Paper: Why Gun Control is wrong! Critique please!


PDA






Seenterman
April 20, 2009, 06:27 PM
Well Im tired of all the crap that goes unchallenged over at the DU (Democratic Underground), it seems not a single pro firearm poster over there can make a cohesive post that addresses all the crap they spew on the forums, so I have taken in upon myself to write a thesis on why half of those posters are morons (I wont say that dont worry), So I got half way through and got stuck at the AWB part of the paper on why the features listed dont make a gun any more lethal than it already is, if anyone has any ideas, corrections, or constructive critisism I'd love to hear it to make the paper as ironclad as possible. Oh yea thats just the working title for the paper is someone has a better more snazzy name please drop some suggestions .

Please no plagiarizing or reposting this as of yet its still in a working copy, I will repost a final copy soon. If you must repost it please include this warning and my user name at the bottom. Thank you.

Well for your enjoyment . . .

Why Gun Control is Wrong


As a life long democrat and liberal I find it disconcerting that many on the DU are so adamantly against private firearm ownership in America. A lot of these posters cite wrong or inaccurate facts and studies to prove their point. Many of the posters don't appear to have a clear idea on many of the issues are being discussed, and get upset when gun owners call the ignorant or tell them to go formularize themselves with firearms. We say this because it is impossible to draw an accurate picture from skewed or wrong information, It takes many years to become truly familiar with firearms and their complexities and without this knowledge anyone arguing a point regarding firearms is at a disadvantage compared with someone with a healthy working knowledge of firearms. That is why I have written this thesis to help educate any poster who wants to know more about firearms, and any anti firearm proponent should read this so they can construct better arguments, I love debate but I just ask we debate with accurate facts and minimum base knowledge.

First off I'd like to start with why we have the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd amendment states:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The 2nd Amendment came into effect on December 15, 1791, some people have claimed that the 2nd applies to the Military or the National Guard but at the time their was already a Federal Army who is not mentioned in the Amendment and the National Guard was organized by the Militia Act of 1903 and the passage of the 1916 National Defense Act a full 112 years later. Also note it states "the right of the people" this language is found else where in the Bill of Rights

"right of the people peaceably to assemble,"
"right of the people to be secure in their homes,"
"enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,"

All of these phrases are in respects to the people, as in you and me. Individuals. None of these phrases apply to the government or agents of the government so it is ridiculous in my opinion to claim that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to any government organization be it police, military, or national guard.


Now that we have established that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual civilians and not the government lets familiarize ourselves with the terminology used by the firearm community.

Lets start with the five main different type of "actions" as there called.

First is well Single Action, which is usually a revolver meaning that the hammer but be manually cocked back before each shot can be fired. This is feed by a fixed rotating cylinder or chamber that rounds are inserted into.

Next is Double Action, also usually a revolver but you do not have to manually cock the hammer, as you pull the trigger the hammer is cocked by that action and the chamber is rotated simultaneously. It fires a shot every time the trigger is pulled. This is feed by a fixed rotating cylinder or chamber that rounds are inserted into.

Third is Bolt Action, this is similar to a single action but is found in a rifle. The bolt must be opened, pulled backward, pushed forward and then down to chamber each round, this must be repeated after every shot is fired. This type of firearm is usually fed by a detachable box magazine or an internal magazine (That cannot be removed) or it can be single shot only, meaning their is only space to load one round at a time, and every round must be manually put into the chamber after a subsequent shot.

Fourth is Semiautomatic, or Autoloader, a round is fired for each pull of the trigger and another round is loaded into the chamber ready to be fired by the next trigger pull. It automatically loads the next round to be fired; it does not automatically keep shooting. Rounds are fired each time the trigger is pulled until the magazine runs dry. This is feed by an internal magazine or a detachable box magazine.

Lastly is Fully Automatic, I think many posters confuse fully automatics with semi automatics. Fully automatics shoot rounds as long as the trigger is held down and there are rounds in the magazine. This type of fire is usually wildy inaccurate. Fully automatics are generally not available for civilian purchase but they CAN be purchased, bearing a stringent set of guidelines are met.

