Judging from her bio at Black Heart Magazine, one would think that Katie Jeddeloh would make an excellent opinion columnist. An English/Poli Sci/Philosophy triple major at Saint Olaf College should be able to write clearly and eloquently, be familiar with how governments and their citizens interact and be able to pick the wheat from the chaff while examining different arguments. Sadly, those skills aren’t evident in her piece ‘Ban on bullets incites NRA anger‘ posted in the Manitou Messenger, St. Olaf’s student newspaper . . .
Beginning in February, the Obama administration once again began to traverse the seemingly endless Second Amendment debate with new regulations for a specific kind of bullet. Proponents of this bullet argue it will enhance public safety, but the discussion has sparked irate responses from members of the National Rifle Association (NRA).
As my high school English teacher used to say: “You should eschew obfuscation and rampant verbosity.” Translation: keep it short and sweet. Traversing the seemingly endless debate is the sort of purple phrasing that makes me think someone is trying too hard. And I am not sure I even understand the next sentence since proponents of the bullet really haven’t said anything about public safety; it’s the proponents of the bullet ban who argue that it will enhance police officer safety.
To her credit, however, Katie does distinguish between the NRA and its members. Many antis refer to the NRA as if it were a monolithic block of mindless drones who only live to carry out directions received from on high via daily broadcasts from Fairfax.
Recently, the [ATF] proposed new legislation to place a ban on the armor-piercing 5.56-millimeter “M855 green tip” rifle bullet, a bullet commonly used by hunters and target shooters.
Actually it wasn’t new legislation they proposed, it was a new “framework” for determining whether a particular round was used primarily for “sporting purposes”. Since the ATF determined a few years back that just because a weapon is used for sport shooting (IDPA, 3-gun, etc.) doesn’t necessarily mean it falls under the “sporting purpose” exemption, we can assume the same is true of ammunition.
This leads those of us paying attention familiar with this administration’s hatred of the Second Amendment and the lengths they are willing to go to suppress it (Operation Fast and Furious anyone?) to wonder if this was just a first step in banning any 5.56/.223 ammunition (since just about any .223 round fired from a rifle is going to pierce cops’ soft body armor), to be quickly followed by banning all rifle ammunition on the theory that A) it is armor piercing when fire from a rifle and 2) just about and rifle round has a pistol made to fire it.
But getting back to Katie’s screed, her next sentence displays distressing ignorance of the subject about which she is writing:
The ban was proposed in response to the proliferation of a new handgun that uses the bullets and would therefore pose a threat to the police, as it would be portable and easy to conceal.
Katie obviously has never actually seen an AR pistol, or even a picture of one. If she had, she would realize that with the required buffer tube, no matter how short your barrel is an AR pistol will never be “easy to conceal.”
Reactions from gun activists have been immense, including tens of thousands of letters being sent to Congress. Following the proposal, gun shops experienced a sharp increase in sales of the bullet, as gun rights organizations urgently warned their members of the possible ban.
Well, yes, this is what happens when the government attempts to further infringe that which shall not be infringed; people get upset and write their Congresscritters and stock up on whatever the whipping-boy de jour is. I have read in the past (but am now unable to find a link) that in the 6 months before the Clinton AWB passed more AK-style semi-autos were purchased than had been in the previous 20 years, so it’s not like this is without precedent.
Chris W. Cox, the executive director at the NRA, even stated that the proposal ‘is Obama’s latest action in a lifetime devoted to the dismantling of the Second Amendment.’
Regardless of the overt obtuseness of Cox’s statement, there is no question that gun rights and bans on certain guns or ammunition have been a persistently and hotly contested policy debate, pitting those on opposite ends of the political spectrum against each other for decades.
