Jump to content
7-3-2

Writing a paper against gun control

Recommended Posts

There was a thread on here not to long ago about a yale study regarding CCW and crime rates.

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/38015-yale-study-regarding-ccw/page__hl__%2Bccw+%2Byale__fromsearch__1

 

I think there are some other articles involving CCW citizens stopping armed robberies as well, can't remeber if I saw that on facebook or here though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out some of the big legal cases like Heller. You can find some pro gun info at www.nj2as.com. There is also a self defense and concealed carry forum. I found it searching within the Tapatalk app on my iPhone.

 

This site has some info as well https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/

 

Good luck! Can we see a copy of your paper when it's finished?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control fails for one surprisingly simple reason, criminals do not follow laws. We already have laws against murder, people are still killed daily. Obviously laws regulating guns will work just as well as laws regulating murder..

My thoughts exactly, does anyone know if statistics exist of murders performed with legally owned weapons vs those bought on the street or stolen??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts exactly, does anyone know if statistics exist of murders performed with legally owned weapons vs those bought on the street or stolen??

Don't quote me as exact as this is now 4th hand information, but its believed in Canada, by the Royal Mounted Police and Local Police, that only 1% of violent crimes are committed with legally owned weapons. I don't know how true this statement is, or if it really matters in your paper but I figured I'd throw at least some kind of information in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't quote me as exact as this is now 4th hand information, but its believed in Canada, by the Royal Mounted Police and Local Police, that only 1% of violent crimes are committed with legally owned weapons. I don't know how true this statement is, or if it really matters in your paper but I figured I'd throw at least some kind of information in here.

Wow, I wish I could find a cited source that states this lol ... hmmm wondering if I could quote this thread haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts exactly, does anyone know if statistics exist of murders performed with legally owned weapons vs those bought on the street or stolen??

 

There was a comment at last nights NJ2AS meeting that one legally owned gun was used in a murder and turned out it was a suicide! The discussion was how the gun laws do nothing to prevent crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good opinion piece to read if you perceive your audience for the paper to be largely liberal. There's a bunch of reputable linked sources for you to use, too.

 

Here's some excerpts:

 

If you've read the Bill of Rights - and who among us hasn't? - you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them:

"the people."

...

Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.

 

We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment.

 

Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.

 

Everyone else. Individuals. The People.

 

Liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one's personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one's personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment.

 

Coming from a liberal background, this read was instrumental in my conversion away from from the dark side. I think building off the ideas mentioned there will make your more liberal peers think more about the validity of their stance on the issue. Plus, it has been my experience that teachers/professors that find a essay interesting tend to grade them better :dancing:

 

Oh and here's some FBI data you can fiddle around with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For college research papers, you will need to use good sources. Government documents, scholarly journals, books, etc.

 

Look up the books written by economist John Lott, he has compiled a wealth of data in regards to the effects of gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again guys,

For college research papers, you will need to use good sources. Government documents, scholarly journals, books, etc.

 

Look up the books written by economist John Lott, he has compiled a wealth of data in regards to the effects of gun control.

yes the quality of sources is pretty important, thanks for the source!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, for the love of god, don't use the stupid "criminals only get their guns on the street" logic.

 

Glock, Smith and Wesson, Ruger, etc. don't distribute crates of guns to "the streets." Bloods don't get wholesale discounts on firearms.

 

Yes, legal guns can and DO wind up on the street. Yes, you CAN buy a gun with no record from a guy in parking lot 100% legal in most of the country. Yes, there ARE people out there who don't give a crap if you live in their state or not, or what's legal or not, especially in states with more lax gun laws.

 

No, it's not shady losers in the ghetto selling guns in an alley. People DO go down south, buy a gun off an Average Joe outside a gun show, then bring it back up north.

 

What you should elaborate in your paper is that while "legal guns" do wind up in the wrong hands, it's about personal freedom and individual responsibility, and no system is going to keep guns out of the wrong hands. The best you can do is fight poverty and drugs, both of which contribute to crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Couldn't have been Bob. That man was 71, Bob isn't that young.

