... it does not mean they are any good at it. In browsing around the internet today, Says Uncle happened to point me towards an interesting column in the Chicago Sun-Times. Ok, it really was not that interesting, but it was somewhat troubling, both in terms of its accuracy and its message. Well, as a break from my normal routine, I actually decided not to just write about it here, and took the time to compose a response to the article's author. Ooh, scary, I know. Granted, the below letter is far from being my best work, especially looking back on it now, but it gets the basics and gist of what I was trying to say across, and I guess that is all that really matters.

Mrs. Washington,

Far be it for me to assail the writings of an official journalist such as yourself, but I thought I would take this opportunity to point out a few problems with your Chicago Sun-Times column, "Gun lovers disarm control advcoates".

First, the title, in and of itself, is misleading. The only people who are interested in disarming another group of people are the "gun control" advocates of this nation - they are seeking to disarm all firearm owners, law-abiding or not. We, the lawful and law-abiding gun owners of America, simply wish to exercise our Constitutionally-protected rights, and not be harrassed by anyone for doing so.

Second, starting an article with name-calling and childish comments is a surefire way to convince everyone to not take you seriously.

Third, you mention an ABC and CBS polls (though I notice you somehow neglected to provide a link to those polls) which indicate Americans are interested in more gun control legislation. Since it seems you are so carefully monitoring the polls of America, I am quite certain you saw the Zogby International poll, conducted just this month, indicating that 66% of those polled do *not* want more gun control laws, as found here: http://sev.prnewswire.com/entertainment/20070821/LATU11321082007-1.html . Additionally, you probably also saw the Pew Research Center's statistical analysis, updated back in April, indicating that gun control support is sliding, NRA support is increasing, and that people wish current gun laws were better enforced, as opposed to adding more laws, as found here: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/443/the-nras-image-improves-as-support-for-gun-control-slips .

Now that the errors of your argument have been adequately addressed, it is time to comment upon the arguemnt itself - could it be, perhaps, that "gun control" advocates are losing their collective voices because the public is no longer interested in their message? Could it be that those rude emails you have received on the topic (I notice you do not mention the inevitable polite ones, however.) were precipitated by people such as yourself threatening to take away other people's Constitutionally-protected rights? Could it be that the vitriolic, hate-filled mentalities that prompt people to threatening the gun lobby with hangings (metaphorically, I hope) and shoving "tougher gun policies right down their throats" has successfully driven off a considerable portion of the "gun control" lobby's support? Could it be that so many people, myself included, would not feel threatened by standing next to someone who was legally "packing heat", but instead would feel some degree safer?

Could it be that "gun control" should mean nothing more than using both hands?

Nah... that would be too... what is the word? Oh, right, "Constitutional".

Sincerely,
Linoge.

As I said, not exactly my best work, but it will suffice. Oddly enough, it also got a response:

Dear Linoge,

Thanks for writing about the gun control column. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective. You make some good points.

Best, Laura

Of course, in all sincerity, I honestly doubt that it was anything except a basic form email that she or her secretary added the appropriate information to - topic in question, name of person, etc. That said, some of the lack of an honest response may be partially my fault... the email I wrote was not exactly snark-free. It was intentionally written that way, mind you, because I find the article Mrs. Washington wrote to be remarkably offensive and far too simplistic for the situation, but responding to rudeness with sarcasm... well, hell, I actually see nothing wrong with that. If Mrs. Washington wanted an honest dialogue with the other side (and, again, I honestly doubt she did... so few "gun control" advocates are actually interested in reality smacking them upside their little heads), she would not have started her column by calling them names, and ended her column with veiled threats and the promise of more unnecessary legislation.

As I mentioned before, the hoplophobes around this country are more than sufficiently determined to achieve their goals, and as this column indicates, they are more than skilled at playing on people's emotions (for instance, the scenario at the gas pump) and cherry-picking statistics that seem to support their cause. Just remember (and I am guilty of this too, by playing along with her numbers game), figures never lie, but liars figure.