Got this email from a high school girl who saw our signs.
From: “Rebecca Moore”<missmayaxxxx@gmail.com>
Subject: A Young View
Mr. Templar-I have been noticing your signs on the side of the road and, although your publicizing techniques are clever, I can’t help but think about the negative effects they must have. While guns can have a few slightly positive effects once in awhile, they overall have a huge negative effect. Guns cause more deaths than they will ever save. As for educating children on gun use, I as a high schooler stronger oppose. School shootings are already increasing, imagine what more guns would cause. I suggest you think about the future consequences of your actions and all the future deaths of children they could cause.-A High Schooler for Gun Control
Foolishly believing this high school girl might just be misinformed as opposed to a closed-minded bigot, I violated my personal policy by taking time to write a reply:
Rebecca:
Thank you for reaching out to me reference our highway sign
program at Guns Save Life.
We are proud of the signs as they serve to not only educate the
populace about the proven benefits of firearm ownership, but also
to entertain and serve to cause people like yourself to consider
gun ownership for themselves.
You acknowledge that guns have positive effects. I encourage you
to explore this further in your spare time. Shooting sports
provide many benefits to participants young and old – and you
don’t have to be a physically fit young person to excel at them.
Men, women, even the handicapped can participate and become
champions. From the personal defense perspective, guns serve a
definite positive role. The only thing that stops bad people with
evil in their hearts is a good guy with a gun. You can call 9-1-1
and ask for good guys with a gun to come to you or you can access
your lawfully owned firearm. Which would be quicker most of the
time?
You say you oppose educating young people about the safe and
responsible use of firearms. Do you also believe the same about
fire safety, weather safety, water safety and electrical safety?
Do you also advocate not teaching children about safe sex and sex
ed as well?
There’s nothing positive to be gained by ignorance. Ignorance
gave us the Medieval era in history and I don’t think you or
anyone would like to recreate that way of (tyrannical) life. In
fact, it is through the NRA’s gun safety education that firearms
accidents are at historic lows.
School shootings are increasing? They are certainly more
prevalent than they were back in the 1950s, I’ll grant you that.
Rebecca, I’m guessing you practice fire safety drills at your
school right? And you have fire alarms, fire extinguishers, etc.
there as well, right?
How many kids have died in school fires since the 1950s? Care to
guess?
The answer is zero.
How many kids died in school massacres / “shootings” in the past
few years? Typically at least a couple of dozen each year.
Yet some folks, yourself included, probably believe that a sign on
the entrance of the school stating “no guns” will protect those
inside.
Denial has no survival value, Miss Moore.
Just as schools have fire extinguishers, we advocate that schools
have trained and responsibly armed staff to “extinguish” those who
would commit violence upon innocents within your school.
Our actions don’t cause the deaths of children at the hands of bad
people.
However, you are on the right path there in your observation that
decisions have consequences. Should you, or anyone good person,
choose to ignore the proven, life-saving benefits of firearms
ownership, you may someday have the rest of your life to regret
that decision – however long that amount of time may be – seconds
or years.
If you’re local, we’d be happy to sponsor you at the annual NRA
Youth Shooting Camp in nearby Bloomington, IL. At that camp, you
can explore your beliefs and learn first-hand how shooting sports
are safe *and* fun. Contact me for further details.
All the best to you.
John
Boy, was I wrong.
I’ve appended her reply, but some highlights:
- Rebecca is a future psychiatrist and she’s repulsed at the idea of killing a “psychologically disturbed child who tried to find answers to his problems using a gun”. I’d just about bet a thousand bucks she’d snuff out “disturbed” child before that “child” killed one of her future kids. Like most, I’m repulsed at the idea of killing another person, but if it’s a nutcase trying to “find answers using a gun” or simply an evil person killing for fun or religious zealotry, I’ll take great satisfaction striking them down where they stand before I allow them to continue a rampage and add to the body count of innocents.
- If you’re handicapped and you want to compete, Rebecca says compete in Special Olympics. How open-minded of her to assume all handicapped people are potential Special Olympics competitors.