First off their is an estimated 240,000 registered fully automatics in civilian hands in the United States. Second all of these machine guns have been manufactured before 1987. The Firearm Owners Protection Act or the McClure-Volkmer Act made it illegal to own a fully automatic made after May 19, 1986 and all legally held fully automatic firearms were entered into a firearm registry. No new manufacture of fully automatics are allowed to be entered into the registry for sale to civilians. The only fully automatics available for purchase legally by civilians are the weapons in the registry. Now the requirements to purchase a fully automatic follows as: A fee to the ATF, A NCIC background check, a more in depth background check by the ATF , approval by Chief of Police or a Judge in your local jurisdiction, being fingerprinted at the local State Police barracks and then payment of a $200 tax stamp to the ATF. This process can take months and after all that the cost of a Fully Automatic usually ranges from 10,000 up to 50,000. There is by no means easy access to fully automatics.

Now this process also applies to people looking to purchase silencers, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, and Destructive Devices. Now Destructive Devices include grenades, bombs, poison gas weapons, and non-sporting firearm with a bore over 0.50" even though many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a legitimate sporting use. So yes you could legally own a grenade launcher with as many grenades as you could afford. Well considering the launcher would run you around $800 alone, plus $400 for each grenade plus the $200 tax stamp for the launcher and EACH grenade. So for about $1400 and a couple of months you could get a grenade launcher with a single grenade and it be 100% legal!


Next I'd like to touch on what an "Assault Rifle" is. Many of us have heard that Assault rifle are military grade weapons and do not belong on our streets but what does the military consider an Assault Rifle?

First off there are TWO definitions of an "assault rifle" the political definition and the proper military definition. The military definition of an assault rifle is :

A firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.

The very important part in that definition that draws the line between civilian arms and military arms is the "capability of selective fire; " meaning that the rifle can switch modes of fire from semi automatic, three round burst, or fully automatic. If it cannot switch between at least two of these it is NOT considered an assault rifle in military terms. The civilian version of the M-16 is called the AR-15 for Armalite 15. The military does not use semiautomatic AR-15's they use selective fire M-16's or M-4's, so to call an AR-15 a military grade weapon is wrong. Same goes for the infamous AK-47, here in America we can only import AK-47 clones, real Ak-47s are fully automatic imported AK-47's are semiautomatic, there maybe Class III (Fully Automatic) Ak's in civilian ownership but these would already be under restriction by the National Firearm Act as mentioned above. The AR-15 and Ak-47 two of the biggest targets of the anti crowd are NOT military grade firearms, and it is incorrect and misleading to label them as such.


The political definition of an "Assault Weapon" seems to be that if a rifle possesses two or more of these characteristics it is deemed an "Assault Weapon".

Detachable Box Magazine - The Ability to accept a removable box magazine which is very common

Threaded Barrel - A barrel with threading on the tip to accept a screw on flash hider, muzzle compensator, or a silencer.

Flash Hider - An "cap" of metal attached via threading on the end of the barrel meant to reduce the muzzle flash generated after a shot.

Muzzle Compensator - A different style "cap" attached via threading on the end of the barrel meant to reduced the amount of recoil felt by the shooter.

Bayonet Lug - An attachment point to mount a Bayonet.

Adjustable Stock - A stock that can be adjusted to different lengths, or heights.


None of these features make a firearm anymore lethal than it already is, at most these restrictions on certain features just increase the cost of the firearm as it has to be custom built to meet the restrictions. A detachable box magazine is found in all semiautomatic pistols and rifles without an internal magazine, and is a extremely common feature. A threaded barrel alone is just a barrel with threading on the muzzle which does not affect any operation of the firearm, it just makes it possible to attach one of the three items I listed above. I should note that silencers DO NOT make a firearm able to fire silently, it just reduces the noise of the shot. By no means do silencers make gunshots inaudiable. As with flash hiders, they do not eliminate the flash generated from the muzzle they mearly reduce it. Bayonet Lugs and Adjustable Stoocks are the most redicioulios items that are restricted because seriously when was the last time someone got stabbed with a firearm? Wouldn't it be easier to take out a knife that weilding a 3 foot 8lbs piece of metal with a knife on the tip of it? Adjustable stocks are equally redicioulios as the agruement against them is that with a telescoping stock the rifle becomes more conselable; well stocks can be purchased that are the same length of the shortest position on the telescoping stock thereby negating the concealabilty arguement. Adjustable stocks are perferable because they can be adjusted to different shooters shooting the same rifle, or for different shooting positions such as longer for prone, shorter for bench rest, and shortest for standing or free hand shooting.

