[Drjones]

Well, maybe my professor isn't *quite* as bad as I had initially thought.

Today he:

1) Before starting lecture, he said to the member of the Air Force ROTC we have in our class that he doesn't mean any personal offense to him in his discussions about the war.

2) Handed me the info. below (after discussing it very briefly in class) and said, GENUINELY, "Take this, and if you find any holes, let me know..."

I asked if I could bring in some material next class, and he welcomed it.

:eek:

Wow.

Perhaps he ain't as bad as I initially thought....

That said, here's what we covered today:

He plunked these on my desk:

http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=116080

PDF Version: http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/tfoc_12-2e.pdf

And: http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v284n5/ffull/jlt0802-5.html

(YES, I brought up the point that the AMA should hardly be considered an expert on, of all things, firearms... :rolleyes: )

Of particular note in the first article is this, which appears in the conclusion:

"America's youth gun violence epidemic has been shaped and fueled by the ready availability of guns and by pro-gun public policies. "

Which totally discredits the whole work in my eyes. (Because we all know that guns CAUSE crime, right?)

Anyhow, unfortunately, I failed to ask him what his ultimate point is with all this stuff.

I guess it's really not that big a revelation:

People (Yes, even young ones) get guns illegally and use them in crime. So what?

My question to you is:

Since I'm going to bring stuff into class, what should I bring in to rebutt all this?

Here's what I'm thinking of doing right now:

Making a packet for everyone in class with the following items:

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/stats.htm (Bill from US Congress stating that the police are not responsible for individual protection)

http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html (showing the US Supreme Court rulings that police are not responsible for individual protection.)

HOWEVER, I'm not sure I should take it in that direction without having to. (The philosophical, moral, and ethical reasons for owning firearms)

I was thinking about also writing a bit, highlighting that quote from above, which states that guns CAUSE crime or are in some way responsible, and trying to play on that.

I also want to point out the fact that my prof. totally ignores the fact that guns can be and ARE used for GOOD.

I dunno....what do you think I should bring in for the class???

Oh, one last thing:

Today after class, a girl approached me and told me how she really likes me challenging the prof in class. She would like to, but isn't equipped with enough facts to do so. (Not just on guns...) I talked with her some more about gun stuff, and she agreed. (Like how insane it is that certain politicians actually think the new S&W .50 will be the "gun of choice" for criminals, since it weighs like 3lbs., is HUGE overall, and costs $1,000.)

:D

After THAT, I'm REALLY determined to not sit in silence in that class!!!

If I can educate only one person!!!

I'm doing this for the children!!!

:D

[CaesarI]

Well #1, you need to do a DARN good job cause she's watching. That being the case. I prefer the line-item-veto approach.

Go line by line, and point out every error in every statement.

"* Although the domestic gun manufacturing industry is relatively small and has experienced declining sales in recent years, it has significant political clout and a large market for its products, and has engaged in aggressive marketing to youth."

-Gun industry, marketing to youth? Uh huh... cause that .50 S&W Magnum is a real youth toy all right. In fact I see ads for guns all the time in YM magazine. Show em the ad poncho where the gun industry targeted young people. Show me the kid who can, on sight, identify the product he see because he's seen SOOO many ads for it.

"# Lax oversight of licensed firearms dealers, combined with little or no regulation of private sales between gun owners, mean that guns can quickly move from the legal gun market into the illegal market, where they can be acquired by young people."

-Uh huh.... lax oversight of licensed dealers my A**. But lets look at regulating private sales shall we? How would you do this poncho? Uh huh... logistical nightmare you say? And are the BADGUYS gonna follow this procedure? Nope... thought not. It is funamentally IMPOSSIBLE to prevent 2 people from exchanging goods.

"# Certain guns, especially inexpensive, poorly made small handguns, are particularly attractive to criminals and youth."

-Oh REALLY?!? And so are certain cars, get over it. You know who else these cheap, small handguns are popular with? Poor people trying to defend themselvse. I object to "poorly made" that's BS. Moreover, its absurd, should we ban the Honda Accord cause its stolen a lot?

"America's children and youth remain in the grip of an epidemic of gun violence. In 1999, some 40% of all gun homicide victims, and 15% of all gun suicides, were children or youth under age 25.1 That same year, 43% of all "crime guns"—guns seized from criminals—were taken from children or youth."

- Uh huh. under age 25? guess what at 21 they can legally buy them. His numbers are total BS and everyone knows it. MOST of those people dying are gang members of some sort. THey aren't 12, they are 14, they're 16-22. BIG difference. One could hardly call'em "children"



Just proceed like that.

-Morgan

[Greg L]

A handout for the rest of the class is a good idea. Even if the professor gets in a snit and cuts you off the rest of the class will have the information and can read it later if they want to.

Greg

[Waitone]

Since the request was framed around "youth violence" I'd go after the assumption that there is a tidal wave of youth killing due to gun's availability.

Get CDC data on causes of death among youths. Watch out for the statistical trick of including 24 year old gang bangers in the same category as "children." Sort though the data and get to the real number of children killed by stupidity then compare that number to the same number of children in the same age groups killed by say swimming pools, 5-gal plastic buckets, automobiles, choking, etc.

Then once you have the number of truly tragic and stupid deaths compare that figure to the number of guns available. Then compare that figure to the number of children dying in 5-gal buckets against the number of 5-gal buckets.

You get te idea.

[AmericanFreeBird]

According to every CDC report on deaths in America the "gun death" figure has always been much lower that the number of deaths each year happening in a back yard swimming pool.

Are we going to ban private ownership of the deadly swimming pool?

5 gallon plastic buckets kill more todlers that guns, are we going to ban 5 gallon plastic buckets?

[Bob Locke]

Last time I looked at them the CDC's numbers were broken down into age increments of 5 years (0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, etc.), at least in those groups. I'd argue that the 15-19 crowd should NOT be lumped in with "children". And if you take that group out, then the number of firearm-related deaths among actual "children" plummets dramatically.

Get that info; it's out there.

And the DeShaney case is the best you'll find as to the state having no duty to protect individuals. This is one of the best counter-arguments to the "You don't need a gun to protect you, that's what the police are for" argument. Also, you may want to mention that the average response time to a 911 call across the country is about 20 minutes. A determined person can do a LOT of damage, and then get away, in that much time.

Then there's defense of self as a natural right. The DoI states that we are endowed with inalienable rights, and that "life" is among them. If that is really accepted as true, then it MUST also be accepted that defending life is ALSO a right. And it can harldy be argued that it is a "collective" right, either.

Then there's the argument about guns being more prevalent and readily available in this country than ever before. Simply not the case. Prior to 1934, any old soul in the nation could purchase a machine gun simply by walking into a store that stocked them and plunking down the money. No background check involved, just the greenbacks. Prior to 1968, a kid could get a .22 rifle via mail order. Now you have to be 18 to buy a long gun and 21 to buy a handgun, legally at least. At best, firearm availability has been somewhat restricted; in reality, it's been SEVERELY restricted.

This is going to be EASY! :D

Just keep in mind that the facts are on YOUR side, and you'll be fine.

[Art Eatman]

You might point out the changes in federal law after the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Before then, anybody over 18 could legally buy a rifle, pistol or shotgun with no paperwork at all, and it would be delivered by the USPS.

After the GCA of '68, the Form 4473, "the yellow sheet", had to be filled out for all new guns sold. Nobody under 21 could legally buy a handgun. No more USPS deliveries from dealer to customer.

In the WW II and Korean War era, it was still quite common for kids of 10 to 12 years old to get their own .22 rifle and keep it at home in town. Bicycling with a .22 rifle to Grandpa's farm was a common event, and nobody thought anything of it.

At the time of the Brady Bill hearings in Congress, ATF and FBI testimony stated that some 85% of all guns used in crimes were acquired by illegal means. Of the remainder, most were legally acquired, but years before the crimes.

Art

[SpeedRacer2002]

Dr Jones,

Good Luck.

You have a uphill battle ahead of you as I have found that the concept of thinking for oneselve is a dying art.

A few thoughts on this subject that I have been pondering lately that may or may not help your cause here.

1.) The fallacy that guns are by nature dangerous - Critics often argue that firearms are inherently dangerous or evil. The truth which has recently been made painfully obvious to us by the Sept 11 attacks, is that a weapon is merely a tool. It is people who are truely dangerous. The most powerful nation on the face of the planet was sent reeling and thousands of American citizens died becuase of a $.99 boxcutter. Should we ban boxcutters or air travel because of the events that took place, or should we realize that anyone who has enough of a strong desire to hurt, kill or dominate another person will be able to do so whether they choose to use a gun, a box cutter, a bat, a rock, or through sheer strength.

Anyone who doubt's this fact can look to the African counrty of rwanda, where over 800,000 Tutsi's have been slaughtered mainly with clubs and machetes....

And in seeing this we also see how in many situations it is not an option to sit and wait for those we have delegated the task of protecting us (be that law enforcement or military), but that if we wish to save ourselves, we must be prepared to take on that commitment ourselves. The heros of Flight 93 realized this fact, and met that decision with honor and valor.

Some will blatantly throw around the tern "Handgun Violence" as though violence does not exist without guns, or that it would go away if handguns were eliminated from the equation. Tell that to the battered woman beaten to death by an abusive husband or boyfriend. Violence does not exist in an inanimate object, it rests in the hearts and minds of human beings.