- She’s also equally open minded about the proven benefits of firearms ownership, including the crimes thwarted by good guys with guns and lives saved therein. (That was sarcasm, for the sarcastically-challenged.)
- She pledges to keep her children safe from people like me and my fellow Guns Save Life gun-owning members.
Perfect. She can hire some Gangster Disciples to babysit her kids.
How silly of me to think a high school girl could be open-minded. She’ll make a good Obama-style voter until she grows up.
Mr. Boch,
In regard to your last email, I would like to point out that, while your points are accurate, they are are a shallow representation of the few positives that guns can have compared to the massive dangers that personal gun use poses for our country.
Personally, I will never own a gun. I have no intention of endangering my children with an unnecessary article of danger. Guns have no practical uses except for killing. One of my classmates knew the exact way to properly use a gun, but was still accidentally shot by the gun in his own household. Therefore, the only weapons I will have in my house are cooking knives, which will be placed out of reach. Your reference to “extinguishing” a psychologically disturbed child who tried to find answers to his problems using a gun repulses me. You are suggesting that teachers have the right to kill a child, rather than denying that child access to a gun in the first place. I suggest you think before you speak so nonchalantly about the deaths of children, Mr.Boch. Lives are not as disposable as a flame.
As for shooting as a sport, I strongly disagree in your reasoning. While it is true that everyone can shoot, sport shooting is simply teaching humans how to kill living things. Considering men and women are equals, I definitely realize that both are able to participate. However, even disabled people are enabled in our society to triumph in sports through technology and programs such as the Special Olympics. Therefore, there is no reason to teach these people that the only sport they can win in is showing how well they can pull the trigger on a killing machine. In fact, much of this sport is used to vent anger, which is psychologically proven to increase aggression. As a future psychiatrist, I would never encourage my patients to seek release from their anger in the form of a gun. At the least, this would increase aggression in the patient by giving them positive reinforcement to their anger. At its worst, the sport of gunshooting could instill the idea of using the gun on a living thing, which leads to another issue.
I am sure that in your line of work you stand against most gun control. However, less gun control can easily cause firearms to fall into the wrong hands. In the Firearms Lincensee Survey of 2011, gun dealers and pawnbrokers even agreed that firearms were too easy to attain in the United States. Guns are used to commit violent crimes, and a gun falling into the wrong hands could result in many deaths. In one year in America, there are 478,400 incidents of firearm use for violence, and 11,000 homicides were committed using a firearm. With the loopholes that exist in our gun control policies, guns easily fall into the wrong hands and deaths are an immediate result.
While you propose that a gun could save my life in self defense, the likelihood of a gun saving a life is much less than an accidental killing caused by that gun. While only 2.7% of houses are broken into each year, 126,438 accidental gun injuries occur per year. The obvious difference here concludes that guns cause much more damage than could ever be made up for by the few lives they save in self-defense.
I do believe children should be educated in case they are under the threat of a gun, but I do not believe they should be trained how to possibly point a gun at one of their classmates. There is a definitive difference between ignorance and placing the key to killing in the hands of children and criminals.
I am most certainly standing for denying guns to American citizens, Mr.Boch, and in this case I stand by my believe that denial of guns can lead to survival. I believe that saying is more applicable to your state, in which you are denying the dangers of guns and the deaths that they cause in order to defend your favorite hobby. I suggest you not threaten me with regret, because I will keep my children safe from gun-owners such as yourself my own way, and you do not get to demean the way I will conduct myself through my life.
I do not intend to ever visit one of your camps, unless I am carrying a protest sign. The fact that there is even such thing as a “Youth Shooting Camp” disgusts me.
-“Miss Moore”
(emphasis added).
It’s refreshing to know that there are people out there with open minds, willing to hear and discuss the pros and cons of their points of view and possibly even learn something new. Unfortunately, Miss Moore doesn’t appear to be one of them.
So what are the cons of there not being gun control? Perhaps you could learn something new.