According to my interwebz dictionary, the primary definitions of obtuse are:
- Not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
- Mentally slow or emotionally insensitive
- Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
Maybe I’m the one who is obtuse, because I can’t find any lack of mental quickness in Mr. Cox’s statement, overt or otherwise. My guess is that Ms. Jeddeloh doesn’t believe President Obama is opposed to guns and gun ownership; if that is the case then I suggest she read my TTAG piece, ‘Just Because You’re Paranoid About Gun Control Doesn’t Mean They Aren’t Really Out to Grab ‘Em‘ in which I list 25 separate statements and actions of Candidate, then Senator, then President Obama which show his hatred of all things 2A. I think one example from that list will prove my point:
Although he claimed to respect the second amendment, he also said that the D.C. gun ban (banning all handguns and operable long guns) was constitutional. When pressed for his rationale, he said there was nothing wrong with a community establishing their own “reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure[s]” while still respecting the second amendment. Did you catch that? A complete ban is his idea of a reasonable gun control measure.
As for gun control arguments “pitting those on opposite ends of the political spectrum against each other” I guess by political spectrum she must mean pro- and anti-freedom, because I know any number of leftie liberal loons (and yes, they know I call them that and revel in the title) who are pro-firearm-freedom and a certain number of right-wingers who make Reagan look like a pinko who support every restrictive gun law that comes down the pike.
Gun activists fight a losing battle in a world where gun control and harsher restrictions on the sale and purchase of firearms and bullets are becoming more regulated, and the regulation in question is certainly out of necessity.
Okay, first of all we are gun rights activists. Second of all whatinthehell does “gun control and harsher restrictions … are becoming more regulated” even mean?
Wouldn’t it have been easier just to say “controls on the sale of guns and ammo are getting stricter”? It still wouldn’t have been true (at least in this country) but at least it would have been comprehensible. And speaking of comprehensibility, “and the regulation in question is certainly out of necessity” isn’t.
I think what Katie was trying to say is that gun control is getting stricter and that is a good thing. Maybe. Anyway she clears things up a bit in the next paragraph:
The results of stricter gun laws in other countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and Japan serve as evidence for the overwhelmingly positive impact of more prominent regulation such as the new proposal suggested by the Obama administration.
Okay, maybe I was too quick with the whole comprehensibility thing, but setting aside Japan (which has a very different culture, so crime statistics are really not comparable to the US, UK and Australia) I wouldn’t be so quick to jump on the “Yay, gun control is great!” bandwagon since excepting only murder, both the UK and Australia have significantly higher violent crime rates than the US. Like 3 to 4 times higher. Unless you are talking about sexual assault and there parts of the UK where that’s 10 to 12 times higher. I really don’t think you want to go there Katie, because, as you say in the very next paragraph, such statistics cannot be refuted.
Then it’s time for the classic ‘the Founders were idiots’ canard with just a soupçon of ‘the Bill of Rights is outdated.’
Why should we continue the attempt to make relevant legislation written over two centuries ago? The gun technology of today such as the M855 green tip rifle bullet could not possibly have been foreseen by the writers of the outdated Constitution – can the intentionally unclear wording of the Second Amendment defend such a device?
No, Katie, the Founders did not deliberately obfuscate the meaning of the Second Amendment, they wrote it with the expectation that intelligent and well-read people would interpret it; not that it needs interpreting since it most assuredly is not unclear. Heck, it is clear enough that nine Supreme Court Justices agreed that it protects an individual right.
As for how can the Second Amendment defends an AR-15 and its ammo? It doesn’t have to, because the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to weapons, it applies to government. And it specifically says that the government has to keep their acquisitive paws off our arms. That is what “shall not be infringed” means.
Finally, Katie finishes up with a plea for … human rights:
In favor of human rights over gun rights, the proposal made by the ATF could be the beginning of a gateway to a safer United States in which gun violence is merely history.
If it is human rights you are interested in Katie, how about this one: the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility. How about the human right of self-defense? How about the irrefutable statistic that twice as many lives are saved in DGUs as are lost in CGUs?
Don’t believe me? Let’s go to the research. According to the Kleck-Gertz study from the early 1990s there are between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs annually. Now there are a lot of people out there who deride this number as ludicrous, unable or (more likely) unwilling to accept that Dr. Kleck is not some sort of shill for the Eee-vil Gun Lobby™. This, despite the good doctor disclosing in his 1997 book Targeting Guns (quote from GunCite.com):
The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.
