[mattw]

Ok, guys, I am in my 2nd year of college and I've been waiting for an assignment like this to come along so that I could mop the floor with my libral teachers. Any help would be greatly appreciated, we need to pull together on this one and make a compelling arguement.

Here is the assignment:

"Research the statistics on violent crime in the United States compared to the rest of the world. Emphasize in your research deaths due to handguns. You may be extremely surprised with our cowboy 'shootem up' mentality here in the United States. Browse through the gun laws and 'buy back system' in Australia. In your opinion, why are we killing our own citizens at such an alarming rate? Describe your response in a multi-reason context (family, Hollywood, social issues, urban, divorce, gun availability, economics, situational variable, desensitization, gaming, mental aspects, etc). What is your opinion on the 2nd amendment? Need at least 350 words."

I really want to hear your guys' thoughts on this because I am afraid I will not be able to put my own thoughts into words well enough to make a strong arguement FOR handguns.

[Libertylover]

Biased assignment, anybody?

In my basic composition class in my first year (last year, I'm also a 2nd year), we had a "research paper" that we had to do, ten pages, double spaced, so I decided to do my topic as "do they really want your guns?" refering to politicians, celebrities, and other such assorted libtards. That was an easy assignment, I basicly just used quotes from people espousing gun control and pointed out hypocrisy amongst them (Feinstein's CCW, Rosie's bodyguards, etc) and pointed out that gun control has little real effect on crime.

So when the kids in my class challenged me, I wiped the floor with them all (except for one other gunny who chimed in from time to time when he had an additional point to make). The teacher was pretty impressed (he let the debate go on for basically the entire class, even though it was supposed to be just a short presentation) and I got an A. I talked to him about the project before, and he had said that he was leaning anti, but had been in the National Guard and had exposure to arms so he knew they were powerless on their own without a conscious human being pulling the trigger. I think I had him convinced on the issue after the presentation.

Anyways, try your school's library and look for all the stuff on gun control. Gary Kleck and David Kopel did some awesome work that I've referenced a few times. Hit up guncite.com for some background info (I used it to zero in on some books and journal articles), as well as a site called gunfacts.

Also, look for some journal articles on how the UK's gun control regime hasn't shown any effects on crime.

For this assignment, I'd probably stick to the Hollyweird angle, as well as other cultural issues such as the music industry pushing violence and so on, and stick in the gun stuff towards either the beginning or the end saying that it doesn't really have much of an effect on causation, and then back that up.

[Baba Louie]

US Crime Statistics http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html
Worldwide http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

DGU numbers... look up Kleck and Lott stats
http://outdoors.net/site/features/feature.aspx+Forum+Firearms+ArticleCode+121 (merely a place to start)

Suicide issues? http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suicideprevent/en/

Compile the numbers. Factor out suicide by gun (or leave it in) and some numbers will drop drastically. But it's an interesting study, the way people choose to die based on age, gender, nationality, etc.
Race might play an issue but socio-economics will probably be a better play and/or the drug/gang hand to play.

Genocide by government. Always a popular issue among liberal professors on campus. Methods of stopping it however are not quite as popular.

However the thrust of your assignment is (as I read it) to degrade ownership and use of handguns based on numbers of death per capita. DGU is a Con to that Pro. Or a Pro to that Con.
You might want to take a stance all FOR gun control and then, due to your newfound research, come to a conclusion that, "WAIT! MY WHOLE HYPOTHESIS (and world) IS TOPSY TURVEY! FACTS (and logic) SHOW OTHERWISE. I think you'll find a couple of gun control researchers came to the same conclusion

[avpro]

In your opinion, why are we killing our own citizens at such an alarming rate?

Because they don't die quick enough on their own? :o

[fattsgalore]

Point out the stabbing ratio in other country's.

Where are stabbings and other violent crime statistics.(why do they only keep gun stats)
In England the police wear stab proof vest or a combination of bullet and stab proof. (what people don't realize is a standard police Kevlar can be popped with a knife...who knew)

Also state the fact that violent behavior has been around for thousands of years before firearms. Men will fight and kill, no matter what tool is at hand.

It's less to do with the tool and more with the person wielding it.

You dont blame the drill for drilling, do you?

[vagabundo94]

I absolutely agree with the comment about bringing up stabbing data.

In countries such as England, or Taiwan, "drive-by-slashings" are a common crime, versus drive-by-shootings. People drive by on motorcycles/scooters, while a passenger reaches over with hooked knives or machettes to slash pedestrian's arms or backs.

[jlbraun]

"Research the statistics on violent crime in the United States compared to the rest of the world."

www.nationmaster.com

"Emphasize in your research deaths due to handguns."

There are 300 million guns in the US in civilian hands, which is about half of the world's firearms. Our violent crime rate is going down, but we are adding 5-7 million guns per year into civilian hands.

However, places like S. Africa and Colombia where guns are banned have a much higher death rate. Emphasize the stupidity of fixating on "gun deaths", rather look at the overall violent crime rate and murder rate. The US is actually not that high.

Also google "substitution effect", indicating that removing a tool used for murder or suicide will not reduce the instance of same.

"You may be extremely surprised with our cowboy 'shootem up' mentality here in the United States."

No statistics exist for "mentality". However, other societies have a much higher rate of murder than we do.

"Browse through the gun laws and 'buy back system' in Australia."