First, define what the term “gun control” means. We, the people, have the constitutionally-guaranteed right both to keep and to carry a firearm. Anything hindering that is an infringement of that right.
What does gun control mean to you?
Means using both hands.
Gun control:
..hitting what you are aiming at,
..knowing there is nothing around, in front of or behind your target you do not want to injure or destroy,
..using both hands or a rest to be assured you will hit your target.
She’s more likely to become a future victim than a future psychiatrist.
Bigotry isn’t something people are born with innately. It’s a learned characteristic. And John, you silly fool, you can’t enlighten a hard-core gun bigot any more than you can enlighten a hard-core KKK member to leave their racial bigotry with a thoughtful email.
This immature little girl has a lot more learning to do before becoming an adult.
And when that day comes that she becomes a victim, I’ll be sure to give her as much thoughtful compassion as I can during my morning constitution.
Sam
You seem awfully inconsiderate of her views. How does she deserve to be called a bigot any more than you?
Also, has it occurred to you that this “child” may very well be 18, and is therefore legally an adult? Perhaps she even voted in the recent election.
I think Mr. Boch was entirely considerate of her views, as he took the time to write a thoughtful, reasoned response to her initial contact.
Why does she deserve to be called a bigot? Perhaps this statement she made:
“Personally, I will never own a gun. I have no intention of endangering my children with an unnecessary article of danger. Guns have no practical uses except for killing.”
Now, let’s look at the definition of a bigot:
BIGOT: noun 1. a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
According to her statement quoted here, the only practical use of guns is killing, and killing is never justifiable.
Wrong on both counts. Many crimes are thwarted without a shot being fired (see the research of Lott, Kleck, and Mustard). And killing is often found, in statutory law and common law, and according to district attorneys, judges, and juries, to be justifiable.
So no, Mr. Boch did not treat her roughly, and yes, she is a bigot.
My point was less about her and more about everyone who has been attacking her mercilessly without considering her argument. As you state, a bigot is “intolerant of differing opinion” and I don’t see much tolerance in these comments.
What goes around comes back around, Joe, she has no “tolerance” or respect for others’ thoughts/opinions, she gets little tolerance or respect back…
she switches her statistics units… she talks percentages on one hand (2.7% of houses broken into), but uses the raw number for accidental shootings. Assuming for a minute that her numbers are accurate, there are approximately 125,000,000 houses in the US. (not including apartments). 126,438 accidental gun injuries would be right around 0.1% of houses… significantly fewer than the 2.7% of houses that are broken into (which would be 3,125,000) each year.
She’s a future moonbat liberal alright.. twisting the numbers to prove her point and relying on uneducated individuals not to consider whether the numbers are valid.
As a former DCM instructor here in Manitowoc, WI, our city Recreation Dept. holds firearm shooting for anyone in the county between the ages of 8 to 18. The children sign up at the Rec. Dept. to compete in a competition basis on their age groups. I have taught over several thousand students ages 12 and older in my hunter education classes and to this day in the last 25 to 30 years, not a single firearm accident has happened while these kids are being taught the proper way to handle a firearm, or after they completed the courses. My son was 4 years old when I taught him how to shoot a pellet gun, and at 5 years old he appeared on a local Green Bay TV station showing them that a 5 year old can shoot a .22 rifle. It’s all in the training and education. Today those video games are the reason why children think guns are a toy. My 7 and 9 year old grandkids know the difference between a real gun and a toy, and they both know the dangers and fun of shooting at targets for hours. So for everyone in ILL that feel guns are a danger, we citizens of Wisconsin sleep like babies knowing if some breaks into our homes, everyone in that house knows how to shoot and shoot straight. God Bless All our Military personnel from the past, present and future. Thank you for protecting our Constitution!!!!
Meanwhile, roughly a dozen high school kids die as a result of injuries sustained participating in football programs and thousands more are injured.
But we shouldn’t introduce kids to guns because that will make them into potential killers.
‘Becca dear, kids who legally own guns have lower rates of drug abuse, delinquency and so forth than do non-gun owning kids.