But skeptics will always be skeptical and antis will always prefer their own “reality” so (without questioning its validity) let’s go ahead and throw the K-G number out in favor of a more conservative one. Let’s use the numbers from the study which was commissioned by the Clinton DoJ shortly after the K-G study came out (to refute the K-G numbers maybe? If so: Oops!). That study, conducted by Dr.s Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig (very strong proponents of very strict gun control) concluded that there were 1.46 million DGUs per year.
Now, I imagine that some may find even this lower number dubious, probably preferring to rely on the numbers from the National Crime Victimization Surveys which show between 50,000 and 100,000 DGUs per year. Unfortunately for those hopeful doubters, the way the NCVS is structured means that it seriously undercounts the number of DGUs. I’ll let Tom Smith explain:
First, it appears that the estimates of the NCVSs are too low. There are two chief reasons for this. First, only DGUs that are reported as part of a victim’s response to a specified crime are potentially covered. While most major felonies are covered by the NCVSs, a number of crimes such as trespassing, vandalism, and malicious mischief are not. DGUs in response to these and other events beyond the scope of the NCVSs are missed.
Second, the NCVSs do not directly inquire about DGUs. After a covered crime has been reported, the victim is asked if he or she “did or tried to do [anything] about the incident while it was going on.” Indirect questions that rely on a respondent volunteering a specific element as part of a broad and unfocused inquiry uniformly lead to undercounts of the particular of interest.
There is another problem with the failure to directly inquire about DGUs; to wit, the DGU question is only triggered by someone saying they were the victim of a crime. Now if someone came towards me with a knife saying “Gimme your wallet” and I put my hand on my weapon and replied “I don’t think so, Skippy” causing the assailant to retreat, was I actually the victim of a crime?
Before I started researching these issues I would have told the NCVS interviewer that no, I hadn’t been the victim of a crime so they never would have learned of my DGU.
So to try and figure out how many lives were saved I turn once again to Kleck and Gertz’s article Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun. They found that 15.7% of people involved in a DGU believed that they “almost certainly” saved their life of someone else’s.
Now that might strike some people as being an awfully large percentage, but if you take into account the fact that most states regard pulling a gun as using deadly force and combine it with the fact that most states also require someone to be in “reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm” before you can lawfully use deadly force, the number seems more feasible. In addition to the “almost certainly” pool, The K-G study also found that 14.6% of respondents believed that someone “probably would have” been killed if not for their DGU.
Because I want my numbers to be distinctly conservative let’s say that 9 out of 10 of the “almost certainly” folks were wrong, and let’s say that 99 out of 100 of the “probably” people were also incorrect. That means we can state with a fair degree of certainty that at least 1.716% of the 1.46 million DGUs saved a life. Doing the math that translates to over 25,000 lives that are saved annually by guns.
So we’ve determined that at least 25,000 lives per year are saved by DGUs, and according to the CDC, between 2004 and 2013 there were an average of 11,805 gun-related homicides annually, which means that for every criminal homicide with a firearm there were more than two lives saved by DGUs. How’s them apples, Katie?
 For those who don’t know, the idea for “sporting purpose” exemptions came directly from the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, as documented repeatedly by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
 As fellow gun rights activist and St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner Kurt Hofmann puts it.
 Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 20 Mar. 2015.
 Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers. 20 Mar. 2015.
 The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company. 20 Mar. 2015.
 Defensive Gun Uses
 Criminal Gun Uses
 Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995
She doesn’t seem to be getting good value for her student dollar if that is what she takes out of the whole BATFE/M855 kerfuffle, much less her consideration of the Second Amendment. And by the way, since when did the right to self – defense stop being a human right? Am I just as confused as little Katie?
Perhaps philosophy departments no longer teach formal logic. Perhaps English departments no longer teach grammar or diction. Matters must be especially grim at Saint Olaf College if their school paper lacks an editor capable of fixing her prose.
Regardless, she has learned what they do teach at most colleges and universities, viz. uncritical acceptance of hard leftism. Unfortunately, if she does read the article, she will probably dismiss it rather than follow up with further research.
She is what she was molded to be: a pseudo intellectual taught to persuade rather than to think, to proselytize rather than to seek truth. She’s young. She may get over it.