Considering that guns in Australia that had been "destroyed" are showing up in crimes, and that their murder rate and violent crime rate is going up, I'd say their system is pretty ineffective.
The CDC did a study showing that gun laws are across the board ineffective:

http://www.ohioccw.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3805&Itemid=83

"In your opinion, why are we killing our own citizens at such an alarming rate?"

It's not really alarming, compared to other places. Still, considering that governments killed 200 times as many people in the 20th Century as there were murders, I'd consider our murder rate acceptable.

"Describe your response in a multi-reason context (family, Hollywood, social issues, urban, divorce, gun availability, economics, situational variable, desensitization, gaming, mental aspects, etc). What is your opinion on the 2nd amendment? Need at least 350 words."

350 words, for all that?

I suggest an image:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg

Here is a Swiss citizen on his way home from militia practice. A fully-automatic assault rifle is slung over his back as he shops for groceries. By law, he must keep 50 rounds of ammunition and his rifle at home. There are about 600,000 of these rifles in Switzerland, and their murder by firearm rate is over five times less than the United States.

[Dienekes]

There is a lot of material out there as you have already been apprised.

Whether any of it makes a dent is debatable. Just the phrasing in the assignment is enough to make it clear that logic will have little or no effect on closed minds.

Pathetic.

However, as Churchill said--"Never, never, never give up".

[skinnyguy]

A violent person will always find a way to express his violence, be with a gun, a knife, a piece of pipe, an autmobile, or a paper clip.

About 2 years ago, in the city I live in, we had a man ram his van into his estranged wife's pickup, the pickup rolled onto it's side and the man crawled through the broken windshield and stabbed her in the neck with a screwdriver, she died from the injuries.

No gun. Violent death.

As cliche as it is, guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people. And as long as there are people, there will be violence toward people. Inescapbable Truth.

Good luck on your assignment!!!
Paul

[Baba Louie]

In your opinion, why are we killing our own citizens at such an alarming rate? Like avpro, I'm inclined to add a couple of flip comments for levity sake... but will resist for the moment.

Potential answer: (there are several) Ruling out suicide, as study of other nation's suicide, where firearm ownership is not prevelant, show; people who want to die will find any number of methods, an answer to violent crime could lie in a lack of proper parenting, a lack of self-respect and thus respect for others, a sociopatheic self centeredness, a moment of passion turned into madness (re: OJ, a pocket knife and an ex-wife), all of which might cause or fall under the category of violent criminal acts. I could also answer by including an act of self defense, and an action of a LEO during the course of duty, both of which should be condoned as a righteous acts of violence in terms of justifiable homicide no matter the type of firearm utilized.

I also would NOT limit my answer(s) to violent crime w/ handguns only. Death by auto accident, death by medical accident, death by pool drowning, falling off ladders (accidental all), death by clubs, cord, knives, hand and feet (criminal acts) should be factored in some comparative fashion, even if dismissed out of hand (but in there for the record) as the topic is violent crime.

So basically, a lack of self control coupled with the fact that crime does pay until the criminal is caught and permanently incarcerated or eliminated which, as we all know, does not happen in the US criminal justice system any more.

Now for a mildly flippant answer... Who's alarmed? :scrutiny:

Before the white man came to this nation, they fought and killed in Europe, the native Amerindians fought and killed here, the Africans brought here as slaves fought and killed in tribal wars on their own continent (who did I miss?... oh yeah), Asians, they did it too. This nation provided them with a freedom most never had in their old societies elsewhere... well, eventually unless they were killed off outright or enslaved, and one of those newfound freedoms was a right to protect themselves from being killed, if they are able. Handguns, or any other tool available, at least allow the law-abiding a chance even tho' many in power (would) deny them that chance, that right to protect themselves against violent crime.

[mattw]

Thanks for all the links and ideas guys, this is a big help.

The funny thing about my proffesor is that is a liscensed psychologist and runs his own clinic when he isn't teaching at my college. So he understands people and why removing guns from the equation would not stop violence. He is being libral just to be libral. Or maybe its all the drugs from the 70's that got him?

He seems to think that handguns would reduce someone's ability to commit a violent crime. Or maybe he thinks that handguns are more lethal than knives or cars?

Thanks for the help, keep the opinions coming!

[crebralfix]

It's a right, not a privilege.

The "multi-reason context" is just obfuscation of the fact that gun ownership and use is a RIGHT.

Do not change your argument, do not back up. It's a right, period.

If this libtard cannot understand that, then just say this:

"Fine, I'll give up my RIGHT to keep and bear arms when YOU give up your right to freedom of speech."

Be prepared to fail the class (or at least get a bad grade on the paper). Take it to the administration as an example of bias--it is clearly so.

End rant.

[wcwhitey]

Try to find statistics that don't include Police shootings. Most stats that I have seen include them in. Just as a note, what are the politics of the professor/school in general. If you are attending a very liberal school and your professor's lean very far to the left you paper may not be graded fairly. Not trying to talk you out of it, just trying to make you aware, be prepared to stand your ground. I think if you weed through the numbers close enough you will be able to make a strong convincing case. I did a freshman paper on the use of a shotgun for home defense, my professor was very impressed and I did well. Bill

[kludge]

Be VERY careful with international "statistics" !!!

For example: (I am not a source, and I don't claim the following is 100% factual)

U.S.A. "homocides" that involved a handgun will also include "justifiable homocides" (self defense and police shootings)

In G.B. "homocides" are only counted if there is a conviction. So they can show an artificially low rate if the killer is never found or convicted.

