From: dfh@dwroll.att.com (D461-David_F_Haertig(Dave)83040)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: My first letter to the editor
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:01:47 GMT
Reply-To: dfh@dwroll.ATT.COM ()
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Denver Works

I finally wrote my first letter to the editor.  It was in
response to an offensive anti-RKBA editorial that went so
far as to say "gun ownership tends to make criminals out of
law-abiding citizens."  Maybe those of you who, like me,
sat back, complained, but did nothing to respond to these
attacks will benefit from my experience and write your own
letters.  I have included my original letter below along with
comments about how the newspaper edited it.

Here's the scoop:

An anti-RKBA editorial was published in the Denver Post on
Monday (Labor Day), Sept 6th.  My rebuttal was in the mail
that same day, and was published on Sunday, Sept 13th.
It was published alongside another pro-RKBA letter under the
bold headline:

    "Tucker's favoring of Brady Bill challenged as false logic"

There were no other (pro/anti) RKBA letters printed that day.
I guess it was just shear luck that my reply ended up in the
Sunday paper, but I'm happy since the Sunday issue is read by
more people than the weekday issues.  The original letter was
approximately 380 words, the published version was approximately
210 words.

--------------------------------------

[ START of letter ]

Cynthia Tucker's editorial on gun control in the Labor Day issue of
the Denver Post brought up some interesting points.  She begins by
describing the shooting of Jim Brady by John Hinckley.  Of course
this was a tragedy that no one would like repeated, but Ms. Tucker's
suggestion that the Brady Bill addresses this issue is not realistic.
Mr. Hinckley purchased his gun several months before the shooting
occurred, so a seven day waiting period would not have made a difference.
The Brady Bill does not require a background check as Ms. Tucker
implies, it merely imposes a waiting period that could be used for
such a check.  However, the Stagger's Bill did require a background
check, and was supported by the NRA.  It is also interesting that
many of our cities that impose waiting periods or outright handgun
bans are also on the "murder capitol" list.  Witness New York City,
Washington DC, Los Angeles, and many others.  

[ The above paragraph was published almost verbatim.  Two   ]
[ sentences were joined into one, and "Stagger's Bill" was  ]
[ replaced with "Rep. Harley Staggers' Bill".  The original ]
[ paragraph was also split into two seperate ones, starting ]
[ with the line "The Brady Bill does not ...."              ]

Ms. Tucker goes on to compare the US homicide rate with other
countries such as Great Britain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Canada.
By using raw numbers instead of per capita rates, the author
presents a very misleading picture by comparing countries of such
widely differing populations.  It is interesting that Switzerland
is on the "low homicide" list.  Most households there have a true
assault weapon -- a fully automatic rifle -- not to be confused
with the media's current definition of any "military looking
semi-automatic firearm."  So Ms. Tucker is probably incorrect when
she states "gun ownership tends to make criminals out of law-abiding
citizens."

[ The above paragraph was totally deleted from the published version. ]

While labeling the NRA as "extremists," Ms. Tucker forgets that
the NRA plays a large role in training our police, and offers
numerous firearms safety programs to the public.  The NRA is
not some group of extremists beating up on Congress.  It is several
million US Citizens who do not believe that "gun owners" equal
"criminals".  The NRA lobbies for effective ways to reduce crime,
but opposes legislation that would be ineffective.

[ The above paragraph was published almost verbatim, except the   ]
[ last line beginning with "The NRA lobbies for ..." was deleted. ]

There are many ills in our society.  I do not relish all the death
and injury I read about in the daily paper.  But I am not yet
willing to throw my support behind an idea that has proven itself
to be totally ineffective in combating crime.

[ The above paragraph was totally deleted from the published version. ]

[ END of letter ]

--------------------------------------

I learned several things from my first letter to the editor
experience.

    (1)  You need to respond *immediately* when replying to
         a negative editorial/letter.

    (2)  When the editorial section states that "lengths of 200
         words or less are preferred", they mean *you* too.  They
         *will* edit your letter down as they desire.

In order to address both of these things I learned, I plan to
"pre-write" a letter-to-the-editor that addresses the small handful
of points that 95% of the anti-RKBA editorials/letters cover.
When the time is right to send another letter, I will than edit
this pre-written letter to only address the specific points made
by the particular anti-RKBA editorial in question.  This way I will
be able to mull over the exact wording I want, pre-edit the letter
down to a small size, and respond immediately.  Minor changes of
wording will be a snap compared to trying to write a letter from
scratch.

After seeing how my letter was edited and reading it over after
forgetting about it for a week, there are things I will word
differently next time.  But I didn't have the time to mull over
the wording for a week in my first letter to the editor.  But
I will now create a file of well-written (hopefully) response
paragraphs that can be edited quickly to meet a given situation.
I'm sure this has been done many times before, so if someone has
something like this available or knows an FTP site, I'd appreciate
hearing about it.

Thanks,

Dave Haertig
haertig@att.com