Excellence in writing Mr. Krafft. Bravo.
Right on. Bruce, that was very well done.
I agree. It just seems like a lot of effort to spend disproving an article written by a relative nobody that nobody much probably even read.
My vote is that you choose a different photo exemplar of an AR pistol. You may not realize that the vertical grip on the handguard makes it an NFA item (technically, an AOW) and not truly an AR pistol. Other than that, your piece is awesome!
an AR pistol with a barrel length less than 18 inches and an overall length greater than 26 inches is actually a firearm and not an AOW, therefore not subject to NFA restrictions.
My understanding is that pistol plus vertical grip is verboten…
Your understanding is incomplete, see link above.
According to the ATF, a “rifle” must have a butt stock, a barrel longer than 16 inches, and an overall length greater than 26 inches (when operable).
If a firearm has a butt stock and the barrel is shorter than 16 inches, it is a “short barreled rifle” and the ATF wants you to seek their approval and pay them $200 for a tax stamp before acquiring such a firearm.
According to the ATF, a “handgun” cannot have a butt stock or a vertical forward grip. I don’t know if the ATF defined a limit on the length of a “handgun” barrel or barrel “shrouds” that effectively serve as a forward grip.
I read the letter and it is clear from YOUR evidence that my understanding is correct. The photo of the AR pistol in this piece is made illegal by the VFG.
I’m sure you don’t actually mean that. The *picture* is illegal?
May God bless and protect poor Katie. She needs the help. The link to her Black Heart Magazine bio page takes us to the immature ramblings of a naive twit. Her plan to get a graduate degree in education, clearly with no experience in life or in teaching, will assure that she stays a rambling,naive twit.
But achieves a position where she can convert our children into rambling, naïve twits.
See, when I read responses like hers, the only thing I can think is that either we aren’t representing our side very well or people are intentionally ignoring the information because a) they have an agenda or b) they think our information is not credible. Anyone with internet access and 15 minutes of research (or a car and the address of a decent gun store) can see how big even the smallest ar pistol really is and say ‘wow… yeah there’s no way that thing is fitting in my pants’, so why aren’t they? Is this girl really that bad at factual research or did she know the truth and say ‘f–k it, I have a story to write’? I am hoping it is the former, in which case we need to really push on what an ar pistol is and is not.
There’s also option C: she has absorbed her liberal-progressive “education” (with no mention of MLK being denied CCW and no mention of Harriet Tubman being a gun-toting bada$$, or Hitler’s reasons for instituting gun control) to “good effect.” She is now parroting the lies and misrepresentations of the liberal progressive movement like a good little student. It’ll be that way until she leaves academia, meets an articulate patriot, or becomes the victim of a crime.
She attends St Olaf’s, which is all anyone need to know. The rest writes itself – painfully liberal arts college located in MN. Bard grads are ruthless warriors by comparison. St Olaf does have renowned choral and band programs – which tour nationally.
I don’t know why you expected any particular clarity of thought from an English/Poli Sci major at a liberal-arts school. Katie is just about what I would expect, blathering authoritatively on about things of which she is entirely ignorant.
Am I the only one that read “St. Olaf student newspaper” and thought of Betty White on The Golden Girls?
I’m guessing Principal Gus Gaflugenflaagen AND all his goats were very proud of her editorial.
I couldn’t decide whether someone named a university in honor of Betty White’s character references on the Golden Girls or if someone canonized the Frozen character Olaf and named a university in his honor.
And this matters why?
It doesn’t. It’s just some very misguided kid rambling.
Yes, however…that misguided kid:
(a) Will get a lot “you go girl!” for her ramblings, and it never hurts to have the well worded rebuttal available to those the read her nonsense ramblings,
(b) She plans to be a TEACHER.
No one may read her newspaper pieces NOW, but she seeks to have real input into the thinking of the next generation of Americans.
THAT should give everyone pause. She needs to be debunked and discredited at every opportunity. There MAY just be a chance some school planning to hire her will see enough and refuse to give her such influential employment.
What she really *needs* is to be required to have a CCL in order to be hired as a teacher, anywhere, and to carry a loaded gun to work every day in order to keep the job.