[5Wire]

Build your own comparison reports from official CDC data HERE (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html). Eg: compare deaths due to firearm homicide (excluding suicide) to other means. Compare accidental firearms deaths to deaths due to adverse effects of health care (excluding drug use). Use Washington DC as an example of how effective gun control laws have proven to be (not)!

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome (http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html) and other essays by Joyce Lee Malcolm (http://www.findarticles.com/p/search?tb=art&qt=%22Joyce+Lee+Malcolm%22). Delve into the crime rates in England and Australia after gun control (and anti-self defense) became law.

CDC Report (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) indicating no correlation between gun control and crime reduction. See also National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wheeler200310220911.asp) comment on the CDC report and its circumstances.

As posted above, anything by John Lott (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/list.html). Note the 'Posts by Topic' listing. See if your library has a copy of More Guns Less Crime (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14167.ctl).

Same with Gary Kleck (http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-intro.php), in particular the frequency of Defensive Gun Usage as opposed to criminal gun usage of any kind. (See Gunsite Articles (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html) as an indicator.)

Other interesting (but really dry statistical stuff) can be found on the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius) and Bureau of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm) websites.

Do not forget NRA Fact Sheets (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/) and NRA Articles (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/) either as primary sources or pointers to primary sources. Of course, invoking NRA anything will likely play to an 'anti' bias but you may find where to look.

Ultimately, if the person grading your essay can imagine himself as a violent, (gun toting is optional) criminal, ask if he would select victims who cannot legally be armed or victims who 'may' be armed. This is such a no brainer that an answer can be an effective bull**** detector for intellectual (dis)honesty.

Good luck on your paper. Please post it here, if you would.

Secondary sources:
Taking on Gun Control (http://hematite.com/dragon/gunintro.html).
Gun Control: Examining the 2005 FBI Crime Statistics (http://newsbusters.org/node/9140)

[jad0110]

Here's another great article, if someone hasn't already posted it:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml

It talks about even if you could wave a magic wand and make ALL guns disappear (including those used by all LEO and Militaries throughout the world), guns could and are made using simple plumbing parts. If I recall from the article correctly, this is already happening in places like the UK. So what would you do? Require registration of machine tools and plumbing supplies? Bans :scrutiny: ?

Keep in mind too that some of the bloodiest times in human history occured before the advent of gunpowder. People have been killing each other with whatever is available for thousands of years: knives, stones, sticks, poisons, bare hands, Fords, whatever...

And as others have pointed out, I think there are about 80 million gun owning households in the US. If we were all as bad as people thought we were, we would all be dead by now.

[jad0110]

Oh yeah, I'd also point out that the police are not legally obligated to provide protection to citizens:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

[universal]

As some have already mentioned, be careful when comparing crime stats from around the world. Words have different meanings. As this post correctly points out:

For example: (I am not a source, and I don't claim the following is 100% factual)

U.S.A. "homocides" that involved a handgun will also include "justifiable homocides" (self defense and police shootings)

In G.B. "homocides" are only counted if there is a conviction. So they can show an artificially low rate if the killer is never found or convicted.

What is considered homicide in the U.S. may not be in other countries. Homicide means the killing of a human by another human. This could, as the poster above mentions, mean a death other than an intentional murder.

Also, I think you will have a very hard time "convincing" your professor of anything. The way the questions are written shows a very clear bias and it seems very obvious what sort of answer the professor is looking for. Having taught at the college level, I shutter when I see assignments that are so clearly void of objectivity.

Good luck.

[MrDig]

I hope this works it is a doc that I got from a link here but can't find the thread.
Cool I tested it in the preview and the whole doc opened.
it is from

www.GunFacts.info (http://www.GunFacts.info)

[mattw]

Just as a note, what are the politics of the professor/school in general.

The politics of the school are not really a factor. It is actually a community college so the atmosphere leans more towards "I'm here to get work done" than "lets all hug and discover universal truths!" No one really discusses politics that much and when they do it is often a mature discussion. I feel kind of ashamed to admit its not a big name University, but I've been told that Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College is ranked 4th in the nation or something like that. I'm not sure if I believe it, but its a good school for cheap.

I am lucky in that the professor is a really good guy, he just has some screwed up views on politics. I have had classes with him for a couple years now and we are actually friends. Like I said, good guy... just a little misguided.

It is easy to tell from the questions that he feels the world would be better off without handguns, but I am hoping to make a good enough arguement that he can put himself in my shoes. I doubt I will change any minds.

Good luck on your paper. Please post it here, if you would.


Thanks, I'll be sure to post it in case someone finds themselves in my shoes one day. Maybe the mods will sticky it for a quick resource in the future.

Thanks for all the links and info, you guys are a great help. The gun culture represented on THR is one of the most educated, thoughtful, genuinely empathetic groups of people that I have ever run across!

[universal]

I feel kind of ashamed to admit its not a big name University

Sorry, a little off topic, but why do you feel ashamed? There is nothing wrong with community college. I started out at CC, went on to a private our year college, and did my graduate work at a well respected state university. Some of my best academic experiences were at the CC where I began my studies. For me it was the same as for you: Good education for little money.

Again, sorry to take this so far off topic.

