The Honorable Amy Elik
192 Alton Square Mall Dr., Suite C
Alton, IL 62002
Dear Representative Elik:
I reside in Assumption in Christian County. I am writing to ask for your support in the lawsuit against House Bill 5471. I urge you to support all of the surrounding counties, citizens, and representatives that are participating in this lawsuit. They are fighting for their constitutional right. I urge you to communicate with your fellow Representatives and inform them of the unconstitutional things this bill evokes.
This is a good way to open your letter. You explain who you are, and immediately ask for something. Good approach.
One of the many things that HB5471 bans are assault weapons. As defined by the NRA-ILA, an assault weapon is any weapon used in an assault. Webster’s dictionary defines a weapon as "an instrument of offensive or defensive combat." This means that I could classify anything as an assault weapon. Whether it be a baseball bat, a car, a hammer, or even a shovel. My bare hands could be considered assault weapons. Hands are used as a weapon in many domestic violence situations. Of course, most people automatically assume a firearm, such as an AK-47, when they hear the term assault weapon. By signing this bill, Governor Pritzker has taken away our second amendment right; the right to keep and bear arms. Not only does this ban “assault weapons”, but it also takes away the right to own, buy, or sell .50 caliber rifles and ammunition, as well as large-capacity magazines. I believe that Governor Pritzker is trying to prevent mass shootings. I believe the recent school shootings had an impact on his decision.
You move from your request to a justification for why it would be good for your audience to support the action you are requesting from them. In this case, you’re advocating for them to oppose a proposed law that would ban assault weapons, .50 caliber weapons and ammunition, and large-capacity magazines. That’s an odd choice in a policy and services class, since gun bans and the Second Amendment issues are rarely connected to social welfare issues, but let’s just go with how to argue against gun control of this nature.
Your target audience here is a Republican, and in general we can assume Republicans are sympathetic to arguments against gun control measures. However, in this case, did you do any background research on your target? Amy Elik has been a 4H Club co-leader, and she serves on committees related to elementary education, and she is a Rotarian and member of a Catholic school board. Her background is in finance: she’s an auditor. It seems to me that this particular person would be persuaded by arguments that were technical and empirical. She conducts audits. So, shouldn’t you phrase your opposition in terms of evidence and research? She also has children and cares about children (volunteering for 4-H), and wants her community to flourish peacefully and with prosperity (Rotary Club).
So, arguments that might appeal to a conservative (a Republican) with a profile and background such as Amy Elik… what would those arguments be?
In the first place, as a conservative, you probably need to make a stronger argument that a ban on a particular sort of weapon violates an essential right. You do this to some extent, when you complain about the vague wording in House Bill 5471. You should at least say this directly: “the bill is flawed in that it fails to precisely define ‘assault weapon’ and should be amended to clarify what is meant by ‘assault weapon’ or else it should be opposed more generally, which is what I hope you will do” could be a clear statement of what you want.
She is an auditor and accountant. Maybe you could have approached the ban on high-caliber ammunition with a suggestion that the state could raise revenue while thwarting disgruntled lunatics from stockpiling an arsenal of massive bullets by taxing at prohibitive rates all .50 caliber ammunition. If the state took $4 for each .50 bullet sold in Illinois, wealthy gun hobbyists who enjoyed the thrill of shooting super-high-caliber guns could still indulge their pastimes in moderation, and enrich the state while doing so, but the causal madman out to purchase 100 rounds of bullets for his commando assault on the local Lincoln Elementary School might be forced to go for a lower caliber product. Let’s face it, no one buys .50 caliber weapons or ammunition for hunting or self-defense. These are weapons for hobbyists and enthusiasts who like the thrill of flinging massive amounts of lead at their targets. Maybe they would be useful if you were hunting whales or bull elephants or polar bears, but really, .50 caliber weapons and ammunition must be defended on the basis of two arguments: the fundamental argument based on the Second Amendment or the argument that these sorts of weapons are so overpowered that people planning to use guns to make a killing spree statement will use smaller weapons with smaller bullets. A list of criminal use of 50 caliber sniper rifles shows many crimes, but when you consider the tens of thousands of gun-related crimes committed each year, it’s clear that these sorts of weapons are not a gun of choice for most criminals.