As a woman of Asian decent, perhaps she needs to view “The Killing Fields” for a perspective on the historical role of gun control in the world. I, of German decent, watched many movies involving the Nazis, which gave me my perspective on governmental gun control….Never again
Exactly. It’s a collage newspaper! Her article was probably followed by an article on making a quality jello-shot.
Now that’s the best response on this artcile I’ve read yet. I haven’t laughed till I snorted in a long time. Thanks for that and putting this into perspective.
Anytime someone says they think the Constution is outdated, I just can’t take them seriously anymore. Anything they say after that can apply not only to the 2A but to all others as well.
Yeah I don’t get that either. I always ask “What part of the Constitution is specifically outdated?” followed up with “And if so, what steps can be taken to amend the Constitution?”.
Than again, you have others that think the Constitution is a “living, breathing document”, which baffles me. I would be very worried if any other contract in life was living and breathing.
Katie is everything we’ve come to expect from years of American education — stupid.
You said it a lot better than I did.
Her article is motivating me to start my own physics blog. I have never taken a physics class in my life and only have a basic understanding of it. Her article proves that I can write whatever I want and not be an expert or have any real knowledge. I just have to act like I know what I am talking about so people will read my article and agree with me.
You, sir, are one credit shy of a Masters in Journalism.
Make sure you throw a couple of “therefor”s in there. That makes your points especially profound.
The Ruger LCP, M&P Shield, and the NAA .22 LR revolvers are easy to conceal. The Glock 27, FNS9C, XD(m) compact and similar models are relatively easy to conceal. Glock 23 / 19, Commander-sized 1911s and similar sized guns are concealable with good holsters and appropriate attire. Full sized double stack guns like the Glock 22, M&P, XD, etc. with 4.5″-5.5″ inch barrels are typically somewhat difficult to conceal and carry all day. They are only around 8″ long or so, and can easily print underneath clothing given a light wind. I tried to CCW my 8 3/8″ Smith XVR .460 with comical results. I couldn’t do it. The overall length of that gun is only 15″.
A 24-26″ long AR pistol is not easily concealable.
“While most major felonies are covered by the NCVSs, a number of crimes such as trespassing, vandalism, and malicious mischief are not. DGUs in response to these and other events beyond the scope of the NCVSs are missed.”
Pulling a gun (“…most states regard pulling a gun as using deadly force…“) to stop vandalism is legal and considered defensive?
Can be in Texas I expect. Depends on the extent of the vandalism.
And trespassing, as a danish journalist found out when he inadvertently stepped on the lawn of a little old lady in Crawford, Texas: http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2008/03/04/528660.html
“Get of my lawn!” Not sure it was a DGU, though.
In the interest of clarification:
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
Further ‘declaratory and restrictive clause’ written ( in plain English ) ‘in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers’ ( that would be those few, expressly limited / prohibited ’powers’ afforded to persons within and / or acting on behalf of the federal government ) as follows:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
From the ABOUT page:
“Black Heart Magazine is an independent online literary magazine, transmitting tenacious text around the world at the speed of wifi. Since 2004, our site has been combating clichés and skipping straight to supercharged stories with a simple catchphrase: we heart art.”
Combating clichés ?
LOL. Sorry kid, but writing pro-gun control articles is hardly literary. And it’s cliché .
Seriously. It’s like she cut and pasted from a Ladd Everett press release.
Seriously, I just love that even when we give the anti’s the benefit of the doubt (i.e. 90% of DGU’s are “false”) we still outnumber them 2-1. Facts > Feelings.
Wow, you went out of your way to make the DGU number as small as possible. Even their own lying professors say that there are 80,000 DGUs per year. The real number of DGUs is somewhere between 250,000 and 400,000 so it is likely over 10X the number CGUs.
Her email address is [email protected]. Gleaned from her public bio on the website. Consider sending her a respectful response to her anti-rights sentiment.
Anyone put a link to this page in the comments section of her opinion piece or email the link to her?
Yes and yes. The more the merrier, though.
Yep. After posting a somewhat lengthy response.