To those who feel that they are morally superior becuase they could not take a human life if their life were threatened, I say that they have never looked at the face of their sleeping child, and known without a shred of doubt in their mind that they would do ANYTHING they had to do to protect the innocent angel that lay sleeping in that bed.

Well I've rambled enough....

[Old Fuff]

To justify ownership of guns for personal protection see the thread: Tennesee: "One Victim's Story..." now on TheHighRoad. This story should set your Prof. back a bit. Good Luck.

[jimpeel]

"America's youth gun violence epidemic has been shaped and fueled by the ready availability of guns and by pro-gun public policies. "When people bring up the "easy access" argument, I simply tell them that in 1955, you could drive to the local gas station, fill up with gas, buy a firearm, and ammunition therefore, and drive away. No permits. No fingerprints. No waiting period. No background check. No paperwork.

Easy access? Hah!

Their only recourse argument is that the number of firearms in circulation has (insert percentage of increase here) and that is why access has become so easy.

To this I simply reply "Then why hasn't crime increased at a similar rate if firearms, and easy access, are the reason for crime?"

[Elmer Snerd]

Someone will mention the "gun show loophole", send 'em here (https://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=2929).
Print up a copy or two of the USDOJ report that the article references.

There are many good articles here (http://reason.com/bi/guns.shtml).

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=172
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=909
CDC Mortality Report (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html)
If anyone mentions "bowling for Columbine", send them
here (http://www.moorewatch.com/).
Don't forget to mention the real problem (http://overlawyered.com/index.html).

Edit: Go here (http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2762) for information and links about the Fifty Caliber Rifle Hysteria.

Ack! I forgot this article (http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe68-20000331-07.html), it might be a bit too confrontational for people that you are trying to gently educate.

[Ewok]

You might want to find a good, medically oriented, definition of epidemic, and point out that there certainly is not an epidemic.

[NewShooter78]

After going through the entire 1st article I've pulled a few jems:

1.) The 1997 Census of Manufacturers, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, recorded 191 gun manufacturers in the United States, with total sales of just $1.2 billion and fewer than 10,000 employees. Cigarette manufacturers, by comparison, produced $28.3 billion worth of product that year; the alcoholic beverage industry produced $27.7 billion.

--This is just amazing! They are compairing an industry whose major product is not something used immediatly and then thrown away to an industry that is. And they don't seem to make any comparisons to the numbers of people who die every year from smoking related illnesses either. And cigarette companies were busted in court for directly marketing to kids, which was derived from company documents. The last time I saw a gun "advertised" in a rag other than shooting or hunting related was this past years x-mas Maxim, and the gun they showed was a $3,000 SxS shotgun that Maxim had picked themselves.

2.) There has been a long-term decline in the overall prevalence of gun ownership since the early 1970s, when nearly one-half of American households kept firearms. The decline is limited to rifle and shotgun ownership, and may reflect increasing urbanization and a declining interest in hunting. Handgun ownership has increased slightly during that time.

--I think that if you could find literature about the lack of shooting sports taught in schools you could also buffer this factiod. You could also find lawsuits where victims were sued by criminals as another little tidbit as well. I sure hope you have access to Lexis-Nexis because that's the best online research tool out there.

3.) Gun ownership generally increases with increasing socioeconomic status.

--Well that could be used to offset the idea of guns being cheaply obtained by the youth. That would seem to mean that owning guns is expensive and not readily available to me.

4.) The gun industry's traditional customer base is in long-term decline. As American society has become more urbanized, hunting has become steadily less popular; one government official predicted that "hunting could end in this country as early as the year 2020.

-- This is just opinion paraded as a fact. Hunting will never go away unless all guns, bows, and other means of trapping and killing are banned (and actually enforced). I'm willing to bet that there are still hundreds of thousands of people who still hunt to supliment their family's diets because of lack of funds. Unless rural poverty can be totally eliminated then hunting will still be around.

4.) I won't quote the entire passage, but the one about advertising and video games got my panties in a bunch. The idea that advertising to adults to take a child hunting or plinking is actually advertising to children is repugnant. And the fact that some manufacturers were trying to get "non-violent" games featuring their guns onto the market isn't a negative approach. And besides, the truely violent games are not intended for children, and its the parents faults if those games do end up with children. Those ultra violent games are intended for adults. The game manufacturers and not the gun industry should be held accountable for that. Okay, one snippet: ""Their strategy was expressed by Scott Farrell, editor of Guns Magazine: "What we need is a computer game which combines the use of the real handgun ... with state-of-the-art graphics and an exciting story ... a game like that would be an extremely effective vehicle to introduce safe recreational shooting to the video games generation."18 As of late 2001, however, the games were selling poorly—paradoxically, they were not violent enough—and some had been taken off the market.""

5.) Practices such as bulk retail transactions and surrogate or straw purchasing make it easy for gun traffickers—sometimes with the cooperation of corrupt licensed gun dealers—to buy guns and then resell them on the secondary market, where sales are not subject to federal regulations such as background checks.

-- While not the subject to federal regulation just yet, many states to have statutes to regulate this. In my state, La, there are mandates that it is your personal responsibility to ensure that the private sale of a firearm is legal and you face penalties if you are proved to have made an illegal sale. Just think 10th amendment on that issue.

6.) The secondary market's unlicensed gun sellers, by contrast, can legally ignore the identification requirement and waiting period, cannot conduct background checks, and are not required to report multiple sales or keep records.

-- Emphasis mine, but unlicensed is outside of regulation because they have chose to ignore licensing and are illegal, or are face to face transactions (see 5 above).

7.) A nationwide survey of inmates in state prisons in 1991 found that those incarcerated for a handgun offense were nearly as likely to have gotten the gun they used from a "retail outlet" (27%) as from the "black market, a drug dealer, or a fence" (28%); just 9% said that they had stolen it.26

--And no where does it state whether these criminals were first time offenders who purchased the guns legally, or if they were multiple felony criminals (probably felons if they are in state prisons) and hence banned from purchasing legally.

8.) Nationwide, it is estimated that more homicides were committed with 9 mm pistols in 1992 alone than in the entire decade of the 1980s.15

The close relationship between trends in gun production and gun use in crime is emphasized by the fact that nearly the entire increase in handgun production from the mid-1980s through 1993 involved the specific medium- and large-caliber pistols that became weapons of choice for criminal use, as shown in Figure 4. Tom Diaz, a former senior staff member for the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, has argued that the gun industry knowingly marketed increasingly lethal pistols to promote repeat sales to a customer base that was already saturated with less powerful guns.

--When you can convince me that a standard 9mm is more powerfull, and hence more lethal, than a standard .40 s&w, .45acp, .357 magnum, .44 magnum, then I might not want to :barf: when reading the above. And we can't forget that the 9mm became the standard load for handguns for the military and law enforcement over the same time period. Think big military contracts like Baretta's for this.

9.) As the intersection between gun markets and crime has become better understood, violence prevention practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels, from a wide array of backgrounds, including law enforcement, public policy, law, and health care, have worked to develop new strategies for combating the gun violence epidemic. Many of these interventions—such as tracing crime guns, strengthening regulation of licensed dealers, and screening prospective buyers—have already been implemented to some extent nationwide and have shown early promise in decreasing youth access to guns in the legal and illegal markets. Other strategies—such as limiting gun sales, regulating the secondary market, registering guns and licensing owners, and banning some types of weapons—are being tried in a number of states and may also be effective in reducing youth access to guns.

--No where does it state that better enforcement of laws already on the books, harsher punishments for criminals who use firearms, or better PARENTAL control could be effective in reducing youth access to guns.

[sm]

Above is ALL Good. I like the idea of handouts with references and Web sites.

Gary Kleck's findings would add support and quell misinformation also.

Pics of youth shooter's , responsible with family chores, and school.

Be interesting if a youth were allowed to attend and partcipate in this ...give his/her views, experience, using their own words.

[Pendragon]

I would generate a nice introduction and outline all of your points in advance. Discuss the philosophical reasons that we are opposed to gun control as an attack on liberty. Talk about other liberties that can be abused - free speech, religion, the right to not testify against ones self, the right to be free of search and siezure - then point out that the courts have ruled that those rights may not be abridged simply to make people safer. The principle is called "prior restraint".

Yes, some will say that freedom of speech does not mean you can yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. This is missing the point entirely. Everyone with a mouth is capable of yelling and starting a stampede and there is a good chance that someone could be killed. If the 1stA was treated like the 2ndA, everyone in a theater would have to be gagged until they could prove they had no intention of yelling "FIRE!".

Imagine a preacher having to get his sermons cleared by the Dept of Speach, Worship and Assembly? Just to make sure he did not speak out in a way that offended people or what have you.

The police are not allowed to search your house unless they have evidence that a crime is comitted. Yet, anyone can buy rope and cameras and produce child pornography or hold sex slaves in their house. Maybe we should make everyone register their camera and make every camera put its serial number on every picture of video it makes - so we can track down child pornographers? Maybe we should just be able to search everyones house at any time - just to make sure they are being good.

Most of the people described in the documents are already comitting crimes by being under age to posess a given weapon or by being a drug user or felon in posession of a weapon or being in posession of a stolen weapon. These laws do nothing to address the demand for guns. They seek only to reduce the supply. This will not stop people from acquiring weapons to aid in crime. Look at what is happening in Englad where there is a total ban on handguns and other repeating arms. They are smuggled in, they are manufactured in secret, etc.