That gun doesn’t make a kid a potential killer any more than your sex parts make your a potential hooker.
Sam
Injuries are one thing, and deaths are another. One of my classmates accidentally shot himself in the head when he was a 7th grader. If he had not had access to a gun, he would be graduating with the rest of us this spring.
Sounds like Darwin claimed your friend.
Ojsvdiud:
your 7th grade classmate was not taught the basic rules of handling firearms:
ALWAYS: KEEP THE FIREARM POINTED IN A SAFE DIRECTION,
ALWAYS: TREAT ANY FIREARM AS THOUGH IT IS LOADED,
ALWAYS: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF OF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU ARE SURE OF YOUR TARGET,
ALWAYS BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET, WHAT IS BEHIND AND IN FRONT OF IT BEFORE YOU PUT YOUR FINGER ON THE TRIGGER,
ALWAYS BE SURE THE FIREARM IS UNLOADED BEFORE YOU TRY TO CLEAN IT!
Many 10 year olds are taught these basic ruiles as part of NRA’s bacic firearm handling. Heve you learned anything? I doubt it.
She’s a naive fool trying to apply child-like semantic games while arguing with adults about something she knows little about – while she professes a desire to remain ignorant.
Ignorance is bliss.
Someone buy her some hair colorant. She could use some artificial intelligence.
Please make certain she knows the date of next years camps, so she can stand on the side of a bean field in the heat and protest… I look forward to some ‘dialogue’ with her..
What a NUT. I think she needs psychiatric help.
Admirable as it was to try to enlighten this high school girl and would-be Future Psychiatrists of America national chairchild, it was pearls before swine.
First, Special Olympics is for the mentally retarded, not physically handicapped.
Second, she thinks that if you do not teach a child how to point a gun at a classmate, they would not know how. They need to be taught?? They probably see it on TV on a regular basis.
Also, what is your bet that she has no problem “extinguishing” the lives of children who have not managed to make it out of the womb?
I don’t think you’re supposed to say “retarded” anymore. It’s not politically correct, but I’m not politically correct.
You’re absolutely right, but we never accused Rebecca of being a rocket surgeon.
John
To everyone ignoring the legitimate points raised in the emails, I suggest reading this enlightening article: http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home.
As a future psychiatrist who has strong opinions on firearms, I would think that Rebecca would be very interested in Lt. Col. David Grossman’s work and his very compelling arguments that violent video games and movies are the real threat by conditioning people to kill and removing the natural human inhibition against killing.
His books are all available on Amazon…
While I do not dispute their contribution, the truth remains that the acts of violence themselves are not possible without guns available.
Tell that to the 3000 people who died ugly, violent, horrible deaths on 9-11 – because of 19 “men” with boxcutters.
Tell that to the people who die every year in arson deaths, burned alive or choking their lungs out with smoke inhalation.
Guns are a tool, as are box cutters and matches. All can, and are, used for good and for evil.
This is where we come back to the ratio of good to bad. Arguably matches, for example, are used far more frequently for lightly a useful fire than for destructive purposes. Repeated studies have shown that the largely hypothetical benefits of guns are minuscule compared to the significant risks and negative results. If you are skeptical of the studies, I suggest you read the article that “Concern” linked to at 9:12. I found it very interesting.
That is funny, it seems that the 9/11 perpetrators and Timothy McVeigh did just fine committing acts of violence without access to a fire arm of any kind. It is the mentality that blames the tool rather than the actor that leads to oppression by stripping people of their God given right to self-defense in the misguided pursuit of “safety”.
Let me amend me statement slightly, because clearly it is being misinterpreted. I did not mean to suggest that all acts of violence were the result of guns, but just those that included guns. Just as the other “tools” are needed to perform their respective tasks, a gun is needed in order for someone to shoot.
Go watch Braveheart, metoo. They did plenty of killing without guns. Using your argument we could ban spoons to cure America’s obesity problem.
