Hey guys,

 

So I have to write a positional paper for a college class and I decided I want to write a pro-gun paper. Just wondering what sites, organizations, stats, etc. might be useful.

 

Thanks a bunch,

 

Kev

http://gunssavelives.net/

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.

If you want to cite a 'current event', the old man in the internet cafe that fought off two armed robbers.

Thanks a bunch guys, these are great!! Keep em coming!

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?

If you want to cite a 'current event', the old man in the internet cafe that fought off two armed robbers.

 

Bob???

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..

Bob???

 

Pizza type?

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/

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??

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.

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

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.

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

 

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

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.

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

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!

I posted this a while ago http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/37736-a-good-read-about-the-recent-maryland-decision/page__hl__maryland__fromsearch__1

Bob???

 

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

 

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

 

I second that.

Just keep in mind that the average college professor is likely to be adversarial on this issue.

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.

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.

 

 

Thank you for sharing Toadette, I had not read that article before - great reasoning and arguments in there!

Pizza type?

 

http://www.theblaze....uld-be-robbers/

 

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

maybe research the UK which prohibits gun ownership and the violent crime rate is one of the highest, if not no. 1 in Europe.

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.

I forgot to mention earlier:

 

www.gunfacts.info

 

Tons of facts with sources and free to download.

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.

bad timing.. you post this the day before such a high profile event... make sure you cite sources and be ready to LOGICALLY defend this position.

 

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."