These laws, by definition, will only affect law abiding people who wish to own guns.

You should find that account from TFL where the lady shot people in her house and all that - have you read that? Its absolutely incredible.

Throw in "A Nation of Cowards" and clarify just who is doing what with the guns. Most people will be SHOCKED to know that only 40 or so little kids per year are killed in gun accidents.

Point out how disingenuous it is to lump accidents and homicides together and call them "gun deaths". Point out the massive genocides in Africa that happened without anyone having guns. Ask people if that was going on here if they would still want strict gun control?

Guns are the absolute ONLY way that the weak can resist the strong, the old the young, the few the many.

Talk about the 100,000,000 people killed by their government in the 20th century. All of them disarmed by gun control - all starting with registration. I believe the figure is over 2000 people per day.

As for guns being marketed to children - that is preposterous. Children cannot buy guns and it is silly to imagine a business model where qualified gun buys buy guns that appeal only to children and then sell them illegally or otherwise provide the guns to children with dastardly motives. The fact is, most people who use guns responsibly were brought up to do so. These people in turn buy scaled down rifles and shot guns for their children so they can participate with their parents. Despite the fears of alarmists, these usually exceptional parents who teach their kids safety and responsibility from a young age - not to mention just spending time with their children...

One of the problems with this issue is just the size and scope of the battlefield.

Good luck - I know you will do well.

[Skunkabilly]

Who cares, did you get the girl's number?

Also point out that so many full auto and suppressed weapons are in the hands of civilians and have the class guess how many crimes involving Class III have been committed by civilians.

And how many by 50BMG firearms.

And if that's excessive ask them if we should make Dodge Vipers illegal because they're meant only to break laws anyway.

[Drjones]

Be interesting if a youth were allowed to attend and partcipate in this ...give his/her views, experience, using their own words.

Well sir, I am somewhat of a "ute" myself: I'm 22.

Does that count?

:D

[Drjones]

Who cares, did you get the girl's number? Em, no, she wasn't really too cute... :(

Also point out that so many full auto and suppressed weapons are in the hands of civilians and have the class guess how many crimes involving Class III have been committed by civilians. Funny you should say that, I'm including that.

Was it two or three crimes committed by cops with legally-owned full-autos?

And if that's excessive ask them if we should make Dodge Vipers illegal because they're meant only to break laws anyway.



Hey man, no need to go there with me! :rolleyes: :banghead:

[Drjones]

OK guys, you have been very helpful, but one last bit of advice:

Should I bring in a bunch of stuff tomorrow, or take the weekend to organize myself better?

Here's what I have written so far: (I'm going to hand this to the class, along with a few articles)

The article “Where the Guns Come From: The Gun Industry and Gun Commerce” (as well as the other statistics) presented by the professor is deeply flawed because it rests on an inherently flawed principle. As stated in the conclusion; “America's youth gun violence epidemic has been shaped and fueled by the ready availability of guns and by pro-gun public policies.”
What the author is clearly ignorant of is the fact that before the Gun Control Act of 1968, ANYBODY over the age of 18 could buy a handgun, shotgun, or rifle without ANY sort of paperwork, background check, or any other control. It was also legal to purchase guns through catalogs and have them delivered via US mail with no qualms whatsoever.

And before laws passed in 1934, anyone could walk to a local store that sold fully-automatic firearms and buy one. The only prerequisite for purchase was cold, hard cash. It should be of further interest to the class that since 1934 there have only been THREE crimes committed with legally-owned automatic weapons. Ironically, each of the three crimes were committed by police officers. Read more here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html
It is also important to note that crimes committed with illegally-owned fully-automatic weapons are practically non-existant. For example, In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns.

For an idea of what could happen if we were to ban handguns, we could look to Europe:
“In 1996, the U.K. banned handguns. Prior to that time, over 54,000 Britons owned such weapons. The ban is so tight that even shooters training for the Olympics were forced to travel to other countries to practice. In the four years since the ban, gun crimes have risen by an astounding 40%. Dave Rogers, vice chairman of London¹s Metropolitan Police Federation, said that the ban made little difference to the number of guns in the hands of criminals. . . . ³The underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all.²” (John Lott)

That’s interesting, isn’t it? Also of interest is the plight of Australia:

Australia also passed severe gun restrictions in 1996, banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively. In the subsequent four years, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24%, and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%. (John Lott)

Here is another “benefit” of gun control that the UK and Australia have gained: According to a UN study, Australia, England and Wales have THE HIGHEST crime rate in the world.

That is in part due to the fact that gun control laws are based on the very false premise that criminals will abide by them. Tell me; if a criminal is willing to disregard laws on murder, rape, and robbery, what makes you think he would be stopped by gun laws?

And from the JAMA Research Letter; “Relationship Between Illegal Use of Handguns and Handgun Sales Volume” we have the following: “These findings suggest that such action could decrease the incidence of handgun violence.” A statement which again, rests on the ridiculous and false notion that guns in some way cause or are responsible for crime. Just like commercial airline jets and boxcutters were responsible for 9/11, right?

To carry this logic further, we could conclude that if we severely restricted or banned air travel, that 9/11 might not have occurred, and that we could prevent such tragedies in the future.
A quote from Michael Moore offers us some more insight into the “logic” behind gun control:

"I cannot go to work. But I have a film to finish. Our editor has been unable to make it in from New Jersey, but he is there now waiting for some word on what to do. I can't even think about this movie. I don't WANT to think about it because if I think about it I will have to face an ugly truth that has been gnawing through my head...
This started out as a documentary on gun violence in America, but the largest mass murder in our history was just committed -- without the use of a single gun! Not a single bullet fired! No bomb was set off, no missile was fired, no weapon (i.e., a device that was solely and specifically manufactured to kill humans) was used. A boxcutter! -- I can't stop thinking about this. A thousand gun control laws would not have prevented this massacre. What am I doing?"

Excerpt from the Michael Moore weblog “Tears Down The Westside Highway” September 22nd, 2001

As a side note, just to illustrate the author’s knowledge on the subject (or glaring lack thereof), I would like to point out that his frequent use of the term “Saturday Night Special” to refer to inexpensive handguns is originally a racist term, coming from “N**ger Saturday Night”

**********

:D This is fun.

I figure if I take the weekend, I could write more about the philosophical/ethical reasons for keeping and bearing arms. (Like bring up in my short essay the question of, "WHY should you rely on someone else for defense of your life, etc."

Thank you all for your help so far, and keep it coming!!!

[Skunkabilly]

Sorry doc, I forgot about the whole Viper thing, didn't mean to bring it up on purpose. :banghead: :o

[Baba Louie]

Boy drjones, you've got your work cut out for you on this one doncha?

Some random thoughts

Start with definition of children/child

According to my Webster’s New World Dictionary:

Children: n., plural of child
Child: n., 1. an infant; baby. 2. an unborn offspring. 3. a boy or girl in the period before puberty. 4. a son or daughter. 5. a descendant. 6. a person like a child; immature or childish adult

The go into the CDC figures. Auto accidents, pool drowning, etc.
Look at the FBI figures on crime/criminals in that certain age group that HCI uses to pad their figures of "Children"... ask the class to use their own intelligence to differentiate between the two.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

Look at the CDC’s Unintentional Deaths (in blue) and note the ages and percentages of firearms as cause of death for each age group, its ranking in that particular age group, noting that the 10 – 14 age group still shows only a 3.1% (49 total) of 1,588 deaths in 2000, etc.

Even if you were to factor in all of the kids unintentional deaths from 1 – 24 due to firearms and compute against the estimated number of available firearms (if you can find a decent realistic number… you might try ATF website) you’ll find the number infinitesimally small.

These numbers still aren’t criminal activity.

For any who wonder just what hoops need to be jumped thru to mfg, distribute and sell firearms link them to:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/index.htm

FBI Crime stats? Here ya go

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

There's more out there, but with all of the above ya gotta get yourself an outline of topics germain to the discussion you wish to prepare/lead. Flesh it out a bit.

Keep it simple. These are just college students ya know. Some numbers work (don't overwhelm them), some philosophy (quotes by dead presidents and world leaders are always good) on arms, power, war, the price of freedom... a few internet links (be very careful about using the NRA as reference, try not to if you can... seems to have a negative effect on sheep as everyone knows how evil they/we are) and a couple of really good authors/books to read... dial 911 and die, Robert Water's stuff, Heinlein, Machiavelli, Warsaw ghetto...

Discuss: the "FEAR" factor that many have. The "Hate" factor (same as fear...introduce the word "Hoplophobia" into their vocabulary). The legislation overkill factor. The New Definitions (Assault Weapon is a good place to start). Lawsuits and criminal charges (The Air Force guy in NYC comes to mind) against those who'd dare stand up to criminals (who end up being the victim in the media)...

Tell em what you're gonna tell them, then tell them (graphic aids & handouts work well at this stage), then you finish by telling them what you just told them. Questions and answers last.

How much time do you have to present all this again???

If you're really brave, volunteer or offer to take one or two shooting... specially the pretty ones :D

If you only save one childs life... is that how you put it?

Oh yeah; does any of this need to relate to Ethnic Studies or is this another class?

Adios

[Drjones]

ALSO:

I think it would really drive home my point if I brought up the racist roots of gun control. (As well as bringing in the article) Oddly enough, my prof. already mentioned it, but obviously hasn't made the connection that slaves do not own guns, free men do.

AND:

Where does the term "Saturday Night Special" originate from again?