[ZeroCool]

I went to a pretty liberal college in here MD, and I pwn3d some of my teachers when they started spouting off anti-gun and anti-conservative agenda. I really have little tolerance for that kind of crap when I am paying someone to teach me on a subject, not inflict their political views upon me and my classmates. I always found it funny that my conservative teachers never brough politics into the classroom (we always talked privately). I would be furious about this assignment, and would go as far up the ladder as I had to to let it be known.

Funny enough, the worst offender of this was a female Israeli economics teacher. Everytime she started putting political views into our classroom I would speak up... to the point where she stopped doing it. I wound up with an "A" in the class and even a year later, we would always stop and say hi in the hall when we saw each other. No real hate, just differences in opinion.

Seriously, kick this teachers ass with this assignment. I know this isnt really "high-road" talk, but imo, this prof deserves it with an assignment like this. I have some pro-gun speaches on my laptop somewhere. The data may be a year or two old (I just graduated last may), and may more general than what you are looking for, but if you pm me with your email address, I can send you what I have.

Good luck and dont be afraid to speak up in class.

[Danus ex]

I feel kind of ashamed to admit its not a big name University

Don't be. I started at community college, went to a state school, and now I'm away from home doing research at an Ivy League school. The atmosphere and the teaching quality at my community college outclasses everything else I've encountered so far.

Anyway, I study rhetoric and technical communication and teach the type of class you're in. Additionally, I was a writing tutor for four years (sophomore through first-year grad). I'll look at your drafts if you want to post them or PM/email me with them.

I guess it's something I can do for the cause!

[mattw]

I'll look at your drafts if you want to post them or PM/email me with them.

Thanks! I'll be sure to PM you once I've got them worked out. The teacher isn't a grammar or punctuation Nazi, so that sort of thing will not be an issue, maybe just make sure that my phrasing is understandable.

Seriously, kick this teachers ass with this assignment. I know this isnt really "high-road" talk, but imo, this prof deserves it with an assignment like this. I have some pro-gun speaches on my laptop somewhere. The data may be a year or two old (I just graduated last may), and may more general than what you are looking for, but if you pm me with your email address, I can send you what I have.


PM sent.

[happy old sailor]

Matt, some of these ppl seem to have gone through this in a big way. i have done what i could for years and what always slaps my face is that people have their minds made up and those opposed do not want to be confused by the facts.

to add my suggestion on this subject is, i keep hearing that doctors and medical types kill over 100,000 ppl a year. far beyond firearms and drunk drivers combined. also, all the hoodlums killed by cops are included in these
"killed by gun" statistics.

perhaps you can find a way to share your project with us when completed.

[Beagle-zebub]

Sorry, a little off topic, but why do you feel ashamed? There is nothing wrong with community college. I started out at CC, went on to a private our year college, and did my graduate work at a well respected state university. Some of my best academic experiences were at the CC where I began my studies. For me it was the same as for you: Good education for little money.


+1 about community colleges.
My roommate went to community college for two years, and he'll be graduating from this "real" college, the University of Chicago, in only 2.5 years. Learning is learning, so long as you do it right.

[Geronimo45]

Make sure you don't come off as "you big dummy, everybody knows...." to your teacher.
You can start off as saying that you thought, at first, that guns were the problem, and then came to realize that it wasn't that way at all.

[vta33]

Recently my kid had to bring to his high school English class some one-sentence arguments in favor of guns.

1. It's a fun hobby (or sport)--target shooting and plinking.

2. "I enjoy spending time at the shooting range with my dad."

3. I learn safety and responsibility.

4. I learn the mechanics of a handgun/rifle--how to take it apart and clean it.

5. A lot of people are employed in the gun business. (The teacher accepted this argument as valid)

These are rather simple arguments but you can expand on them.

IMO, keeping the argument on a personal level is more powerful than invoking the 2nd Amendment.

Over the weekend, my wife who is not gun friendly was impressed by the tv story of the man who scared off the teen boys who murdered the two Dartmouth professors. The boys went to his cabin first to murder him and his 11 year-old son but left after seeing the Glock in his hand through the front door glass. They then went to the professors' house and stabbed them to death. My wife now has a different attitude because that Glock saved the man and his son.

Hope this helps.

[mattw]

perhaps you can find a way to share your project with us when completed.

I'll be sure to post up a copy of my paper when its finished.

Also if anyone would like any credit to be given within my paper for your thoughts expressed in this thread then please PM me as to how you would like to be cited. Otherwise I'm just going to paraphrase (I would never intentionally plagiarize).

[strat81]

I feel kind of ashamed to admit its not a big name University, but I've been told that Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College is ranked 4th in the nation or something like that. I'm not sure if I believe it, but its a good school for cheap.

Don't be ashamed about getting an education. It doesn't matter if it's a trade school, correspondence course, or a doctoral degree. I did my undergrad at an expensive private university and it got me nothing but a big student loan bill. Friends that went to public universities are doing just fine, and have 25% of the debt I do.

I'd also like to extend my services if you want your paper proof-read. I'm currently working on my MBA (at a non-fancy, non-big name public university) so I'm back in the swing of writing papers.

[CJ]

Looks like a lot of great advice. Not sure if it fits (it may stray too far off the topic), and people have already mentioned related information, but...if comparing suicide rates and removing them from firearm deaths, the numbers change drastically...but comparing suicide rates to other countries would be necessary for a comparison.

