. Also, it is a lie for anyone to say he or she needs a handgun in case of being shot at. The shooter would pull out a gun and shoot before the victim ever could get a gun out of his or her pants and shoot back to protect him- or herself. People who buy handguns likely are people who will use them in ways that affect others’ safety.

Minnesota’s Personal Protection Act, also known as the conceal-carry law, is very controversial legislation that allows people to carry a handgun in public with a permit. This permit is given to anyone who has not been convicted of certain violent crimes or those who have finished a prison sentence 10 years prior to applying for a permit.

This means that someone who killed someone and served time potentially could be given a gun to carry in public legally 10 years later and that the state says this is perfectly fine.

There always will be those who think guns are cool to own, but there is a distinct difference between those who carry a gun in public and those that keep their guns locked up at home. The only way these violent shooting occurrences will decrease is if the amount of guns out there decreases.

Crappola When I get time I will send a nice letter to the editor on this one.

The Minnesota Dumbly: Mostly a Piece of Drivel.

There are no handguns in Walmart stores in the lower 49. And there are no guns or ammunition at the Walmart nearest the Screwniversity.

My only comment is AAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!

I get so sick of this BS!

When I was a young man guns were no more despised than can openers. Everyone I knew had at least 1 or 2.

The breed we call "Liberal" today was almost non-existant, the old liberals were more like today's libertarians where you were allowed to do as you please as long as you didn't harm someone else.

I think there are too many liberals on the streets, not too many guns....

False logic of course! Don't worry no one reads the MN Daily not even U of M students.

I'm glad I can atleast carry at the U now!

If anyone writes them, please inform them they are spreading a blantant lie. Someone who murders someone commited a felony, felons cannot own guns, therefore even 10 years after the sentence a felon cannot obtain a permit.

Sounds like a very amatuer article, I'm really hoping no one got school credit for it.

If the author is a sample of what is coming out of the U, I want the school to reimburse the state back for what they spent on that place over the past couple years.
Honestly, even ignoring the blatant falsehoods that make up the article, it was poorly written, the tone is more something I'd expect out of a 8th grade civics class.

I would like to send this in to see if they print it. I can't put my name on it as I have connections to that place that need to continue for several years. If someone else could send it in, or sign it as a group.

Also I would very much like feedback and proposed changes.

Thank you.
---
There was an article in the Daily last week that presented several blatant falsehoods. The main theme of the article is to blame a tool. As an advanced tool user I can attest that tools are not the things that decide how they are used. If that was the case, we would ban cars and swimming pools as each independently kills many times the number of people then people with any type of small arms in the United States. That includes gang activity, drug deals gone “wrong” (how can they go right? They are dealing drugs). Below you will find a corrected article.


Last week marked the sixth anniversary of the Columbine school shootings. Along with it, two high school students in Kansas soon will face charges for planning a similar attack. Shootings in Minneapolis also have been surprisingly common lately. The occurrence of these violent acts can be lessened by one thing for sure: removing criminals from the street and responsible parenting.

Shooting after shooting, it becomes clear the problem is that too many people do not have a sense of personal responsibility, morals, public ethics or a sense of citizenship. Too many people who do legally own handguns are not keeping their children safe by educating them in the four steps that a child should take when they find a firearm be it in the home, in the street or at school. Parents should also be educating their children about being an upstanding citizen (see above mentioned qualities).

What do people even need handguns for? Protection, right? Approximately 35 thousand Minnesota residents have registered for permits to carry since the law was voted into effect in 2003. There have been 9 well documented instances of those people using their pistol to stop them from being severely injured (loss of an eye, limbs, broken back, anything that would cause that person to be impaired for a protracted amount of time) or killed. All of this without any shots being fired. From talking to many permit holders it appears that the number of instances of a pistol carried on a person keeping them from being mugged or raped or subjected to other serious harm is much higher. As for things going wrong there has been precisely one permit holding doing something stupid with his pistol This person would not have had a problem obtaining a pistol without his permit. When he did use his pistol he did many things that were illegal. I have yet to meet anyone, especially permit holders, who would defend this persons actions.

The anonymous author has a very nice idea about no one being able to obtain a handgun, be it legally or illegally. For them I suggest a very nice country such as Canada. Move there. They don’t allow hand guns. Also as anyone who has carried even once knows, the real edge that you gain from carrying a handgun is an increased awareness of your surrounding. You are constantly looking for situations, places or people that could be trouble. These things are then avoided. If you don’t get yourself into a bad situation, bad things can’t happen. People who buy handguns likely are people who will use them in ways that affect their safety and those in the community. There are three facts that support this statement. The first is that criminals are more likely to deterred by simply being told or shown the business end of a pistol. Second if one defends themselves with a pistol in a violent assault you are statistically less likely to be injured. Third there have been several states that have had ‘shall issue’ carry laws passed and the rate of violent crimes have decreased much more then national averages.