I made reference to it already, but want to double-check.

Thank you!!!

[SpeedRacer2002]

I would be VERY hesitant to introduce too much in the way of accidental Child fatalities. There is no way to come out of that argument looking good. You can point out that more children die in the bathtub every year than gun related fatalities, (a true fact) and still end up looking insensitive.

I think that if you want to bring up children at all, you should stress how important gun owners feel about keeping children safe for guns.

The topic of guns and children is one that is naturally stacked against the gun owners, and is probably the single biggest reason that gun control advocates have been able to gain so much ground in the last 2 decades.

The fact is that the mere suggestion of a child with a bullet hole in them is enough to make up most peoples minds in favor of gun control regardless of the facts.

My advice tread lightly and carefully

[Drjones]

Sorry doc, I forgot about the whole Viper thing, didn't mean to bring it up on purpose.

I know...it's cool.... No worries! :D :cool:

[Elmer Snerd]

"Assault Weapons":
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/0201/ags2.html
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/assault.weapon.html
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/rational.htm

General:
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/
http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-rkba-dir.html
http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/Resource_ctr.htm

I think that it would help if the magazines and newspapers(or tapes of TV footage) referenced in these(and other)gun control quotes (http://members.tripod.com/~waycool_dude/main.html) could actually be produced in class. This would support the notion that we are not "Paranoid Gun Nuts Who See Conspiracies Everywhere To Take Their Guns Away"; many of these people really do want to ban civilian ownership of anything that goes bang(or they act that way for political reasons), eventually including "ordinary hunting guns". The college's library may have one or more in the bound magazine stacks or newspaper microfilm archives. Unfortunately, many of the more infamous quotes are bogus (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html).

I also added some stuff to my original post before it occurred to me that I had enough new material to just post again... D'oh.

Edit:
Where does the term "Saturday Night Special" originate from again?

http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/klan.html
http://www.njmilitia.org/racist-roots.html

Oh, yeah, Britain:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0100205/stories/2002/02/21/crimeInBritain.html

[Quartus]

Should I bring in a bunch of stuff tomorrow, or take the weekend to organize myself better?


If you go in half-baked and let him tear you up, you will have accomplished a good thing for the antis - you will have innoculated a bunch of kids AGAINST THE TRUTH.

Don't do it. Get prepared. Overwhelm this guy.


He's baiting you, BTW. He's acting nice-nice, and inviting you to bring in some materials....

... just do he can stomp you into the ground and destroy any credibility you have built up in that class.


Don't let him do it. Don't think you are the first to try to go head to head with him. Be prepared.


Yer doin' good, young'n!

;)

[sm]

Drjones wrote"Well sir, I am somewhat of a "ute" myself: I'm 22.

Does that count?".

Yep, approaching 48, got classmates 'bout your age...attention gets diverted in one class because of a certain blond.

You make some VERY good points, I respect and support you.

Years ago I attended a talk given by a 15 yr old gangbanger, en-route to WPP. Interesting when I asked where he and his gang obtained guns...being underage and all. The reality is , he said, is gun control is for victims. The room got quiet, I got "elbowed' for asking my question--I had a reason. Gangbanger went on to inform the youth, parents, and sheeple that Criminals actually like gun control, prey is easier. There is a reason why they target anti-gun areas moreso than pro-gun areas.

They aquired the Beretta's by breaking into a National Guard Armory situated in a small town.

He continued by making an interesting statement, there were some areas (counties, towns) required by law to keep a loaded firearm in the home. These same areas had very pro-gun attitudes, many citizens carried concealed--the gangs, his and rival gangs--did not frequent these areas. Very simple ,easy prey is easy when one knows guns are taboo. When citizens keep loaded guns at home, and /or carry concealed...the citizens have proven by these actions , they will not be victims, prey, or anything else...oh except to say they will shoot .

So I let the ganbanger educate the sheeple...err parents and kiddies about guns, gun control, and how all the so called laws to make society safer-does not. It just makes crime easier for BG's and makes the populace more vulnerable.

Must have been the gangbanger's dress, 'language, mannerisms, and tales of crime. Bunch of persons where shocked and amazed.
When, figures were quoted and stats cited about the evil of guns...he laughed. He said they actually contributed money to a "gun buy back program", just an investment in doing crime in an area. Cost of doing business one might say.

The reality is at 15 y/o where on earth do you think he got guns? He steals them, whole bunch cheaper,and no silly waiting period, FOID , anythng . Whereas the populace have all the restictions.

Good Luck

[Drjones]

re1973:

Thank you sir!

I liked your story so much, I'm going to incorporate it into my paper for the class!

(Minus the "sheeple" comments of course...)

:D

And yes, I refuse to use ANY info from the NRA because of the connotation that organization carries with most people... :fire:

Again, thank you all for your support!!!

Based on what Quartus said, I am going to wait 'til next week to bring in all my stuff.

I also had similar thoughts of going at this from most every angle, and just burying him (and the class) in facts. :evil:

I think that's what I'll do....

:cool:

Again, thank you all, and KEEP IT COMING!!!

[SpeedRacer2002]

I also had similar thoughts of going at this from most every angle, and just burying him (and the class) in facts.

I'd rethink this, and take the advice that an earlier poster said "Keep it simple". That also means have a focus and a plan.

Remember snipers hit there targets far more precisely than Carpet Bombing does.

[Waitone]

Avoid the urge to dump everything you know. Clearly understand your instructor's charge and specifically answer. Just assume right now you'll never convert anyone. Resolve to introduce as much doubt into their belief system as you can. Consider it the gift that keeps on giving.

Will you be permitted a Q&A after the presentation? If you're given say 30 minutes, use 20 minutes for the presentation and 10 minutes for Q&A. Let the instructor or classmates drag you over the finish line.

Your reluctance to use anything from the NRA as a source is sound except for only one factoid. Eddie Eagle has been presented to something like 12 million children. That is worth mentioning for several reasons: 1>its a huge number of children, 2>it established the bona fides of the NRA as a safety oriented organization contrary to popular press, and 3>it introduces the gift that keeps on giving---doubt.

You might also introduce shooting sports as a concept to people who consider firearms in a negative light only.

Good luck!

[Zander]

...spend a little time for your own edification on this:

http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

[Quartus]

I'd rethink this, and take the advice that an earlier poster said "Keep it simple". That also means have a focus and a plan.

Yup. When I said, "overwhelm", I didn't mean to try to hit him from every angle. But hit him THOROUGHLY from a couple of angles. KNOW them. Have the references. (And I like leaving out the NRA.)


Then get ready for the next round, wherein you hit him THOROUGHLY from a couple more angles.

:D


Right now it looks to me like he's VERY vulnerable on the "availability" issue. You can nail him on that, and maybe another point or two.

Your objective is not to convince him - that isn't likely to happen. Your objective is to get some brain cells stirring in that room. Get your classmates to QUESTION the tired old arguments they've heard yada yada yada forever. Do that by demolishing just a few of them. Just a few...

Time enough then to start a more thorough education.

[Freedspeak]

"Prior to 1968, a kid could get a .22 rifle via mail order."

Heck you could buy a dd (anti-tank weapon)mailorder or even a tank at an army surplus supply (if you had the bucks).:D

[Freedspeak]

Hey, intensity can make up for cute. ;)

Was it two or three crimes committed by cops with legally-owned full-autos?

I believe it may actually be as high as 2, both police officers.

ANYBODY over the age of 18 could buy a handgun, shotgun, or rifle without ANY sort of paperwork, background check, or any other control. It was also legal to purchase guns through catalogs and have them delivered via US mail with no qualms whatsoever.

This should actually read Anybody of any age

(be very careful about using the NRA as reference, try not to if you can... seems to have a negative effect on sheep as everyone knows how evil they/we are)

fluffbunny.com might be good, especially the radicals flash.

[Freedspeak]

I agree with waitone, meter it out. Use the main stuff to counter the prof, but feed some of the other to interested classmate so they may question him on other areas than you touch. At the least you'll get them researching on their own.

You might also introduce shooting sports as a concept to people who consider firearms in a negative light only..

After all it is an olympic sport!

[Pendragon]

I would not include the gangbanger story posted by re1973.

No offense to you sir, I do believe you - but it is an anecdote and is unsupported and to some it may sound just a bit too picture perfect.

No unsupported stories, I think thats one of the worst things you could do.

Also - find the 2 machine gun incedents and have documentation.

And as was mentioned, you will probably be much more effective trying to plant doubt vs make converts. Its a slow process - even if you do have all the info.

[Elmer Snerd]

Where does the term "Saturday Night Special" originate from again?
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/klan.html
http://www.njmilitia.org/racist-roots.html

Oh, yeah, Britain:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0100205/stories/2002/02/21/crimeInBritain.html

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report
Firearm Use by Offenders
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fuo.txt (text only)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

http://pub2.ezboard.com/fhunt4lifegfacts

Another "Assault Weapon" article:This article (http://www.claremont.org/projects/doctors/990914wheeler.html) describes how some Olympic-quality target pistols legally became "assault weapons" under the PRK AW law due to having magazines not in their pistol grips. The article is from 1999, this legislative oversight may have been corrected. Even so, it is still a fine example of the unintended consequences(and the screwing of the innocent) that can arise from hasty, emotional, uninformed, knee-jerk, feel-good-political-ploy legislation.