For example, the number of suicides per 100,000 people in Japan is higher than the US, but gun ownership is lower, so suicides by firearms is lower. If there were no guns in the US, would the people dieing be lower, or would they simply use the Japanese methods?
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

Another item to check might be 'Freakonomics' (Levitt & Dubner) which does a nice comparison of the self-professed 'good' parent preventing little Jimmy from playing at Timmy's house because Timmy's parents have a GUN, while he can play at Tommy's house because they don't have guns...but Tommy DOES have a swimming pool. Gun deaths get promoted nationally, while swimming pool drownings might make a local paper, completely distorting the fact that swimming pool drownings greatly outnumber gun deaths in children.

But you've already got plenty to work on, so I'd understand if you never even saw this :)

[mattw]

Matthew Wicks
Honors Forum IV
15 February 2007


An Unbiased Look at Handgun-Related Death

In researching statistics on violent crime all over the world it can be seen that the United States is usually in the top ten for just about every per-capita violent crime. In robberies we are #11, In assaults we are #6, in rapes we are #9. But when you look at murders per capita, you see that the United States is #24. All of these statistics and numbers can be seen at www.nationmaster.com, by the way. If you focus on how the murders are committed you find that the United States is #8 on the list of murders with firearms. Statistics from the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) show that gun violence has taken a sharp decline since the 1980s (13,981 in 1993 homocides by handgun compared to 8,299 in 2004) and that in the past couple of years it has risen only slightly (8,299 handgun homicides in 2004 compared to 7,943 in 1999). It is of importance to note that the BJS reports homicides without consideration to whether they are justifiable homicides (self defense or defense of others) or whether they are cold blooded murders or manslaughters. Neither does it mention who the homicides are committed by. When a policeman is forced to shoot at a criminal or when a bank robber shoots a hostage, these are both homicides. It is also important to note that many international statistics from countries other than the US only count homicides if there is a conviction, an artificially lower rate of homicide can be reflected if the killer is never found or convicted. Does the fact that we are #8 in handgun homicide mean that we kill any less people than we would if there were no handguns at all? If that were true then why are the countries with the top five highest murder per-capita rates (Colombia, South Africa, Jamaica, Venezuela, Russia) countries in which handguns are either illegal for public ownership or are strictly regulated? Could it have more to do with the political climate in these countries than with their laws concerning firearms?

The subject of gun control has been discussed for many years by many men and women who are much more smart and eloquent than I. For the remainder of my paper I have compiled quotes, thoughts, ideas, and statistics from many casual internet posts, history books, and statistic resources. I do not take any credit for the following. The following may reflect my opinions but is not in my words. Due to the anonymous nature of the internet it is very difficult if at all possible to give proper credit to these types of years old thoughts and ideas and in the interest of academic honesty I will only take credit for compiling the following and will once again repeat that I make no claim to the words expressing the ideas. For your objective, careful, open-minded consideration:

“In 1996, severe gun restrictions were put in place 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 manslaughter by 16%. The reasons for this shocking failure of gun-control is simple, criminals don’t obey laws! Gun control only affects those who obey the law.” - Travis Reed

“...the law-abiding citizens are the ones who obey the orders of their government and turn in their firearms. A criminal has little or nothing to lose. Therefore by disarming the citizens, you have just created a utopia for criminals and those who will become criminals.” - John Lott

“It's less to do with the tool and more to do with the person wielding it. You don't blame the drill for drilling, do you?” - Unknown

“There are over 300 million guns in the US in civilian hands, which is about half of the world's firearms. Our violent crime rate is going down, but we are adding 5-7 million guns per year into civilian hands. However, places like South Africa and Colombia, where guns are banned, have a much higher murder rate.” - Unknown

“Those familiar with the substitution effect will understand that removing a tool used for murder or suicide will not reduce the instance of same.” - Unknown




“This photo is a Swiss citizen on his way home from militia practice. A fully-automatic assault rifle is slung over his back as he shops for groceries. By law, he must keep 50 rounds of ammunition and his rifle at home. There are about 600,000 of these rifles in Switzerland, and their murder by firearm rate is over five times less than the United States.” - Unknown

A handgun is a tool, and the problem of handgun violence does not lie in the inanimate object itself, but with its user. If there were no handguns I am sure we would see that we would become #8 in stabbing deaths per-capita. Taking away the preferred tool of the murderer will not eliminate his desire or ability to murder. Perhaps the most convincing and true test of any type of gun control is this: Imagine yourself as a violent (gun toting is optional) criminal. Would you select victims who cannot legally be armed with a handgun or victims who might be armed with a handgun? Do you think you would choose the easiest target with the least risk to your own personal safety?

All in all I think that my unbiased paper has turned into an argument against gun control. I tried my best at being unbiased in this issue because I genuinely feel that the facts will reflect the same opinions that I hold. I believe that the facts that I have presented have upheld my opinion that gun control leads to more crime. After all, if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

But some people throughout history felt that gun control was a good idea. The first few that come to mind are Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Saddam Hussein. When you hear these names you don't think of gun control do you? You think of mass murder or genocide. Thats because they used gun control to incrementally outlaw certain types of weapons until eventually gun ownership by the general public was not allowed. This allowed them to impose whatever horrible form of totalitarian government they wanted since their citizens could not resist. This is why America has the 2nd amendment. Does that seem too far fetched? What happened in Germany in the 1930s could never happen here, right? Thats what the founding fathers wanted to be sure of, that what happened to them with the English would never happen in the United States. The government would never become tyrannical or totalitarian because the citizens would not allow it and they would have the means to be assured that no government could take their rights or freedoms away. If voting doesn't work, we have one last great resort. The second amendment ensures the existence of all the others.

