By Tom Ryan, Kansas City Star Reader Advisory Panel

People who use bullets to express beliefs feed those who write. The material seems endless lately and journalists have more material than they can handle and comprehend.

The fight at Central HS yesterday and the off-campus shooting will feed a few articles here today into the weekend. But visiting writers who may venture on-site near Central or Fort Hood, possess an inauthentic, non-indigenous, you-ain’t-from-around-here voice...inconsequential at the end of the day.

The best writers are those who write what they know.

The power of words exceeds the power of the bullet; the nub of a fountain pen is more elegant than the customized tip of a round. Can writing be an instrument of peace while allowing for a flow of sometimes toxic, awkward, and hurtful language? We should give it a try.

Example: Many people of faith wish to extol the virtues of their god-choice. Instead of turning away from the faith-centered debates, why not enthusiastically sanction the writing? Why do news outlets dampen the controversy? The answer is clear and simple: it’s a business. Businesses need to nurture their patrons, their advertisers. But religion dominates the debates, and while not the only reason for our wars, it is the dominant motivation for those wishing many harm and a vehicle to their heaven.

At the local level, a neighborhood disagreement could become a violent speech instead of a violent demonstration of physical violence and use of deadly force. Conflicts deserve a forum on a page or at a podium, otherwise the forum becomes the public realm, where innocents die.

Using writing and speaking instead of fists and weapons cannot happen quickly, nor will the non-violent modes of expression ever become a substitute for violent physical intimidation. Religions desire converts but the techniques for convincing the potential believer need not be a threat of death or destroying a fellow human being. Gang members should see every rival gang member as a potential customer, not a target. However, because our secular minders believe the debates harmful, the debates merely seethe, build, and explode. Because gangs cannot talk about their gangs and their business ventures, we foster their underground mystique.

We’re beyond disarming the citizenry despite the wishes of many citizens. Arms and the right the bear them are here to stay. But perhaps it’s time to balance the landscape with more non-violent outlets for the emotional debates that exist.

- Faiths compete for more faithful.
- Gangs compete for more members.
- Businesses compete for market share
- Media outlets compete for advertising revenue
- Sports teams compete for a profit

The above examples of competition are all real, some questionably legitimate, with the first two lacking an “arena”. Online writing needs to evolve from the niche blog atmosphere where people gravitate to hear what they wish, to open media arenas of debate where multiple points of view can really do verbal and content-oriented combat. This approach seems distant from politically correct and comfortable.

It could begin with President Obama going on Rush’s show for a day-long debate of the issues, live from the Oval Office…

- The power of words seems boundless and more so when we can allow ideas and people a chance to:
- contrast
- conflict
- unsettle
- debate
- convince

Let’s try placing our bullet points in a document.

Place yours below, if you'd like...