Make that sarcastic "quotation" finger gesture when referring to "assault weapons", "the gun show loophole", "cop-killer bullets", "junk guns" "plastic guns", and similar anti-gun sound-bites. Emphasize that these terms were invented by antigunners; they are not military, historical, or technical nomenclature. These and similar terms were carefully designed to elicit and manipulate an emotional response rather than inform.

Tread carefully lest ye be branded a "paranoid gun nut", but some information on anti-gun media bias might help.
http://reason.com/9511/GUNSfeat.shtml
http://www.keepandbeararms.org/media_bias.htm
http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/gunsandmedia/
Use this link (http://secure.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/news/sr20000105.html) instead of the listed ones for the Media Research Center (http://www.mrc.org/)'s "Outgunned" report.
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/columns/news/col20000106.html
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/columns/news/col20000511.html
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2214
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001KjN
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=189

Information about how antis and anti groups have deliberately lied with the media's cooperation to advance their agendas should open some eyes. Emphasize that refutations get nowhere near the publicity of the original lies and distortions(see above).
If you can get just a few of them to wonder why antis feel the need to lie if their cause is so Noble, Just, Commonsense and Obvious and start investigating for themselves...
http://www.geocities.com/robertstuckey/awckb.html
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2331
http://www.ulster.net/~jperz/saf06.htm
http://www.claremont.org/projects/doctors/021020wheeler.html
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBPrintItem.asp?ID=2762
http://www.nationalreview.com/17apr00/kopel041700.html
http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2000/03/13/guns/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51452,00.html
http://www.co-freedom.com/2001/03/tiemann.html

Don't forget Bellesiles. How much publicity is his being proved a liar getting, compared to the original publicity his book generated?

"Glocks are plastic(or ceramic) 'terrorist specials' and can be smuggled through x-ray machines and metal detectors":
http://www.holisticpage.com/personal/article.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment072700a.html
Mention the law enforcement agencies around the world that issue Glocks. AFAIK, it is the issue pistol of the Austrian Army. Hardly what one would expect of a terrorist's favorite weapon.

"KTW Armor Piercing Cop Killer Bullets":
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html
http://www.co-freedom.com/2001/03/tiemann.html
I recommend mentioning the policemen who got shot in the limbs and head by criminals because this invented controversy publicized that many police officers wear concealed body armor. Emphasize that KTW's have been around since the 1960's, they are LEO issue only, and that no LEO has ever ever evereverever(did I mention ever?) been killed by such a bullet going through his armor where a "regular" bullet wouldn't have penetrated.
I also recommend mentioning that the original version of the "The NRA wants you to have armor-piercing bullets" bill would have outlawed numerous perfectly legitimate hunting rifle cartridges(many of which have been around for 50-75 years or more) due to its definition of AP.

[Quartus]

No unsupported stories, I think thats one of the worst things you could do.


AGREED! Look at the mess John Lott has caused with his disappearing research and phony book reviewer!


Don't use anything you can't back up with cold hard facts!

[Baba Louie]

From www.keepandbeararms.com

gunfacts3.2

http://keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf

look at page 13 of 68 (I think it is)... number of handguns available chart with other lines for suicides, homicides, etc

Interesting footnotes as well. Give ya more backup if it looks like your research comes from established "thinkers" as opposed to a buncha gun-nuts from THR

It sounds to me like someone could easily prepare a full semester or two of classroom info on just what these few posters have offered to you, so you do have a daunting task of picking out three or four (3 or 4) MAIN areas of ideas for presentation, carefully sculpting that info and knowing it well for presentation.

In your summary, You can always state that much much more information is available to anyone with an "OPEN MIND" and a desire to learn the Other Side of the Truth than that presented by... "Well meaning but left leaning, liberal utopian, ivory towered, starry eyed dreamers, who live their entire lives protected by (Gov't subsidized) Ivy Walls", if ya wanted to. :D

Might be interesting to attend class that day, drjones. I'd kinda like to audit that one.

Adios

[NewShooter78]

I agree about staying focused. I've been there and done that myself not too long ago, and since the prof. has given you two articles with pretty clear topics, you might want to just start refuting those topics. You can however make reference to other info in the packets you plan to hand out, and make sure your prof. get one too.

You should also take the weekend and work hard on getting well organized since that appears to be an option. It seems that you've been given a plethora of info here to wade through, so use the time you've been offered and go through a lot of it.

One thing "liberal" thinkers love is info from what they would traditionally consider their side, too. You might want to include info on the Pink Pistols, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (sorry if I got that one wrong), Black Man With a Gun, and other such organizations.

[sm]

I only related to make a point.

I agree with a short, focused , outlined presentation. I also agree with handouts with references that can be full supportive , Gary Kleck's for example.

My point was that intead of an adult (myself for example) making an impression to youth and parents, I poised my question which in turn was answered, debated and argued by a real ganganger.
Out the mouth (foul-mouthed) 15 y/o member of a gang , the audience heard first hand . Not that of "an adult" that might be leaving out info, enhancing the story,leaving out facts. Not that of an adult spewing about whom likes guns, has CCW, hunts and shoots--which might be construed as being biased. No Constitution, BoR ,NRA, 2A. I played the hand "from the mouths of bbabes...". I saw and heard the responses, I made my point by re-enforcement from an actual gangbanger--not the perception the sheeple have, or brainwashed to believe.

Yes a responsible pro-gun youth with good grades, whom shoots, with the morals, ethics and character we all pride ourselves on ...might quell any negative responses form Professor, classmates (have to behave since we have a guest), and you know might re-enforce "hey that youth shoots and is not a a two headed monster as the media portrays.

I'm going from the angle and the way I was raised : If one tells the truth--ain't gotta remember a lie.
Tell the truth, with supported facts that are easily referenced --not tainted, spun, fabricated, perhaps with a youth with rea life experience.

Watch the anti's, squirm, wiggle when caught in a lie--not all people are stupid...the majority , even sheeple, if honest with themselves ---well sometimes the truth and facts hurt.

my .02

[Baba Louie]

Oh yeah, and another thing... :D

I always liked to end my summary with some thought provoking challenge/rhetorical question like... in this case... the Air Force guy in NYC who is charged with a crime for protecting his mother from an armed B&E thug...

Even tho' he's from NJ (with its own intolerable gun control laws) and the fact that he saved his mother's life (I guess) and should be considered a hero while breaking another jurisdiction's law... what would YOU (the class) have done/do?

Tell them not to answer that, but to ponder the point where law-abiding citizens MUST become victims, but where BG's ignore the law(s) anyway.

Suggest that they ALL do some research on our culture (gun culture), starting with the fact that America's first shot (heard round the world) came as a result of the British marching to "Dis-Arm" the (criminal) colonists near Lexington and Concord way back in 1775.

Is it any wonder we are who and what we are today as a result?

Or something like that.

Get some drjones, get some.

Adios

[CaesarI]

In my experience in similar situations, the most persuasive argument is a short one:

Guns aren't the problem, murderers are. Suppose you could ban guns, suppose it was successful, now you've got to ban knives, bows, arrows, swords, axes, chain saws, hammers, and then eventually sticks and stones. Kinda hard to ban sticks and stones isn't it?

That seemed to sink in with the Liberals on my campus.

But you can only make a claim like that once you've proven your main point. This should be the very last thing you give them to go home and think about.

Additionally I would repeat the admonitions made above, that an argument that is as narrowly focused as possible, which concludes with a few general remarks is the best one. The more narrow your claim is, the harder it is for someone to argue against it.

What you want is to establish credibility for your case with the class. That's more important than anything else.

-Morgan

[jimpeel]

Ask them this:

When was the last time any of you heard anything about the North Hollywood shootout between the cops and the bank robbers armed with real, honest-to-God AK-47s?

Another question for you all:

Why haven't you heard anything about it?

The answer:

The reason that the anti-gun crowd does not mention the North Hollywood shootout is because that one singular incident exists as the most credible evidence of the failure of gun control.

Are AK-47 (Avtomatica Kalashnikova-47) sub-machine guns legal in America?

NO

Did those firearms come into America legally?

NO

Did those firearms come into America through a port-of-entry?

NO

Did those firearms come through customs?

NO

Did they pay a customs duty on those firearms?

NO

Did they pay the required $200.00 transfer fee, required since 1934, on those firearms?

NO

Did they register those firearms as required since 1934?

NO

Did they fill out any paperwork on those firearms?

NO

Did they go through a background check?

NO

Did they get them anyway?

YES

Why? because gun control is a failure and those who think that it is the answer are being duped by others or are duping themselves.

[jimpeel]

http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=25

also:

http://mail.lab.net/lists/archive/cypherpunks-exploder/Week-of-Mon-20020121/002146.html which contains this jpg of a man with a Glock in his waistband

http://www.as-e.com/technology/imagebank/Images/ase_10b_b.jpg

[Bob Locke]

"Saturday Night Special" used to be preceded by the word (pardon the use of it) "******town".

You can probably fill in the blanks. :rolleyes:

Also, did anyone else who looked at the CDC's numbers notice that above the 35-44 age group that "Homicide" and "Suicide" both fell out of the Top 10 list? I found that interesting.

Some math for you:

In the age groups 1-4, 5-9, and 10-14, the CDC lists a total of 12,392 deaths. The causes that may include firearms in them are Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Injury. For those three age groups (I may go back and include the <1 category, because the numbers would skew even more heavily in our favor if those are in the mix), the total number of deaths that are related to firearms in any way is 410. That's a little over one per day, not the 10 or 13 or the number du jour tossed out by the VPC or whoever else happens to be spouting anti-gun rhetoric at the moment.