Minnesota’s Personal Protection Act, also known as the carry law (one does not have to conceal), that was passed by a majority of the house and senate and signed by the governor twice (technicality on the first go around) that allows people to carry a handgun in public with a permit. This permit is given to anyone who is a US Citizen or permanent resident, has not been convicted of certain violent crimes (such as domestic assault), have not been convicted of a felony, pass classroom training and a short series or target shooting to demonstrate competency in the safe employment of a pistol.

This means that someone who killed someone and served time (a felony) would not have the potential to be given a permit to carry.

There always will be those who think guns are cool to own, but there is a distinct difference between those who carry a gun in public and those that keep their guns locked up at home. That difference is that one person wishes to defend themselves by taking on a responsibility that is gravely serious. As I see it, I would rather shoot to stop someone from murdering me for the change in my pocket and get to see my family again, then to be found in several parts after months of searching. I can’t put my family through that.

The only way these violent shooting occurrences will decrease is if people take responsibility for their actions. Mace does not work on someone hopped up on narcotics or something who is well motivated. Tasers and knifes wait until the bad guy is within arms reach, also tasers do not work so well through several layers of jackets.

Personally, I would not include a "corrected" version of the article. I would simply point out the error in the author's initial assertion and other supposed facts, and provide a set of "true facts" to back up your correction -- preferably with source citations (scientific studies, articles or books, etc.).

You might say something like this:

In the opinion piece "Fewer Guns, Fewer Dead People", the author started from an inaccurate proposition, and then made several assertions that were also either inaccurate or completely incorrect.

The incorrect proposition is the theme of the opinion piece: "The occurrence of these violent acts can be lessened by one thing for sure: gun control."

The truth of the matter is just the opposite.

Statistically speaking, we know that wherever guns have been taken away from law-abiding citizens in other countries, violent crime has, in fact, gone up. The study [something-or-other] showed that in England, when its citizens were still allowed to own firearms, violent crime levels were at [some number] per year. After firearms became illegal to own, violent crime jumped to [some higher number] per year. In [some other country], they saw a similar jump, from [x] to [y] violent crimes per year.

Conversely, in the United States, in specific states where shall-issue laws like Minnesota's were passed, violent crime actually went down. Florida is a perfect example. [more statistics]

In addition to these statistics, we know that violent crime existed in the world before guns were invented. Whether the perpetrators used stones, sticks, knives, swords, or even just their fists and feet, there has always been violent crime in human society.

Forbidding ownership of (or even just the carrying of) a single class of weapons will not stop violent crime. It will simply force citizens to change their self-defense tactics, while the criminals will still be able to use whatever weapons they can get through illegal means. Even if it was possible to completely end the use of guns in violent crime, the criminals would resort to other weapons, as was done before guns were invented.

In addition to the inaccurate proposition, the author made several assertions which are simply not true.

The author claims that under the Minnesota law, "... someone who killed someone and served time potentially could be given a gun to carry in public legally 10 years later and that the state says this is perfectly fine." The truth is, murder is a felony [law x], and convicted felons may never own guns [law y]. That law existed long before the MCPPA was passed, and the MCPPA does not supercede [y].

The author further claims that "...[etc.]"

You get the idea. If you want it to see print, though, you will need to keep your remarks short. Even my own examples are too long, and would need to be edited down before submitting to the paper. Wish I could be more help, but I'm tired and it's time for bed.

TK

Not quite accurate, Canadians are allowed to own handguns albeit with some barrel length restrictions (no snubbys). We can't travel to Canada with a handgun.

Also pistol crimes are skyrocketing in Toronto. They may ban guns, but it isn't working. The article mentions making guns illegal would make it so people wouldn't have to buy one for protection. drivel.

I've given up on the Daily. The UofM is full of so much liberal bullshit, its just not going to change.

Would it be easier to just point out the current issue of The Rake?

That appeared to be pretty good.

Gee, the ban on alcohol was so easy to enforce that they, well, um, yeah, well, the ban on drugs is going so well that nobody can get, well, um.......anyhow, banning guns will make us all safer because if they are banned nobody would be able to get them.

Huh? How's this?

For an earlier discussion on this article see:

http://joelrosenberg.livejournal.com/165639.html