Very funny Vic. You should have known it wasn't me because it didn't say, "Fat, old man"

 

I wasn't going to go there. I was going to say it couldn't have been you, because that dude hit his targets :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a thread on here not to long ago about a yale study regarding CCW and crime rates.

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/38015-yale-study-regarding-ccw/page__hl__%2Bccw+%2Byale__fromsearch__1

 

I think there are some other articles involving CCW citizens stopping armed robberies as well, can't remeber if I saw that on facebook or here though.

A book you will want to read is "more guns, less crime". It is chock full of stats and sources for them.

 

The Yale study and More Guns, Less Crime are by John Lott. These and other works by lot are excellent resources not only because of the facts and statistics but also the fact that as a academic Lott has everything properly researched. Much better than any op ed piece in academia's eyes.

 

 

10USC311 defines everyone 17 to 45 who isn't in the military as a member of the unorganized militia.

 

A common argument used by the anti gun crowd is the 2A means the National Guard. The first counter to this is to use academic standards. The men who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights were among the most highly educated men of their time. They knew the importance of proper punctuation. The comma, as any writer's guide will tell you, is used to separate things. There are differences in the punctuation used in the 2A as passed by Congress and ratified by the states and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State. However, both versions had a comma between "...the security of a free state" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" indicating the keeping and bearing of arms by the people has nothing to do with the militia, or the security of the state for that matter.

 

Article I, Section 8 provides for the formation and arming the militia (National Guard) so there is no need for an Amendment to do so. There was a need for an Amendment to ensure the people would be armed. The states wanted the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments, to specifically guarantee things not spelled out in the Constitution. Right after freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly they wanted the people's right to keep and bear arms protected. This apparently was more important to them than fair trials, illegal government searches, self incrimination, and all the stuff covered in the next 8 Amendments.

 

The anti-gun crowd also argues that the 2A was written to protect the right of the people to keep arms in common usage at the time. To them that means flintlocks and not ARs, pump or semi shotguns, or modern handguns or other arms in common usage. My response to this is very simple. Using the same logic they would say the 1A doesn't protect radio, tv, or the internet only speech and print media

 

The Constitution would be a good place to start your argument as it shows how important gun ownership was in the founding of this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is directed to the US specifically, there is a huge barrier preventing 'gun control' from working. Even if I thought a total ban on all firearms was a good idea, and the solution, it isn't for the US. While gun control works in Japan, Japan doesn't already have 200 million privately owned firearms in it's country already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My thoughts exactly, does anyone know if statistics exist of murders performed with legally owned weapons vs those bought on the street or stolen??

 

I don't know the answer to that, but I am pretty sure most legally owned firearms were bought "on the street."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Similar Content

