How Did Guns in Parks Happen by Joanne Ditmer letter response - Essay Example

4550 Cherry Creek S. Drive Denver, CO 80246 October 15, 2009 The Open Forum The Denver Post 101 W. Colfax Avenue, Suite 600 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Editor: I am writing in response to “How Did Guns in Parks Happen” by Joanne Ditmer. My opinion is same as Ms. Ditmer’s. I like visits to parks. I don’t understand about guns in parks. This is not safe. Ms. Ditmer said in the article – “Since 1983, firearms taken to national parks had to be unloaded, dismantled and locked in glove compartments or trunks.

Before that, they weren’t allowed at all.” President Ronald Reagan signed this national park regulation in 1983. This is a good law. I think if people have guns, they should not bring the guns inside the park. Many people are responsible. They will not use the gun in a bad way. But, if they have a gun, they will feel powerful. Sometimes some people fight about a nice picnic spot. Sometimes teenagers play games and hit other people. The people become angry. I think an angry person cannot control his actions.

If he has a gun, he will be a threat for other people. Some people think guns will protect them from bad people and wild animals. Park Rangers protect people from bad people and wild animals. They have training so they can do their job safe. Ordinary people should not do the park rangers’ job. They don’t have the park rangers’ training. The writer has an example in her article. The campers in the example were very lucky. The shooter made 9 shots. He thought he saw a “bear”. He wanted to kill it to be safe.

However, there were other campers in the place. Any of the 9 shots may hit the other campers. Luckily, no one was hurt. Ms. Ditmer assumes law-abiding citizens think guns are possible disasters. Maybe and maybe not. A law-abiding citizen who likes guns will not think his gun is a disaster. He will be happy. Because of the new law, he is happier. Now, he can bring his favorite “toy” on a picnic or a stroll. The NPCA Associate Director says maybe not many people will visit the parks anymore because of the new gun law.

Maybe and maybe not. Many people like parks. Some parks are tourist spots. Maybe the new gun law will not stop them. What happens if the law-abiding citizen who like guns & enjoys picnics continue to go to the park? Will he be able to control himself & not use his gun? People want to remove stress so they go to the park. If it is okay to bring guns to the park, this place will have stress. Parents worry about their children. Children will be scared if they see guns. Men will always watch out because some bad situation might happen and they must get the guns fast.

Women will always worry about boyfriends or husbands with guns. This is not relaxing. Parks are place of peace and beauty. Guns make it a place of stress. Officials should think again about the new law. The 1983 law doesn’t want to offend the right of gun owners. It only wants to make parks a place for peace. Sincerely, John Doe (your name) Administrative Assistant (your class?) To: (your teacher) From: (your name) Date: October 14, 2009 RE: Letter to the Editor I am submitting my Letter to the Editor.

My main argument is people should not bring guns to parks. I support my argument with examples from the article and the Internet. My intended audience is homemakers, career people and college students. They should like the outdoors and relaxing activity. They are happy people. They value their time with family and friends. They are peaceful. I assume my audience goes to the park for relaxation. I believe guns mean responsibility for my audience. I think if they want to relax, they don’t want to do serious things.

Responsibility for bringing a gun is a serious thing. I used logos, ethos and pathos in my letter. I put my class under my name. I gave examples about family worry about their loved ones. I compared normal people & park rangers. The park rangers are trained. The normal people can make mistakes. This was the example in the newspaper. This should make my audience consider. Also, my audience can see I am a concerned student. The general tone of my letter is simple. It isn’t too formal or too serious.

However, it isn’t too loose. I think I will not offend my audience. They will be interested in my thoughts. The most effective part of my letter is the last paragraph. Owners of guns think it is about their rights. Environmentalists want to preserve nature. They forget their other roles – as parents, girlfriends, etc. I am not a native speaker. So, I want to improve my sentences in my letter. I feel they are too simple and some grammar is wrong.