Why would TTAG give an anti-gun college kid her first shot at notoriety? Has it nothing better to write about, than to fisk an article from some college newspaper?
Because mocking the willfully stupid is and always will be fun.
In this day of the Internet, people search for information and get it all. All of it, with NO VETTING whatsoever.
It’s hard for people to sort the good info from the tripe.
So, do you want her article to be online, readily available, with NO REBUTTAL whatsoever? If so, you do realized that for most people, no rebuttal = must be true/good/well written, don’t you?
Bruce has done a valuable service whether you realize that or not. There’s bigger picture stuff in his reply.
Do a Google search for “Katie Jeddeloh” and already Bruce’s reply shows up on the first page:
“…The gun technology of today such as the M855 green tip rifle bullet could not possibly have been foreseen by the writers of the outdated Constitution… blah, blah, blah…”
I would hate to get hit with a 72-caliber Brown Bess musket ball, vest or no vest.
Couldn’t foresee the interwebs or cell phones either, yet the 1A still applies…
Yep. A cool 1,000 more page views than other OP Eds in her student paper. Kick the hornet’s nest and clicks you shall receive. There’s got to be an evil business model in that.
All for the 2nd amendment and protecting gun rights, but the comparison between the violent crime rates between America and the UK is very skewed. The UK encompasses a much broader variety of crimes to be “violent” unlike America’s FBI definition of Violent crimes.
Just thought I would put that out there!
I personally think the main problem with gun violence in America is primarily caused by the income inequality and terrible justice system that makes it difficult for criminals to turn their life around after they get out. Cant get a job with a felony, so you have to commit more crimes to survive out of jail, which means more violent crimes committed.
Sorry Richard. I disagree. The primary problem is that a person chooses to be a human predator.
I was twenty years old driving a fifteen year old truck working a minimum wage job. Income inequality much? So I started a chimney sweeping company making four hundred dollars a day for the four months of winter and cleaned windows the rest of the year at a hundred and fifty dollars a day. This was twenty years ago.
Then I switched to a business repairing major appliances making fifty dollars an hour.
As long as you work for your self, and are willing to initially work seven days a week twelve to fourteen hour days, You don’t need a degree to make VERY good money.
I’m friends with a first generation Vietnamese refugee that fled Vietnam as a young girl with her family, with basically the clothes on their backs. The father didn’t know english well as he did construction before he became a contractor and her mother ran a corner market. The four kids went on to get between them two Bachelors and two Masters and all are living the upper middle class American dream.
With all the government programs, grants, interest free business loans, university scholardhips, especially for minorities; if you are poor or a criminal in this country, it’s because you choose to be.
A foreign 2A but’r is extra cute. Let me see if I have this straight. Law enforcement in the UK under-reporting crime doesn’t skew the numbers. UK murders not counted as murder without a conviction doesn’t skew the numbers. This claimed broader range of violent crime reported means there is less sexual assault per captia in the UK. The primary ways to reduce “gun violence” in the US is to make income more equal (like the rest of the world?) and improving on a terrible justice system by making things easier on criminals. Got it.
I *feel* like I’ve heard that before. Hmmm.
Good for you sir for correcting this young, ignorant woman on her misinformed ways. Hopefully she will get the type of flack that she deserves for posting such a poorly researched article, and perhaps in the process will be open to learning or more importantly unlearning the nonsense her liberal instructors have fed her.
She’s a kid, testing the world. Wisdom is not yet hers. A little schooling is a good thing, it’ll made her think before she writes on a serious subject next time.
Amen to that!
Agreed – no one is seriously listening to her except the echo chamber of her liberal student world. I love me some Bruce Krafft and have used his well-written defense of the 2nd Amendment to issue some serious STFU on my liberal in-laws. For that he has my eternal thanks – however, in this case, I think he’s wasting his time. I would have instantly dismissed her over-worded essay, filled with serious gaps in research, as student tripe, not worthy of real discussion – Go away kid and come back when you’ve actually thought this out. When she grows up, her opinions may mature and she may even become a 2A supporter. Her critical thinking skills are only just developing. My opinion have changed radically over the years, her’s may too. Smashing her over the head with a Bruce K hammer may have done more harm than good here.