- Seenterman

If you enjoyed reading about "Paper: Why Gun Control is wrong! Critique please!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
zxcvbob
April 20, 2009, 06:34 PM
Well Im tired of all the crap that goes unchallenged over at the DU (Democratic Underground), it seems not a single pro firearm poster over there can make a cohesive post that addresses all the crap they spew on the forums, so I have taken in upon myself...
Any articulate pro-gun post over there will be removed by the moderators. The only pro-gun posts that are allowed are the ones that were written by a paranoid hatemongering half-wit (no offense to anyone who ever slipped something past the mods over there) because those reinforce the stereotypes DU wants to promote.

Good luck. Don't waste too much time on it.

Shytheed Dumas
April 20, 2009, 06:47 PM
All kinds of facts that mightbe useful for your paper can be found at www.gunfacts.info

Whether the self proclaimed owners of the First Amendment will leave your paper up is irrelevant; just taking the time to research and write your arguments will multiply you ability to articulate your case where ever and whenever you might end up having the discussion later. So write away! :)

BhmBill
April 20, 2009, 07:31 PM
Well written and to the point. Sums up most weapons nicely. You COULD add definitions of pump shotguns and rifles and AOW's, but i'm sure they'd get lost after a few sentences of explaining AOW's.

Good luck with it, sir!

irishsquid
April 20, 2009, 09:01 PM
Some constructive criticism. Please accept it as such. :)

The whole 2nd Amendment portion is very good. Nice work.

Lets start with the five main different type of "actions" as there called.

I think your readers will lose interest when you go into an overly detailed (for the layman) descriptions of "actions". It's probably unnecessary. Most of your readers have no interest in guns. They'll get bored and stop reading. A simple explanation of semi-automatic vs. fully-automatic firearms would probably be adequate and would help keep the focus on your argument.

First off their is an estimated 240,000 registered fully automatics in civilian hands in the United States

Yikes! That's 240,000 more than they want! I honestly think this whole section works AGAINST you. I would merely point out the strict laws governing private ownership of full-autos.

The AWB stuff is also very good but I think it would help if you gave more emphasis on the fact that much of what constitutes an "assault weapon" is merely cosmetic. Some solid facts about criminal use (...or lack there of) of "assault weapons" would also help.

So yes you could legally own a grenade launcher with as many grenades as you could afford. Well considering the launcher would run you around $800 alone, plus $400 for each grenade plus the $200 tax stamp for the launcher and EACH grenade. So for about $1400 and a couple of months you could get a grenade launcher with a single grenade and it be 100% legal!

Whoa! Again, this works AGAINST you. Remember who your audience is! The fact that you CAN get one (regardless of the cost) is going to scare the snot out of them! You're pointing out something they probably didn't know to begin with. Why bring it up?

Your focus should be on the typical gunowner and the typical types of firearms we own. I'm more concerned about my M1 Garand or my Remington 1100 being labeled "assault weapons" than I am about adding an M203 to my inventory.

While I don't share your political beliefs, we DO share the same concern about the RKBA. You've got your work cut out for you. I wish you the best of luck.

Auburn1992
April 20, 2009, 09:18 PM
I'm with IrishSquid. It looks as though you are pointing out that it is way too easy to buy a grenade launcher or full auto firearm.

Otherwise, it seems as though it's a good paper.

hso
April 20, 2009, 10:09 PM
You may want to work from the premise that gun control is ineffective and misdirected instead of wrong. Using a value judgment like right and wrong may not reach them when you're trying to present a logical argument.

sherman123
April 20, 2009, 11:08 PM
at the risk being flamed and/or labeled as a right wing extremist when I suggest to keep the grenade launcher part. I think civilains should be able to own these even if I can never afford one to play with. There's nothing wrong with approving of this and if they think you're crazy for supporting it that's there opinion and you can't fix stupid.

chuckusaret
May 1, 2009, 04:38 PM
I think this old guy had the right idea. Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Paper: Why Gun Control is wrong! Critique please!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!