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. I can leave my loaded Glock on my night stand for the rest of my lifetime and it won’t hurt or kill anyone (unless if some criminal breaks into my home and tries to hurt my wife and I), I also don’t have children. It takes a Human being/ physical action to pull the trigger of a gun. Some people will never get that thru their thick skulls. Dam ignorant liberals.
Charles Manson murdered with a knife.
The acts of violence are absolutely possible without a gun.
Apparently I am still not making myself clear. There are violent acts that occur with a gun. There are violent acts that do not involve a gun. If the people (who commit school shootings, for example) don’t have a gun, how can those instances of violence occur?
Sorry, Meetoo. With multiple responses, things start getting complex.
I hear what you are saying about people not having guns stopping some acts of violence.
The Founders made it very clear in the Federalist Papers that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow the population to defend itself should the government ever become oppressive.
Look at the 20th Century. Most estimates are that governments killed somewhere between 250 and 350 million innocent people. In every one of these cases, Government tyranny was possible because the population was unarmed. In most of the cases, the government deliberately disarmed their citizens before the killing began. ISIS attacking and exterminating Christians and some Muslims (the ones who happened to be from the wrong sect) is the latest example.
David Grossman correctly points out the school shootings were unheard of before the 1960’s- despite having an armed population for hundreds of years before then.
Dave Grossman is a Psychologist and an Army Ranger. He understands how the military conditions soldiers to remove the natural inhibition to kill another. He has correctly observed that Grand Theft Auto and other violent video games closely mimic what the military does to condition soldiers. We have raised up a whole generation of young people who have had the natural inhibition to kill conditioned down. Most people do OK with this. But some on the fringe do not – and end up killing people because they are acting out a video gave or a violent movie. Examples: Aurora Colorado – the shooter thought he was the Joker. the Newtown shooter was acting out a violent video game.
My point is simply this. Firearms are for protection. The threat of violence inhibits many crimes. An armed population inhibits tyrannical government. We all have a God-given right to protect ourselves and our families.
I am a physician. The thought of shooting someone sickens me. But, I also have a responsibility and obligation to protect my family. Because of that obligation, I carry a concealed firearm where ever it is legal (can’t carry in a hospital). I also very carefully trained so that I am safe and competent with a gun, know the law, and understand the ethics of defending myself. Most of the gun owners on this website have a similar ethic when it comes to firearms.
Before you condem us, you really should consider taking a class. As an intelligent person, you really should understand the issues before drawing a conclusion.
Below, you claim: “There are violent acts that occur with a gun. There are violent acts that do not involve a gun. If the people (who commit school shootings, for example) don’t have a gun, how can those instances of violence occur?”
Your claim hinges on the assumption that people who would normally commit violent crime with a firearm wouldn’t adopt ANY other tool if their access to firearms was removed.
Of course we know that is a false assumption. Hence why your statement has been repeatedly shredded. If this chafes you, the problem lies in your illogical and incomplete thinking, not the people refuting it.
I would assume that you realize posting this girl’s first and last name is highly illegal. Not to mention the fact that you posted emails from her, which is also against the law. If you actually read the Constituion, you would have known that.
Hahaha. Go sit in the corner, sugar shorts and let adulrs talk.
*adults
Lmfao!!
hey little orphan A.,
Please state the article from the onstitution that makes it illegal to post someone’s name on a public forum that is open to all. Don’t think I have seen that one yet.
John: SUggest you send her a link to any Youtube video of Dr. Hupp-Gratia (?), who survived the Luby’s Cafeteria shooting many years ago, while losing BOTH her mother and father that day, whose testimony has consistently been, “if I had MY gun with me, I could have stopped the bad guy.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis
It brings tears to my eyes every time I watch it, and every anti-gunner should be forced (or induced) to watch it. It makes it REAL.
Looks as tho Rebecca had some help writing that rebuttal.
Looks as though you need help with your spelling.
Sometimes folks don’t write out the entire word when they are commenting via smart phone. And sometimes the spelling seems a little weird as they missed the correct key.