In short, about one out of every thirty deaths that occur in the 1-14 age group is related in any way to firearms. And if you consider the likelihood that a teenager who is bent on killing him- or herself WILL find a way, then I would submit that you can pretty safely toss out those suicide deaths attributed to firearms, because those deaths were going to occur anyway regardless of the method used. That would bring the total down to 300.

Obviously, they are NOT "doing it for the children".

But we already knew that, didn't we?

Hope that little bit helps.

[CaesarI]

"Are AK-47 (Avtomatica Kalashnikova-47) sub-machine guns legal in America?"

it's an honest to god "Assault-Rifle" as opposed to a sub-machine gun, since it fires a rifle round, as opposed to a pistol round.

and I was perty sure it was an Avtomat Kalashnikova but ya'll would have to check with the AK people to be sure.

-Morgan <--- Pedant

[Mordwyn]

Doc, E mail inbound, I hope it helps

[Pendragon]

on the face of it, the "-ica" sounds too latin to be a suffix on a Russian word.

[Drjones]

Mordwyn: Got the email...thanks! Lots of great info!!!


Hey all, I'm thinking of adding this into my paper I'm going to give to the class: (Since my prof. and a student he's "buddy-buddy" with have made multiple references in front of the whole class that they smoke pot. :rolleyes: )



To those of you who still aren’t convinced that gun control laws are not the answer, I ask you this: when was the last time banning the public from having something worked? I would like to point out two specific examples: Alcohol and Drugs.

I think we all know what happened with Prohibition of Alcohol: Organized crime was rampant, and a huge black market for alcohol was created. Oddly enough, despite laws prohibiting it, people still got their alcohol.

Today, all drugs from marijuana to cocaine and ecstasy are illegal. Oddly enough, I know many people who obtain marijuana just as easily as if it were available in stores, and even some people in our class seem to have access to it. And I’ll bet that you, the reader, could obtain most any drug you desired within a few minutes at best, to a day at most.

So; these drugs are all illegal, yet almost anyone (including children) can obtain them as easily as if they were legal. Strange phenomenon, isn’t it?

I ask the reader again: since the banning of drugs and alcohol were completely ineffective at best, what makes you think that similar laws restricting guns would work? I would also argue that if anything, banning things is 100% counter-productive, since a huge amount of crime arose out of prohibition, and out of the current “War On Drugs.”

[jimpeel]

It is, indeed, Avtomat Kalashnikova.

Can't remember where I got the term Avtomatica.

[Drjones]

My prof. made the following insane statement: (numbers are not real, just for demonstration, as used by him)

"Joes gun shop orders 1000 handguns. They sell 300 legally, leaving them 700 which they sell to criminals illegally."

He actually claims the 700 guns just go unnoticed by the .gov.

Could anyone provide info telling what happens to dealers if they "lose" guns?


Thanks

:rolleyes:

[Quartus]

Jones, ask him to substantiate that claim. Where did he get his numbers?

That's a general pointer, BTW. Always make him prove his 'facts'. Don't let him get away with throwing around unsubstatiated 'statistics'.


Which means that YOU have to be able to back up any numbers YOU toss out! ;)


BTW, I think the Prohibition argument is a good one. I used it quite successfully on a liberal philosophy student. It was what broke through the wall for him. It didn't do the WHOLE job, but it did break that wall and get him thinking.

[Mordwyn]

Doc, now what he says is not impossible but HIGHLY unlikely.

As soon as the BATFE starts seeing that the numbers on weapons involved in crimes all point back to a single source they will without warning audit that FFL.

Every weapon that leaves a maker on it's way to a distributor is logged out and then logged in at the distributor. The distributor does the same thing as the firearms are shipped to secondary distributors, and then to retail FFL's. There is always a clear paper trail from maker to end user.

The BATFE randomly audits businesses along the chain to insure compliance. Your professor is falling for the HCI/VPC/Clinton party line if he really believes his statement.

Call his bluff, make him site proof, he doesn't have any. If he does it's one FFL out of thousands and in order to have proof they had to have been nailed by the BATFE and shut down, proving that the system works.

I call Bovine Scatology.

[Bainx]

jimpeel...you articulate very well!:)

[jimpeel]

Thank you.

[Drjones]

Yeah, jimpeel, thank you! Your little blog on the auto weapons was great.

I integrated that into my paper, and added even more to it (like fingerprinting, etc) just to show the class how many hoops one must jump through to obtain such weapons, and how easily criminals just ignore and bypass those laws.


Anyhow, I left my paper on my computer at work. :banghead:

It's up to about 8 pages! :eek:

You guys willing to check it out if I post it early monday? (Well, early PST!) Also: Can I just post it as an attachment? Its a Word (.doc) file.

Again, thank you all for your support!

I should DEFINITELY give the class something to think about with this paper!!!

:D

[Baba Louie]

8 pages? Single or double space? Bibliography? Footnotes? Or is this more of an essay/editorial type paper?

I'd love to read it and I'm usually up and on board around 4:00 or 5:00 am PST till I go to work.

If its good (and It probably is) you can always submit it to various other places/sites for review and publication if you're predisposed.

Adios

[Drjones]

Baba:

8 pages double spaced, (or maybe 1.5 space? I forget...) no footnotes/endnotes.

When I started this whole thing, I basically planned on copying one or two articles to hand out to the class, as well as VERY few comments from me.

Well, I started this thread, and discovered that the articles my prof. gave to me are outright lies (like how the gun industry "aggressively markets to youths, etc. see above...) and people like jimpeel add their excellent quips, and before ya know it.... :rolleyes: :D

SO, I will post it about 9/10 am PST.

I have a feeling that there may be some stuff I should omit, but I dunno....I was pretty happy with all the stuff I had on there.

I think I maybe went off on too much of a tangent with the automatic weapons, but it works well I think, because I used jimpeels quip about the Hollywood shootout to illustrate just how easily criminals can get anything they want, regardless of how many laws we pass.

Anyhow, I'll post it, and wait anxiously for feedback from you guys!

[Drjones]

Also:

My prof. has been talking about the idea I touched on here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=10611&goto=newpost

About how people try to control other people by controlling the language.

I think it would make a *VERY* good point to both class and prof. if I included information about how the term "Assault Weapon" is a term fabricated totally for the purpose of implying a very negative connotation - and how the antis are manipulating language (as well as statistics and anything else they can) to serve their needs.

Should I include that?

Again, I'll post my 8 pgs. in the AM, and y'all can see if I need to / could omit some stuff, and perhaps substitute other things.

(BTW, I've seen a few links on the whole "Assault Weapon" term and its incredible ambiguity, but is there a single page that says it all about that? Most of the links I've seen are fairly scattered...)

Thank you!

[Elmer Snerd]

BTW, I've seen a few links on the whole "Assault Weapon" term and its incredible ambiguity, but is there a single page that says it all about that?

Maybe this one:
http://reason.com/9407/ed.jacob.9407.shtml
or these:
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/rational.htm
http://headsbunker.nothingbutguns.com/html/article_2ndAm.html


general:
http://www.concentric.net/~rweller/news301.htm


I can't remember if I already posted this:
http://reason.com/bi/guns.shtml

[Drjones]

Guys: Here's what I have. Let me know what you think; should I omit anything? Add anything?

Fire away....


The article “Where the Guns Come From: The Gun Industry and Gun Commerce” (as well as the other articles) presented by the professor is riddled with blatant lies, and is deeply flawed because it rests on an inherently flawed principle. I will address a few of the blatant lies contained in the article, as well as expose the faulty premise the entire article rests on.

The first lie: ”Although the domestic gun manufacturing industry is relatively small and has experienced declining sales in recent years, it has significant political clout and a large market for its products, and has engaged in aggressive marketing to youth.”
This is an outright lie. Later in the article, the author contradicts himself, and acknowledges his initial statement as being misleading: “It would be misleading to say that the industry directly promotes gun purchases by children, which would be illegal.”. Gun manufacturers simply do not market to children. The author is misleading you right from the beginning.

Second lie: “Lax oversight of licensed firearms dealers, combined with little or no regulation of private sales between gun owners, mean that guns can quickly move from the legal gun market into the illegal market, where they can be acquired by young people.”
The “lax oversight of licensed firearms dealers” is a lie.
Hmmm… “little or no regulation of private sales between gun owners.” Could anyone explain to me how you would go about monitoring/regulating the private sale of ANYTHING by the 300 million people in this country? That is impossible.