You've heard it a million times, here is #1,000,001: “Guns don't kill people, people kill people.”

In the 20th century governments killed more than 200 times as many people through genocide and state sponsored mass murder than all other homicides or murders combined. As long as we have the RIGHT to own firearms and it is uninhibited by senseless gun control, we can be sure that this kind of thing will never happen here.

[mattw]

It went about as I expceted. There were a few people that already thought like me, there were a few people on the fence, there were a few people that thought all guns should be banned.

One interesting thing came up though. I never thought I would agree to any type of imposed legislation or requirements on gun owners, but the question of wether or not it should be required that someone undergo a training or safety class before being allowed to purchase a firearm. Of course I said no, why do we need one more road block in our way to our 2A rights? But I thought about it and decided that if we implimented a national program to educate EVERYONE, not just people trying to buy guns, about firearms and firearms safety would that be bad? I think we should make it a once a year thing. When someone turns 18 they should be required to attend a two day course on firearms safety and 2A ideals. Make it a government funded thing, exuse people from work and school for it. Would that be so bad to have the entire nation exposed to firearms safety?

Now ofcourse you would not be barred from owning or buying a firearm if you had not completed this course, but I think it would be a good thing to expose people to.

[mindwip]

I love my college teacher shes libertarian. Did i mention i live in southern Ca too.


As others have said look at death by knives and bats and such.

Also look at states by them selfs or even town/citys what are there gun laws.

[RCouch]

THIS THREAD IS AN EXCELLENT COMPEDIUM/BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE SUBJECT. IT COULD BE USED BY ANYONE IN PAPERS, DISCUSSIONS OR SPEEECHES. I'M MAKING A COPY FOR REFERENCE AND I HOPE OTHERS WILL ALSO.

[mattw]

The class that this paper was for is not just a hand in the paper and go home class. It is actually a forum where we discuss the topic we just wrote about with the entire class and teacher involved.

The only point that could be made by the libral teacher against my views is that handguns themselves do play a part in murders because they proved a more distant, less hands-on approach to murder and crime. He thinks that we would have less murders if there were no handguns because less people would be willing to use a bat or a knife.. too up-close and only the most hardened killers would continue to kill.

[jad0110]

The only point that could be made by the libral teacher against my views is that handguns themselves do play a part in murders because they proved a more distant, less hands-on approach to murder and crime. He thinks that we would have less murders if there were no handguns because less people would be willing to use a bat or a knife.. too up-close and only the most hardened killers would continue to kill.

I'd counter that by saying that someone who has decided to commit murder isn't any different than any other other murdering thug, and they are not going to care about "up close and personal".

And again, some of the most bloody times in history occured before firearms were invented. I'd like to hear an explanation for that little inconvenient fact!

[Just_a_dude_with_a_gun]

Do the whole paper on the fact that the opponents of the second amendment should be the ones required to argue against our national constitution.... ;)

[Seancass]

just curious... any of my writing-type classes, i would have been ripped a new one for not citing any sources. correction, you cited a few, but you left a lot of them unknown. my teachers probly would have ignored them thinking i made it up. i would think that with the internet you could find similar quotes and a prominent source. good paper overall. i hope the class listened to what you said.

[stevemis]

This is a fantastic thread, and the posts (both in this thread and on THR generally) continue to impress me.

Please investigate a small town in Georgia ... Kennesaw, GA. They passed legislation in the 1980's requiring gun+ammunition ownership. Crime rates dropped dramatically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

You'll also find this page is a fantastic reference.

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Steve

[svtruth]

we are not killing our citizens at an alarming rate. A large proportion of gun homicides and injuries are criminal on criminal. Even a NYC official said that if you are not involved in criminal activity NYC is a very safe place.
The CDC is a great source of info, you can call them (404-639-3534) and speak to a real live person, paid for by your tax dollars.
Good luck.

[mattw]

i would have been ripped a new one for not citing any sources.

This paper is for a teacher who is very laid-back, it is understood in the class that citing of sources is not needed unless he specifically says so. He is more interested in what we turn in than where we got it.

[Beatnik]

Well, I see the paper was already written, but I wanted to add some points since I did this in a speech class as a "speech to persuade" about 10 years ago.

Keep in mind too that some of the bloodiest times in human history occured before the advent of gunpowder.

A point that too few people really tie in. Up until the advent of widespread firearms ownership, truly free societies didn't exist. A cursory examination of the military gear of your average 13th century European knight, put into the balance with the military gear of your average 13th century peasant, shows why the whole knight/ peasant thing didn't stick with us. Once anybody can drill anybody else from a distance, the aristocracy falls apart.

Of course, stating that they "protect us from our social betters" may not work when arguing against your social betters, so....

Another thing that is too seldom mentioned is that the origins of gun control lie in racism. Look into the original "Army and Navy" law and other early gun control laws. The effect (originally intended, but today still relevant) is that the poor (e.g., blacks) were not able to buy firearms as they were too expensive. It's hard to argue that it was not intended to prohibit blacks from buying guns, considering the fact that the laws they replaced specifically stated that black freedmen could not own guns.