” I think he’s wasting his time.”
Her article is readable ONLINE…so not just a college echo chamber.
How is getting a well-thought, well-worded rebuttal also ONLINE a “waste of time.” Bruce’s rebuttal has been linked in the comments on THEIR web site and also this page already appears on the first page for a Google search for “Katie Jeddeloh.”
” I would have instantly dismissed her over-worded essay, filled with serious gaps in research, as student tripe, not worthy of real discussion”
Then you lose the debate before you start by letting “Them” have not only the LAST WORD, but the ONLY WORD. Is that really what you want?
EVERY opportunity to get facts and logical argument “out there” for Google (and thus ‘the masses’) to find is winning.
Sorry JR – you’re missing my point. There are endless twits like this posting ridiculous opinion articles just like this ad nauseum. You would have us debate all of them? I don’t have that kind of time but if you do, the so be it. This girl’s opinion piece only appears on a websearch because TTAG’s put up Bruce’s article and WE started clicking on it. They aren’t interested in debate. They are interested in feelings. If you think you’ll ever get the last word in on someone from a liberal arts school you’re in for a frustrating experience. Those who try to defend everything, wind up defending nothing – or something like that.
I’m sorry, but you guys are being really, really generous. This is a college-age person, and letting her off with the “just a kid” excuse quits holding water when the offense is so egregious. I know the childification of America is out of control, but c’mon.
Her ‘article’ has so many factual errors and logical fallacies that it would not survive the rigors of HS speech and debate. By a wide margin. Were she to present that tripe even in extemp, she’d never win a round. In 2-man she’d be buried so deep by cross-ex, the judge would quit flowing the round. I understand how she graduated HS, but that she gets admitted to college with such pathetic writing skills is beyond the pale.
“…the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right”
This is the only correction that I immediately see that is needed in your article;
“…the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutionally protected right”
Yes, I’m probably being petty, but the wording you use leads to people believing that the right to keep/bear arms is given to the people by the government rather than being a human right (or God given right, depending on your beliefs) that is protected by the government. Other than that, this is an outstanding article. Has anyone sent the article to her for a response? Based on the bias she seems to show in her article, I doubt she’ll be joining us in this forum for discussions.
It is indeed unfortunate that indoctrination rather than training to think has become the ultimate goal of academia.
I, and doubtless many others, submitted comments on the piece. My comment was polite, detailed, included background references, and has been “awaiting moderation” since March 22.
It appears that no comments have been approved to date.
So much for the free and open exchange of ideas that the student news outlet of a liberal arts college should be fostering.
I just did the same now…I don’t have much hope that it will be “approved”. Funny how so many schools of higher learning only approve of speech that agrees with their position. That sounds very state-like, Tovarisch. Don’t you agree.
What else does anyone expect from a young Socialist/Progressive-in-training? Since birth, her mind has been filled with drivel in schools where Dem/Lib/Leftist/Progressive/Socialist teachers indoctrinate their agendas on impressionable young minds.
Just left this on the article as a comment. I recommend you guys do the same. The more we can show that we are smart enough to dissect their “common sense” bullsh!t for ammo grabbing hysteria, then the more people who are undecided on the issue can see through their smoke screens and understand The Truth About Guns:
Your article is passionate, but also has quite a few factual inaccuracies. I don’t want to take up too much of your time, but here’s the big pole in the tent: What is M855 and why is this discussion such a big deal.
Here’s the short and sweet of it: M855 “green tip” is not armor piercing by definition. Period. M995 “black tip” is armor piercing by definition, and is not sold to the US public. Any rifle ammunition will penetrate the soft body armor worn by police. ANY RIFLE AMMO.
Here are the source’s before I begin:
First, let’s talk ballistics. Any rifle caliber bullet will generate sufficient energy up to moderate engagement ranges (400-500 yards) to penetrate the “soft body armor” that the majority of police officers wear on a daily basis (Level 2A…we’ll discuss those definitions shortly).
For example, the evil M855 5.56mm that you are referencing produces approx. 1,974 Joules of energy at the muzzle (Point of the bullet exiting the barrel). In comparison, a standard “hunting” round of 308 Winchester (7.62mm) generates 3,621 Joules of energy at the muzzle.