However, many of the people with “assault weapons” have no intention of doing any harm. I strongly believe that guns do not kill people. People kill people. These criminals will always find a way to get these banned weapons, whether legal or not. Drugs are illegal, but people still find multiple ways to get them. There are other ways to prevent school shootings, such as having trained guards at all entries, or security checks when entering the building. Another preventative measure would be to have teachers with conceal and carry permits that are able to be armed and ready. There is no need to punish innocent citizens that do not have the intent to harm others. I, as well as most of my family members, own guns. I do not have the intent to harm anyone unless I or my family were to be in imminent danger. My guns are used for hunting to feed my family. How is it constitutional to take away the guns of people providing for their families? Am I saying that these shootings are not detrimental to the state and country? Absolutely not, they are very horrible, and things need to change. However, I do not think that this was the right move.
As a social worker, you ought to be basing arguments on evidence. That’s part of our integrity and competence ethics. So, is there evidence to support your point? Hmm. Research on policies that might reduce mass shootings are suggestive that banning high-capacity magazines can reduce mass shootings (check out the work of David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center). The evidence doesn’t support your argument there, but perhaps the evidence is weak? Yes, we don’t have randomized controlled experimental research, and it could be that states that ban high-capacity magazines are also more likely to have better supports for families, better mental health care systems, and violence-prevention programs in their schools, so the association between allowing high-capacity magazines and having more mass shootings in a state could be a spurious correlation. Your argument that having teachers carry weapons in the schools is also not supported by what research exists (e.g., by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions). Again, you can attack the quality of the research (always an option, since no research is perfect), but even mentioning that the evidence is against your argument probably makes the letter ineffective.
I think where you might be able to make a stronger argument, especially to someone who is a volunteer worker with youth (Elik is active in 4H), is a discussion of how the most effective way to prevent violence would be to have a robust system of anti-violence education in K-12 schools. You could point out that whereas banning weapons gets into the questions of the Second Amendment, which are so important to you and many others, programs to improve the mental health of adolescent boys and create a culture of non-violence and mutual support in middle schools and high schools could be far less controversial and far more effective. Here, you would have more evidence on your side. It is possible to reduce criminal and violent behavior in a community, school, or neighborhood, but the interventions that can achieve this involve significant work on improving the social relationships among young people, giving them skills to handle conflict peacefully, instilling in young people an ethic that opposes interpersonal violence, and screening young people, especially those with behavior problems, for conduct disorder—and then offering the best treatment available for every youth with conduct disorder. A significant investment by the state in adolescent mental health and non-violence education in schools would have many other benefits beyond an expected reduction in gun violence, and would not have the political controversies or legal costs associated with it that can be expected with any policies that conflict with the Second Amendment. Also, as this is a social welfare policy and services class, suggesting such an alternative to a gun control measures would be more appropriate for this class.
You might even accuse proponents of gun control bills such as HBHB-5471, of looking for easy fixes that are actually superficial and only effective to a trivial degree, instead of going for the more expensive and comprehensive interventions that would make a significant difference in reducing gun violence, domestic violence, child abuse, and behavioral problems in schools. A conservative who volunteers at 4H and is active on a Catholic school board might appreciate an argument that gun control measures are more a form of virtue signaling than a real dedicated effort to help children.
I am asking you to work with your legislation and fellow representatives to help expand the support for the lawsuit against HB5471, and to ensure that as citizens of the United States of America, our second amendment right is upheld.
It is a good practice to repeat your request at the end of a persuasive letter, so the above paragraph is good.
The Land of the Free, Home of the brave. We should have the freedom to own our guns and feel safe in our homes. Without adequate protection, some people feel unsafe. Have you ever thought of veterans? They were the brave ones that fought with those assault weapons. I am sure many veterans own them. By taking them away, Governor Pritzker is wiping away the reminder of all of the blood, sweat, tears, and sacrifices they gave to protect each and every one of us. I am calling on you as my elected representative to help expand and win this lawsuit against House Bill 5471.
The allegation that a gun-control bill wipes away all the reminders of sacrifices made during war overstates the case to a point that undermines your argument. Why not simply point out that this bill ought to have made exceptions for veterans? Why not suggest an alternative that required extra licensing and training requirements for persons who want high-capacity magazines or assault rifles or .50 caliber guns, or a 21-year-old or 25-year-old age requirement? What about exemptions for muzzle-loading guns, which are often high caliber, but are hardly ever used (are they ever used?) in crimes these days?
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please send your response to the address listed below. I will be watching to see how you advocate on this issue that means so much not only to me and my family but to gun owners everywhere.
Another good technique is to request a response. So, bravo!
Sincerely,
No comments:
Post a Comment