Third lie:
“Their low price makes these guns particularly accessible to young people.”
The price of a gun couldn’t possibly have anything less to do with its “accessibility” to anyone. In California, for example, to purchase a handgun REGARDLESS OF PRICE, one must:
- Be at least 21 years of age (18 for long guns)
- Pass a background check
- Not be a convicted felon (which is verified by the background check), though a number of other offenses may disqualify one from purchasing a firearm.
- Give a thumbprint for EVERY handgun purchased (I believe this also applies to long guns)
- Have a valid “Handgun Safety Certificate” (Which one must also be at least 18 to obtain)
- Either: 1) Own an approved gun safe for storage of the firearm, or 2) purchase an approved lock for the handgun at the time of purchase. Ownership of an approved safe is verified for EVERY firearm purchase in CA, and if one does not own a safe, one must purchase an approved lock for EVERY firearm they purchase.
- Show proof of residency in CA for the last three months, such as a vehicle registration certificate, utility bill, etc. The Proof of Residency MUST have the firearm purchaser’s name on it. (Which means that a child could not bring in mom or dad’s SMUD bill)
- Have a valid CA driver’s license.
- Wait 10 days from time of purchase to pick up the firearm. (applies to both handguns and long guns)
- Purchasers of handguns must fill out and submit a California Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) form. (Which is submitted directly to the govt.)
- Secondary sales between private individuals—including those at gun shows—must go through a licensed firearms dealer.
- CA residents can ONLY purchase one handgun every 30 days. In other states that do not have this restriction, EVERY time someone wants to purchase more than one handgun, extra forms must be filled out and submitted to the ATF. EVERY multiple handgun purchase gets the attention of the ATF, because they suspect the buyer of “straw” purchases, or purchasing a gun for someone else. (Like a criminal)

I’m sure I’ve left out a few of the many steps involved to purchase a handgun in CA. If someone could please explain to me how any of the above laws make it “easy” for anyone, let alone a child, to obtain a firearm of any sort, I’d really like to hear it.

Now, I’m not saying that illegally obtained guns are expensive, but that is the key term: illegally-obtained. Of course a stolen gun will sell for far less than one that is obtained legally. The seller of the stolen gun, by definition, did not pay anything for it, and therefore can sell it very cheaply and still make a profit. Again, just because a gun is inexpensive on the legal market does not make it “easily accessible” or any more accessible than any other more expensive firearm. The laws outlined above apply to all firearms at all price points, of course. Therefore, it is misleading to say that “a firearm is more easily accessible just because it is less expensive,” as the author misleadingly says.

As a side note, just to illustrate the author’s knowledge on the subject of firearms (or glaring lack thereof), I would like to point out that his frequent use of the term “Saturday Night Special” to refer to inexpensive handguns is originally a racist term, coming from “******town Saturday Night Special,” which was a popular term used by racists to describe the inexpensive guns many black people had for self-defense. Which also happen to be the very guns the author would like to see banned. Which would exclude many poor people from an effective means of self-defense.

Another example of how this author twists statistics to mislead you:
“In 1999, some 40% of all gun homicide victims, and 15% of all gun suicides, were children or youth under age 25.1 That same year, 43% of all "crime guns"—guns seized from criminals—were taken from children or youth.”

Do you consider a 25 year old to be either a “child” or a “youth”? How about a 24 year old? A 23 year old maybe? The author is warping the statistics to serve his needs by including people up to 25 years of age in his statistics on “children.” If you remove ADULTS from the statistics, the numbers and percentages would clearly be far lower than what the author stated.

The false premise this article rests on, as stated in the conclusion; “America's youth gun violence epidemic has been shaped and fueled by the ready availability of guns and by pro-gun public policies.”

First off, each and every year brings MORE gun laws and restrictions, NEVER less. Second, what the author is clearly ignorant of is the fact that before the Gun Control Act of 1968, ANYBODY of ANY age could buy a handgun, shotgun, or rifle without ANY sort of paperwork, background check, or any other control whatsoever. It was also legal to purchase guns through catalogs and have them delivered via US mail with no qualms whatsoever. There goes the lie of “availability of guns.” The purchase and ownership of guns has steadily become more and more restrictive, with several states and cities in the US having an outright ban on firearms. (It is an odd coincidence that most of those cities with very restrictive laws or bans on firearms also tend to have much higher crime rates than cities with less restrictive firearms laws.)

The “availability of guns” lie is further exposed by the following: before laws passed in 1934, anyone could walk to a local store that sold fully-automatic firearms and buy one. The only prerequisite for purchase was cold, hard cash. It should be of further interest to the class that since 1934 there have only been THREE crimes committed with legally-owned automatic weapons. Ironically, each of the three crimes was committed by police officers. Read more here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Also of note is this fact: As of 1995, there were approximately 120,000 fully-automatic weapons owned by civilians registered with the ATF. Since 1934 there has not been even ONE crime committed by a civilian with their legally-owned automatic firearm. Not even one. Of further interest to you may be the fact that possession of an unregistered NFA item, (which includes full-autos) or one not registered to you, is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.


Also on the subject of Automatic Weapons;

When was the last time any of you heard anything about the February 28, 1997 North Hollywood shootout between the cops and the bank robbers, who were armed with real, honest-to-God, fully-automatic AK-47s?


Another question for you all:

Why haven't you heard anything about it?

The answer:

The reason that the anti-gun crowd does not mention the North Hollywood shootout is because that one single incident exists as one of the most credible pieces of evidence of the failure of gun control. The criminals were armed with, among other weapons, three fully-automatic AK-47s, and an automatic AR variant rifle, all of which would be illegal to possess under laws passed in 1986 and the notorious 1994 “Assault Weapon” ban.
Some more questions:

Are AK-47 (Avtomat Kalashnikova-47) machine guns legal in America?

NO

Did those firearms come into America legally?

NO

Did those firearms come into America through a port-of-entry?

NO

Did those firearms come through customs?

NO

Did they pay a customs duty on those firearms?

NO

Did they pay the required $200.00 transfer fee, required since 1934, on those firearms?

NO


Did they register those firearms as required since 1934?

NO

Did they fill out ANY paperwork on those firearms?

NO

Did they go through a background check? (Which is a VERY thorough check done by the FBI required for automatic weapons, and takes between 60 to 90 days)

NO

Did the criminals get fingerprinted as is required by Federal Law before you can own a fully-automatic weapon?
NO

Did the criminals have their local Sheriff, Chief of Police, or District Attorney sign on the Federal form that is required for EVERY civilian full-auto purchase?
NO

Did they get them anyway?

YES

Why? Because gun control is a failure and those who think that it is the answer are being duped by others or are duping themselves. (And for those that are wondering, YES, all of the above are steps required for the purchase/transfer of each and every fully-automatic weapon by civilians)

In short, all the gun control laws in the world (not even the 20,000 or so we already have) would not have stopped those criminals from obtaining those guns. If anyone can come up with a solution that would actually prevent criminals from obtaining guns illegally, I’d love to hear it. Perhaps we should ban criminals.

But I digress… For an idea of what could happen if we were to ban handguns, we could look to Europe:
“In 1996, the U.K. banned handguns. Prior to that time, over 54,000 Britons owned such weapons. The ban is so tight that even shooters training for the Olympics were forced to travel to other countries to practice. In the four years since the ban, gun crimes have risen by an astounding 40%. Dave Rogers, vice chairman of London¹s Metropolitan Police Federation, said that the ban made little difference to the number of guns in the hands of criminals. . . . ³The underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all.²” (John Lott)

That’s interesting, isn’t it? Law-abiding citizens are denied firearms, but the criminals keep buying whatever they want! (Since criminals, by definition, do not obey the law.) Also of interest is the plight of Australia:
Australia also passed severe gun restrictions in 1996, banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively. In the subsequent four years, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24%, and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%. (John Lott)

Here is another “benefit” of gun control that the UK and Australia have gained: According to a UN study, Australia, England and Wales have THE HIGHEST crime rate in the world. That is in part due to the fact that gun control laws are based on the very false premise that criminals will abide by them. Tell me; if a criminal is willing to disregard laws on murder, rape, and robbery, what makes you think he would be stopped by gun laws?

And from the JAMA Research Letter handed out by the professor; “Relationship Between Illegal Use of Handguns and Handgun Sales Volume” we have the following: “These findings suggest that such action could decrease the incidence of handgun violence.” A statement which again, rests on the ridiculous and false notion that guns in some way cause or are responsible for crime. Just like commercial airline jets and box cutters were responsible for 9/11, right?

To carry this logic further, we could conclude that if we severely restricted or banned air travel, that 9/11 might not have occurred, and that we could prevent such tragedies in the future. Would you be willing to ban all air travel, since we would be assured we would never have a repeat of 9/11? Why or why not?

Some questions for the reader: Do you think that guns, by there mere presence, cause crime?
Do you really believe that crime in general, or even violent crime, would be reduced at all if law-abiding citizens like you and me were prohibited from having guns? Again, since a criminal is, by definition, one who does not obey the law, do you think gun control laws would be effective in barring such an individual from obtaining guns?

A quote from Michael Moore offers us some more insight into the “logic” behind gun control:

"I cannot go to work. But I have a film to finish. Our editor has been unable to make it in from New Jersey, but he is there now waiting for some word on what to do. I can't even think about this movie. I don't WANT to think about it because if I think about it I will have to face an ugly truth that has been gnawing through my head...

This started out as a documentary on gun violence in America, but the largest mass murder in our history was just committed -- without the use of a single gun! Not a single bullet fired! No bomb was set off, no missile was fired, no weapon (i.e., a device that was solely and specifically manufactured to kill humans) was used. A boxcutter! -- I can't stop thinking about this. A thousand gun control laws would not have prevented this massacre. What am I doing?"

Excerpt from the Michael Moore weblog “Tears Down The Westside Highway” September 22nd, 2001

This quote highlights the very important concept that anything can be used to kill people. Anything can be used as a weapon. Actually, one of the most common murder weapons is the average kitchen knife. Should we ban those too?

To those of you who still aren’t convinced that gun control laws are not the answer, I ask you this: when was the last time banning the public from having something worked? I would like to point out two specific examples: Alcohol and Drugs.