So, your everyday “hunting” gun will generate almost twice the energy of the evil M855 bullet that comes out of a typical AR-15.
According to the performance standards generated by the National Institute of Justice, the vest type most typically worn by police officer is certified as Level 2A, which will stop pistol caliber bullets such as 9mm, 40 S&W, and 45 Auto (Not rifle caliber bullets fired from technically defined “pistols”).
In order to be protected from rifle bullets, officers would need to wear Level 3 armor, which is significantly more heavy and restrictive, making policing activities much more difficult. Should they wear the armor, it’s their choice. I’m just pointing out the trade-off that would occur in such a decision.
So, if we were to follow your line of thought that we should ban 5.56mm/.223 Remington ammo based on how dangerous it is to Level 2A armor, then you would have to ban all rifle ammunition to effectively protect officers.
Are you willing to do that? To remove all rifle ammunition in America? I’m not sure you realize what that would mean in the big picture, but suffice to say it would seriously impact the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans.
So, with all that in mind here’s my summary:
1.) M855 is not armor piercing. This whole debate is just a poorly hidden attempt at banning “evil” through “common sense” laws, but when the issue is looked at logically and critically the attempt is shown as a farce.
2.) The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) has stated that M855 “has historically not posed a law enforcement problem.” So if it’s not a problem, who the heck began this call to ban it?
3.) If officer safety is the priority, we should provide Level 3 protection to officers. However, there is a huge trade-off and they as the men in the field should be the ones to decide on what they want to use.
4.) For you Ms. Jeddeloh, a lesson in journalism: A little research goes a very long way in providing an honest answer to a problem. By providing inaccurate information and passing it as fact you are doing a disservice to your readers and widening the gap between people by sensationalizing an issue that is not sensational in the least.
Left a similar comment yesterday. Still “awaiting moderation”.
Article is clickbait.
She’s everything I would expect of a modern liberal young college woman whose parents never taught her any better. Because she doesn’t know anyone who has ever used a firearm defensively she assumes that they are inherently evil.
People have stopped educating their kids… I’m talking common sense education.
The teachers educating those kids, in most places, are very anti-gun.
People who don’t own guns don’t tell their kids anything about them and believe the stuff they see on TV and in the movies.
We now have leaders who are pushing the idea that voting should be mandatory…. so that millions of these drones can take rights away from those of us who are actually awake.
1 Corinthians 13:11New King James Version (NKJV) 11
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a (wo)man, I put away childish things.
APPLY FOR BUSINESS LOAN, PERSONAL LOAN NOW.
Urgent Loan Needed Contact us today I am a private lender who give out loan to private and corporate individuals Have you been turned down by so many banks? Do you need finance to establish your business? Do you need finance for the expansion of you business? Or do you need a personal loan? My loan ranges from personal to business loan. My interest rate is very affordable and our loan process is very fast as well. I am very willing to make all your financial troubles a thing of the past. If you are really ready to get. your financial problems solved,Then search no further and apply for a loan today. If you are interested fill the DATA FORM so that i can give you my terms and conditions. [email protected]
* Full name:……………………….
* Sex …………………………….
* phone number:………………….
* Amount needed as loan:………
* Loan Duration:…………………..
* Propose of Loan:………………..
* Annual revenue:…………………
* Monthly Income:………………..
We await your urgent reponse asap.
email [email protected]
Mis Alex Maria
Maybe if someone teaches Katie a remedial course on the rules of English grammar and usage, it will overcome her political indoctrination.
Don’t be the farm on it.
Were she in front of me right now, I’d explain it to her this way:
The amendment says, simply, “Because of THAT, we are guaranteeing THIS.”
Now, Katie darlin’. roll that around in your mind for a few mintues, or hours, or days – however long it takes.
This woman is just another example of someone that has a uninformed, liberal ideological agenda. She obviously thinks she is impressing other liberals with her stance, but as usual it lacks factual substance.
I wish people like Katie would do some research before writing such articles. She only does herself a disservice, and exposes her immaturity and ignorance.