(I ended up getting an A. Only one girl argued with me, and I kept pointing to the part in the Decl. of Independence that says "...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security", and pointing out that there's no way to do that without weapons.)

(Oh, and ditto on Community College. The only thing you're not getting is a triple helping of liberal dogma.)

[Oleg Volk]

You can make two arguments: pragmatic and ethical. Both support ownership of weapons. You are welcome to use images from my web sites to illustrate your paper.

[mountainclmbr]

I would also mention the end result of "well meaning" gun control. By "well meaning" I am referring to the reasons like peace, justice, civil order or the children that are given for handing over individual self-destiny to a government which craves total power. You could add up civillians put to death by their own socialist (or you could use the current term, Progressive) governments. I would cite the Soviet Union, Germany under the National Socialist Party (NAZI Party), China, Cuba, Viet Nam, Cambodia. I have heard totals of 150 million quoted, but don't know if all these butchers...er..I mean Progressives...kept accurate records. I would also add those civilians who did not keep guns because they were illegal, but were murdered by any form that they could have defended themselves against. The liberal Northeastern cities would be prime examples of the victim disarmament, or crimminal protection zones. If you compare the results of disarmament against the results of law-abiding people having guns, the results will be hugely lopsided against the Progressive side. If it were me, because I can be hard headed, I would finish with a sentence like "It is perfectly logical that the left would support gun control because, given a chance, they reflexively side with evil".

[Librarian]

Now, if you really want to see your classmates' heads spin, get the firearms homicide data from WISQARS (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/).

Follow along:

On the left side, click on "go" for fatal injury reports

Next screen, click on "go" for data from 1999 or later.

Next screen, click
1 - intent - homicide
2 - cause - firearm

Go to options:
Select Years 1999 to 2004
output option text only

Go to advanced options
Select output group 1 - year
select output group 2 - race

Click on Submit Request.

You will get this (shortened result here):PHP block to preserve layout1999 - 2004, United States
Homicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races,
Both Sexes,
ICD-10 Codes: X93-X95, *U01.4


Number of Crude Age-Adjusted
Year Race Deaths Population*** Rate Rate**

1999 White 4,918 228,687,790 2.15 2.15
Black 5,577 36,173,123 15.42 14.30
Am Indian/AK Native 104 2,832,770 3.67 3.60
Asian/Pac Islander 229 11,346,498 2.02 1.85
------------ -------------- ------- ---------------
10,828 279,040,181 3.88

2000 White 4,806 230,085,762 2.09 2.09
Black 5,699 36,594,309 15.57 14.52
Am Indian/AK Native 86 2,984,150 2.88 2.62
Asian/Pac Islander 210 11,757,685 1.79 1.67
------------ -------------- ------- ---------------
10,801 281,421,906 3.84

Notice anything remarkable?

Check the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. The 1999 report says Data suggest that the relationship among murder
victims and offenders most often is intraracial. Figures
based on one victim/one offender incidents in 1999 indi-
cate that 94 percent of black murder victims were slain by
black offenders and 85 percent of white murder victims
were slain by white offenders.
p 14, and table 2.6The same relationship is true through 2004 and back to 1995, as far as I have on disk.

I don't know what it means. A good sociologist might have some insight.

But the data suggests that measures that cover everybody are just too broad - which means, I think, that gun laws are not the mechanism to address the problems of murders in the US.

Look also at

Jacobs, J. B. (2002). Can Gun Control Work? Oxford: Oxford University Press

Holmes, R. M. and Holmes, S. T. (2001). Murder in America. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publictions, Inc.

Walker, S. (1994). Sense and Nonsense about Crime and Drugs, 3rd Ed. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth Publishing Company -- The 2005 6th edition (http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Nonsense-About-Crime-Drugs/dp/0534616542/sr=8-1/qid=1171944552/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-9687127-5720412?ie=UTF8&s=books) is probably better.

[mattw]

You can make two arguments: pragmatic and ethical. Both support ownership of weapons. You are welcome to use images from my web sites to illustrate your paper.

Although the paper has already been written and turned in I really appreciate that offer Oleg, that means alot to me. Your photos are what brought me to THR in the first place and since I've been here I have learned alot and matured alot on my view of firearms.

I wish I could've taken years to compile my paper! This topic should really be stickied, it has a wealth of helpful info for anyone that finds himself or herself in my situation.

[tbtrout]

I have not read every post so forgive me if this is stated, make sure your stats are per capita, (per 100,000) Good Luck

[5Wire]

Compare the CDC WISQARS report with the following material from the Bureau of Justice Statistics

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/vrace.gif

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/orace.gif

The data link is here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/vracetab.htm).

[mattw]

It would be interesting to see the statistics on homicide victimization and offending by household income as well.

[Librarian]

Right, 5Wire; the whole report is here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm#contents). Lots more interesting things on line at BJS.

18-24 is the bad age, cities > 250,000 are the bad places, being male is a bad demographic, and being involved in an argument ("Arguments include brawls due to the influence of narcotics or alcohol, disagreements about money or property and other arguments.") or a felony is a bad circumstance.