    • By oldguysrule649
      Given the very challenging times we are experiencing especially here in NJ, I am taking the liberty of reposting something here that I had posted in the 1st Amendment section three years ago.  The broader membership, including the many new forum members that have joined since that time, might benefit from reading it.  It as relevant today, if not even more,  than it was then.  In the many recent threads on the new laws just passed, there is lots of discussion about what the government can or cannot due, might or might not due, or could do if they had the will, etc.   I feel it is important to be reminded of history and what ACTUALLY HAPPENED as a point of fact.   As has often been said, if we ignore history we are destined to repeat it.   My post was as follows:
      Recently finished reading “Gun Control in the Third Reich-Disarming the Jews and Enemies of the State” by Stephen P. Halbrook.  
      I strongly urge anyone who values our freedoms to read it.  Despite the title, it actually covers the period from the birth of the Weimar Republic in 1918 thru the Nazi regime in 1938 and the “Night of Broken Glass”.  
       For me, what is most striking about this book are the parallels between what took place then, and the gun rights challenges we face in the present times.  
       To name a few examples taken directly from various sections of the book:
      • Vague firearms laws that were harshly enforced 
      • Decree(s) requiring the surrender of all firearms and ammunition else punishment of X years in prison 
      • During the timeline covered by  the book;  possession of a firearm or ammunition was also punishable by being arrested, shot on the spot, or being sent to concentration camps.
      • Entire populations being designated as “undesirable” or “unreliable” and banned from possession of firearms. This included not only the Jews but also anyone labeled, for example, as a gypsy or a communist.
      • Forced Registration.   Before Hitler came to power, the government assured that these records would be protected and remain private.  Guess what.  Subsequently the Nazi’s later took control of these records and used them to further confiscate and persecute gun owners.
      • Mass confiscations
      • Needing to convince the local authorities of your need for a firearm and obtain their approval (sound familiar?)
      • Manufacture and importation of arms severely limited.
      • Preventing sporting clubs from providing instruction or training to their members.  Later,  such clubs and associations  were banned and/or  taken over by the government.
      • Massive police raids, house to house searches, and confiscation of “military” weapons from civilians.
      • Need for a license to acquire a firearm or ammunition whether the transaction is commercial or private.
      • Trade in firearms prohibited at annual fairs, shooting competitions,and other events.
      • Government officials and police exempted from most of these onerous laws.
       And so on. 
      As has often been said; “History Repeats Itself”.    This is more than reason enough for us to remain ever vigilant to protect our 2nd Amendment Rights.
       
       
    • By NJGF
      I have linked to an excellent article that outlines the "gun control debate".
      It should provide lots of good information that can be used when discussing gun control.
       
      Understanding the gun debate, part 1
      By Massad Ayoob
      http://www.backwoodshome.com/understanding-the-gun-debate-part-1/
    • By 9X19
      http://newjersey.news12.com/news/orlando-shooting-sparks-new-debate-on-gun-control-and-ownership-1.11916595
      Just voted no for more restrictions.
    • By Midwest
      Puerto Ricans can now carry firearms without a permit and the firearms registry has been eliminated.  And there are no more licensing requirements to purchase. From what the article says, it looks just regular Federal Law takes precedence. This has all the makings of a landmark victory.
       
      I posted this here because it is current gun law and perhaps it might have bearing (or influence) on New Jersey in some way in the future. The politicians in NJ can't keep all these outdated and draconian gun laws in place and keep denying the right to carry without it legally coming back and biting them in the ass sometime in the future (in my opinion). Congratulations to our friends in Puerto Rico.
       
      http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saf-lauds-puerto-rico-court-victory-for-gun-rights-300102214.html
       
       
       
      "A surprising victory for gun rights in Puerto Rico has eliminated the firearms registry and licensing requirements to purchase and carry in the Commonwealth, the Second Amendment Foundation has confirmed.

      As of now, according to Sandra Barreras with Ladies of the Second Amendment (LSA), the group that brought the lawsuit, "there is no regulation to purchase or carry (and) all purchases will be handled in accordance with federal firearms regulations." LSA is affiliated with SAF through the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR)."
       
    • By Midwest
      Rhode Island: Draconian Gun Control Legislation Proposed
       
       
      http://libertycrier.com/lawmakers-rhode-island-unleash-long-list-anti-gun-bills/?utm_source=The+Liberty+Crier&utm_campaign=0a80e78178-The_Liberty_Crier_Daily_News_3_3_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_600843dec4-0a80e78178-285044409
       
      A number of bills includes ending shall issue carry, assault weapons ban patterned after NY state's SAFE ACT, magazine limits and would affect .22 caliber rifles, 10% tax on ammunition with money possibly going to the Brady Bunch (no this isn't April 1st).
       
      "
      These bills are nearly identical bills to those that stalled in the state Legislature last year, however, anti-gun lawmakers relentlessly continue to focus on law-abiding citizens rather than target criminals.  As a result, cities like Providence continue to suffer under the scourge of crime.
      No committee hearings have been scheduled, but these bills have been assigned to the Judiciary Committees in their respective chambers.........."
       
      .
  • Posts

×
×
  • Create New...