John
Ha ha ha this is fun. Annie Roonie you must bea lawyer. , why of course you are a lawyer. Or maybe a school teacher. Why don’t you come on out to one of our meetings some time. Maybe you could teach US. What is legal., O k. Thanks
All that I’m saying is if you pro-gun bigots were to actually read something in the Constitution other than the Second Amendment, you would be much more aware of other laws you seem to be violating.
So feel free to educate us ‘bigots’ on where in the COTUS that particular restriction is.
We’ll wait.
Annie, there is no privacy on line. I wish there was! What law has been broken? Please help me understand.
little orphan A.,
I suggest you read through the Federalist Papers, they were published (at the time of writing the Constitution) in local papers explaining the essance of the Conatitution, pros and cons of each article and helped the founders and citizens of the day understand the process. I have many copies, some antique, of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance, do you have any? I also have copies of most of the Federalist Papers which I acquired through the NRA, but you can probably read them on-line or at your local library.
Do please educate us.
Well. Well. It looks as though. ” educated is a spelling teecher. I could use sum speling teaching
I’m not a spelling teacher, but I believe that spelling and grammar help people communicate clearly.
…not in your case Ed, some are sticklers about grammar and spelling, others not so much, then there are those who are lazy and use the “shortcuts” of the txtng crowd, ….whatever, even those who do their best at correct spelling and grammar still make typos they don’t catch even trying to edit before posting. get over it ed.
Get over it, let it go. Hahahahahahahaha!
How is it possible for a little girl to become so psychologically warped and irreparably brainwashed in just 15 short years, taking into account that she was slobbering and peeing on herself for a good deal of that time? How have we allowed this to happen? It has to be that we have lost control of what is being taught in our schools, that’s all I can figure. So sad…….
Then again, how this little future pshciatrist was raised has much to do with her (lack of) intellect concerning her views on Constitutional Rights, the reason behind our enumerated rights as written in our Constitution, and reality. It is a given that the teachers’ unions have helped to deteriorate taught knowledge, but many American citizens overcome the inept school educational system by making sure their offspring understand common knowledge in referance to our history and Constitutional issues. Her parents have failed her in these matters.
I agree 100%
I find this to be very interesting,the girl claims she’s going to be a psychiatrist in the future yet she hasn’t attained a high school diploma as of yet.I see a spatula and a few million burgers in her future.Considering that liberalism is a mental illness,I see her as more of a patient of a psychiatrist than her actually being one,truth be known,she’s probably already seeing one.I happen to have a neighbor who has been a practicing psychiatrist for the last 20 years,I emailed a copy of these people’s correspondence to him just to get his opinion of this girls mental state from his reading of what she said,in his learned opinion,this girl is a suitable case for treatment to put it nicely.A person of her inflexible mentality and closed mindedness can only expect problems later in life because of it.In my personal opinion,this girl shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a firearm and her parents have probably been told this.
Anyone claiming they’re going to be a psychiatrist that can’t understand simple laws and concepts in the constitution is setting them self up for a major disappointment,a mind that is as narrow as her’s hasn’t got a snowballs chance in hell of being anything that requires a degree,I see food stamps and section 8 housing in her future if her mind doesn’t continue to grow and mature.I’ve met several people over the years who’s minds have stunted at her age,they never amount to anything except a member of the democrat party.
Yes, her liberal parents got the best of her for sure. Would you like to super size that? Lmfao! She’s doomed.
I’m with Tam on this one: I really don’t give an aerial fornication if EVERYONE IN AMERICA committed murder last night. I didn’t, so f*** you. You don’t get to deny my rights.
And yes, Special Snowflake, I mean ALL the rights, not just that which is enumerated in the Second Amendment.
Why will my email address be hidden in the comments section but you wouldn’t hide her email address in the blog post? You have also listed her full name when just her first name would do for this blog post. Your negligence has just opened her up to all kinds of harassment and threats when all she was trying to do was provide a dissenting point of view. The damage has been done but could you edit out her email and last name for future page views?