And I'm sure glad things started getting better 1994-1995! If those 15's look bad in 1999 and 2000, 1990 - 1998, United States
Homicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races,
Both Sexes,
ICD-9 Codes: E965.0-.4


Number of Crude Age-Adjusted
Year Race Deaths Population*** Rate Rate**

1990 White 7,376 209,195,598 3.53 3.39
Black 8,497 30,629,197 27.74 24.56
Am Indian/AK Native 80 2,075,381 3.85 3.54
Asian/Pac Islander 258 7,564,220 3.41 3.12
------------ -------------- ------- ---------------
16,211 249,464,396 6.50

1991 White 7,944 211,606,011 3.75 3.63
Black 9,327 31,290,743 29.81 26.49
Am Indian/AK Native 110 2,126,968 5.17 4.86
Asian/Pac Islander 352 7,957,220 4.42 4.02
------------ -------------- ------- ---------------
17,733 252,980,942 7.01

1992 White 7,927 213,945,622 3.71 3.61
Black 9,151 31,979,982 28.61 25.51
Am Indian/AK Native 89 2,202,180 4.04 3.71
Asian/Pac Islander 321 8,386,447 3.83 3.45
------------ -------------- ------- ---------------
17,488 256,514,231 6.82

1993 White 7,918 216,187,073 3.66 3.58
Black 9,824 32,634,736 30.10 27.09
Am Indian/AK Native 106 2,282,055 4.64 4.49
Asian/Pac Islander 405 8,814,731 4.59 4.11
------------ -------------- ------- ---------------
18,253 259,918,595 7.02

1994 White 7,774 218,304,774 3.56 3.50
Black 9,302 33,258,983 27.97 25.31
Am Indian/AK Native 123 2,361,080 5.21 4.85
Asian/Pac Islander 328 9,200,989 3.56 3.32
------------ -------------- ------- ---------------
17,527 263,125,826 6.66

1995 White 7,144 220,384,783 3.24 3.20
Black 7,935 33,847,308 23.44 21.43
Am Indian/AK Native 130 2,441,756 5.32 4.85
Asian/Pac Islander 342 9,604,556 3.56 3.25
------------ -------------- ------- ---------------
15,551 266,278,403 5.84
27's and 30 are downright terrifying!

[berettashotgun]

Methinks everyone should required to go 3 years in the service. A lot of this discussion would go away:banghead:

[ReadyontheRight]

Research the statistics on violent crime in the United States compared to the rest of the world.

Countries having successful gun control laws in the 20th Century -- and the results of those laws:

1915-1917 Ottoman Turkey, 1.5 million Armenians murdered
1929-1953 Soviet Union, 20 million people that opposed Stalin were murdered.
1933-1945 Nazi occupied Europe, 13 million Jews, Gypsies and others that opposed Hitler, murdered
1948-1952 China, 20 million anti-communists or communist reformers, murdered
1960-1981 Guatemala, 100,000 Maya Indians, murdered
1971-1979 Uganda, 300,000 Christians and political rivals of Idi Amin, murdered
1975-1979 Cambodia, 1 million educated persons, murdered
1995 Srebrenica Bosnians disarmed by the UN, the UN withdrew, Srebrenica was overrun and over 8,000 now-disarmed people were murdered by the Serb army.

That’s more than 2000 unarmed men, women and children murdered by their own government for every single day in the 20th century.

Proof enough for me that handgun ownership is important.

[Surat]

Just my two cents worth here but the ban guns to prevent suicide thing is so effing retarded only a liberal would think it's good logic. :banghead:
I currently work in county jail for the Sheriff's Office here. One thing that is constant in people's minds is suicide prevention. People kill themselves in jails and prisons at rather high rates, especially during the first 24 hours of incarceration. unless there is some kind of horrible eff up, none of these people have firearms. I've heard of people suffocating themselves with trash bags, strangleing htemselves with rope improvised out of toilet paper, even drowning themselves in toilet bowls. I sat at the ER yesterday with a guy that tried to OD on Xanax and beer, then took a drier vent hose and hooked it to his car's tail pipe and ran it into the window.
If people want to die they will find a way.

Don't even get me started on "trans-national progressives":cuss:

[crebralfix]

The reason there should be NO licensing, NO classes, and NO requirements is because it is a RIGHT.

Futhermore, when such standards are instituted, the state may then CHANGE them as it sees fit. Just look at several foreign countries and what they require for gun ownership. In several cases, it is simply impossible to get a gun permit.

Put it another way:

There should be classes and licensing for anyone wishing to express an opinion in public.

[jad0110]

I've heard of people suffocating themselves with trash bags, strangleing htemselves with rope improvised out of toilet paper, even drowning themselves in toilet bowls. I sat at the ER yesterday with a guy that tried to OD on Xanax and beer, then took a drier vent hose and hooked it to his car's tail pipe and ran it into the window. If people want to die they will find a way.

Good post, especially the last sentence. You can replace the word "die" with "kill" and it will be just as truthful.

I work with a guy who served our nation in the US Army, won't say which unit or when this happened. They had a guy try to commit suicide by hanging himself from the pipes in the basement of their barracks with his tightie whities. Apparently, he had not considered the elascticity of underwear and, not surprisingly, failed in his suicide attempt miserably. He was eventually kicked out of the Army and my friend did not know for sure what became of him, but believes he is still around somewhere.

Thereafter, this poor jack*$$ was known as "Skidmark".

[wooderson]

Look into isolating violence (specifically gun violence) in regard to population density, poverty and the presence of social welfare.

[telomerase]

A couple of sentences about the Warsaw Ghetto rising would be good.

Governments kill a lot more people than other criminals. Keeping them under control is the biggest security problem we have.