I think we all know what happened with Prohibition of Alcohol: Organized crime was rampant, and a huge black market for alcohol was created. (With the organized crime syndicates being responsible for providing the alcohol.) Oddly enough, despite laws prohibiting it, people still got their alcohol. Prohibition worked, right?

Today, all drugs from marijuana to cocaine and ecstasy are illegal. Oddly enough, I know many people who obtain marijuana just as easily as if it were available in stores, and even some people in our class seem to have access to it. And I’ll bet that you, the reader, could obtain most any drug you desired within a few minutes at best, to a day at most. Making drugs illegal worked, right?

So; these drugs are all illegal, yet almost anyone (including children) can obtain them as easily as if they were legal. Strange phenomenon, isn’t it?

I ask the reader again: since the banning of drugs and alcohol were completely ineffective at best, what makes you think that similar laws restricting guns would work? I would also argue that if anything, banning things is 100% counter-productive, since a huge amount of crime arose out of prohibition, and out of the current failure that is the “War On Drugs.”

In closing, I submit that both articles passed around the class by the professor are completely wrong. They are wrong for two reasons:

1) They are based on an inherently false premise; that the availability of guns is in some way responsible for violence. This is false for two reasons:

a. As I have already shown the availability of guns has been steadily restricted since 1934. (And again, as I have shown, just because a firearm may be inexpensive does NOT make it more “accessible” to anyone, least of all children.)

b. It implies that guns in some way cause crime and/or violence.

2) The work “Where the Guns Come From: The Gun Industry and Gun Commerce” contains both outright, blatant lies, and statistics which the author has manipulated to fit his needs, and to mislead the reader. Since these works contain both outright lies and warped statistics, we cannot trust the work as a whole.

[Drjones]

Uh, guys....

Not to be pushy, but if I don't get input on the essay I posted above, that's what I'm going to hand out to the class.

I personally am happy with it, but the input of the intelligent members here is always needed.

:cool:


Thanks
Drjones

[P12]

Good read if you ask me!

Submit it and good luck.

[Elmer Snerd]

I recommend the following:

Adding more of the actual texts of the 1934 and 1968 laws, as well as where to look them up.

Cite the exact procedure to obtain handguns, long guns. and full auto where you are; including Federal, state, county and city laws.

This is an outright lie. Later in the article, the author contradicts himself, and acknowledges his initial statement as being misleading: “It would be misleading to say that the industry directly promotes gun purchases by children, which would be illegal.”
Point out exactly where this is in the prof's material. Invite everyone to look it up now.

Mordwyn has an excellent point:
As soon as the BATFE starts seeing that the numbers on weapons involved in crimes all point back to a single source they will without warning audit that FFL.

Every weapon that leaves a maker on it's way to a distributor is logged out and then logged in at the distributor. The distributor does the same thing as the firearms are shipped to secondary distributors, and then to retail FFL's. There is always a clear paper trail from maker to end user.

The BATFE randomly audits businesses along the chain to insure compliance. Your professor is falling for the HCI/VPC/Clinton party line if he really believes his statement.

Call his bluff, make him site proof, he doesn't have any. If he does it's one FFL out of thousands and in order to have proof they had to have been nailed by the BATFE and shut down, proving that the system works.

Good luck.

[Drjones]

Thanks Elmer.

Touching on Mordwyn's point, here's the new paragraph:

The “lax oversight of licensed firearms dealers” is a lie. There is a very clear paper trail for each and every gun, from the moment it leaves the factory, through each distributor, to each retailer, and to every owner. Firearm distributors and retailers are audited at random by the ATF to ensure they are following applicable laws.


Also, I hesitate to add any more stuff to it unless I'm going to remove something.

Its already 8 pages in .doc format, and I doubt most of the class will bother reading that far. (But who knows...)

Of course if anyone asks for more info on a specific topic/law (such as the various laws you noted) I'll give it to them ASAP.

I wouldn't even know where to begin with including text from the 1934 and '68 laws.

Have you seen them??? They're VOLUMES long!!! :what:

Anyhow, thank you for the input...

[Baba Louie]

Kudo's drjones

I dunno about you, but he sounds like a right wing gun nut to me. :D

Please give us a post report post.

Adios

[Pendragon]

Strike this paragraph, it is cumbersome, redundant (in word use) and hard to understand and uses a lot of words to say very little. It is also speculative and not empirical.

Now, I’m not saying that illegally obtained guns are expensive, but that is the key term: illegally-obtained. Of course a stolen gun will sell for far less than one that is obtained legally. The seller of the stolen gun, by definition, did not pay anything for it, and therefore can sell it very cheaply and still make a profit. Again, just because a gun is inexpensive on the legal market does not make it “easily accessible” or any more accessible than any other more expensive firearm. The laws outlined above apply to all firearms at all price points, of course. Therefore, it is misleading to say that “a firearm is more easily accessible just because it is less expensive,” as the author misleadingly says.

Also - strike the word "lie" and all synonyms from your report. Lie is a very strong word that causes people to become defensife and sometimes stop listening to you. Do not tell them it is a lie, show then and let them reach their own conclusions.


As a side note, just to illustrate the author’s knowledge on the subject of firearms (or glaring lack thereof), I would like to point out that his frequent use of the term “Saturday Night Special” to refer to inexpensive handguns is originally a racist term, coming from “******town Saturday Night Special,” which was a popular term used by racists to describe the inexpensive guns many black people had for self-defense. Which also happen to be the very guns the author would like to see banned. Which would exclude many poor people from an effective means of self-defense.

The authors knowledge of guns is only peripherally relevant. Whats important are his facts. State your point about SNS without attacking the author. In fact, say "the author probably was not aware that SNS came from..." - that small display of graciousness will earn you points with the reader - it helps you not sound mean or vindictive.

Further, do not spell out what AK stands for. They do not care and it looks like you are showing off. It is arcane and useless knowledge and does not help them relate to you ("what kind of person knows this?").

Re write your paper like you are debating with a person you respect and care about, but is woefully misguided. Gently correct their errors while being charitable and gracious and giving him the benefit of the doubt ("he probably was unaware of this - most people do not know:" "the author has fallen for the common misconception that:")

Etc.

Your article is not bad and is factually correct - but it is abrasive and stark. I know because I communicate abrasively and starkly by nature. Such is the mind of the rational.

Use diplomacy, give your reader a chance to change their mind and still be an intelligent person. If you say "only an idiot believes in gun control" then you leave them no out - they must be idiots or you are wrong.

If you say "a lot of people are for gun control until they really find out what its all about - after all, all reasonable people want safety and a reduction in crime - but here is why gun control does not really do that:"

See, you and I can talk this way, but its not the tone for converting people.

[jimpeel]

First: Do not use the word "gun" or "guns" except when you use the term "gun control". Replace all uses of the words "gun" or "guns" with the words "firearm" or "firearms". There is a negative connotation in the term "gun" as it is frequently used in negative descriptions such as "gunman" or "gunned down". The term "handgun" or "handguns" is okay but limit the number of times you use them.

Second: Try some punctuation on certain portions of the essay. Don't begin sentences with "which". Use a semicolon between the "which" 's or use "and" with a semicolon as illustrated below.

Rewrite:

As a side note, just to illustrate the author’s knowledge on the subject of firearms (or glaring lack thereof), I would like to point out his frequent use of the term “Saturday Night Special”. This reference to inexpensive handguns was originally a racist term, “******town Saturday Night Special,”; and this was a popular term used by racists to describe the inexpensive firearms many blacks used for self-defense. These also happen to be the very firearms the author would like to see banned; which would exclude many poor people from an effective means of self-defense.

Hope these ar not too late as I have to use a public computer and don't get a lot of time to respond.

[Quartus]

Well, Jones, I'm probably a bit late in commenting. I've been out of Internet range for a few days. :(


I think you are on the right track, once you have impplemented the good suggestions you've gotten from several.



BTW, we're changing your THR handle for you.


You are now Bulldog Jones!


Sic 'em! :D

[Drjones]

Well, I passed out the paper to most of the class.

Unfortunately, I included NO list of sources or anything. :banghead:

My prof asked me if I included resources, to which I replied, "No, but I can provide documentation for anything in there."

SO, just to make sure, I found the following AWESOME info, which is undisputable fact from the .gov itself!

ATF – Questions and Answers (Incredible resource here!)
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/qanda.htm


CA Firearm Laws:
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/cfl.pdf


National Firearms Act of 1934 (FULL TEXT):
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm


Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) (FULL TEXT)
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm


I printed out the "CA Firearm Laws" as well as the "ATF Q&A" and am bringing both in tomorrow.

I went through the whole ATF thing (NOT an easy task...its very long) and put post-its next to each fact I cited in my paper!!!

Not going to do the same for the CA Laws though....Anyone who wants to can read it themselves....

I think I'm doin' allright!!!

:D :D

[Drjones]

Oh, and; "WOOF, WOOF!"

:p

:cool:

[NewShooter78]

So what was the reaction of your class and prof on your presentation? I really want to hear about what people said to you after you were done with presenting all the material.

[Drjones]

NewShooter:

It wasn't really a presentation.

I just handed copies of the above essay (modified, as suggested) to the class.

The sparks should fly tomorrow!!!

Of course I'll let everyone know....

I really, really want to thank everyone who helped me out with the wealth of information, advice, and support you gave me.

You really made a difference.

Thank you!
Drjones

[NewShooter78]

Good, I really want to hear what some of the decenters will say to you.