[AZ]

I've decided to do an informational argument paper on gun control for my collegian politics class. Of course the topic "gun control" is far to broad so I've been considering a number of specific issues I could focus on. The issue needs to be relevant but, more importantly, there needs to be enough information on the topic to fill at least 5 pages. So far I've thought of...

How laws for and against concealed carry permits affects crime.
How the lifting of the AWB has or has not affected violent crime.

Since most of you are far more knowledgable about firearms than I and have dealt with gun politics for far longer, I would love some input, ideas or criticism.

[Gunnerboy]

Gun control all that means is both hands on the gun.

[Carter]

You could try comparing two cities or states violent crimes rates and levels of gun control. Of course you would have to have a lot of control variables (or if it is a less in depth paper you could just try to get similar cities population wise and leave it at that).

Its a very hard topic to challenge, good luck.

[benEzra]

The media hysteria about rifle crime vs. the reality that rifles (including ones with handgrips and magazines that stick out) are the least misused of all classes of firearm in the United States. (In other words, the stupidity of the AWB.)

Some source material:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls (download the Excel and sum the columns)

If you go back to prior-year editions of the UCR, you can show the decline in rifle crime over time.

Or you could also do something like this (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/benEzra/7), but finding a newer ignorant anti-gun hit piece to deconstruct.

Whatever topic you choose, edit yourself critically, proof it carefully, and have fun!

[Reasoned1]

I'd be interested in seeing statistics about how often firearms are used in self-cefense. A color-coded map of the US indicating state gun restrictiveness along with frequency of gun crime and defensive use would be very nice.

[The_Next_Generation]

Last year (Junior year in HS) I wrote a great essay against gun control. The true, actual statistics from the FBI and BATF all tell the same story that gun control does not lower crime rates.

I wrote nearly twelve well organized pages using nothing but raw, MLA cited fact to prove gun control does not lower crime rates. In fact, nearly all of the data (including one number from the BATF stating women use handguns to successfully defend against criminals over 400 times daily) showed that lessening gun control is more effective at lowering crime rates. It is a political ploy to claim anything to the contrary.

Here is a good source:
http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/crs_gun_control.shtml

Here is an AMAZING source, with cited information from the FBI, ATF, and other government agencies. In fact, I think everyone here on THR should read the information on this page so they can share it with others:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp


You should have no problem writing five pages.

[Tim the student]

Good lord, lots of these lately.

Thank you for not asking for sources.

I think you will be able to knock 5 pages out just fine, once you get rolling. (Talking about methodology used in your evidence will eat up a few pages, if you want it to.)

Can you tell me more about the class you are taking?

[blume357@bellsouth.net]

I think if you try the same old 'stock' arguements about less crime and such your more than likely liberal (I hate labels) prof. will probably not buy it.

Go for the basics.... the real reason for the 2nd and the beginning of gun control from the start.... to keep minorities / blacks from having power.

5 pages is easy... google is your friend.

to - too

[JustinJ]

Correlation with crime rates is always very hard to prove given the enormous amount of potential influences. But should be tackled none the less.

[InkEd]

I wrote a paper about gun control back in high school and another in college. The way I did it, for both, was that I lightly touched on a variety of issues concerning gun control and mentioned some facts and comparisions to support each point. The format of the paper, presentation style and intended audience are all important things to keep in mind.

The paper written for college was for an oral communication course. It was short speech and intended to persuade people's opinion on a current political issue. The high school paper was done just to be informative and give a short power point presentation.

A few things that worked well were to point out historical facts, use comparisions to other 1st world countries and real-life examples of living people.

I don't know enough about the guidelines for assignment but one of the best angles to work in college was that gun control laws have very racist origins in the U.S. and alot of current laws while not flat-out based on race can be presented as kind of "back door racism." For example, a law that prohibits the manufacture of inexpensive small caliber pistols (Saturday Night Specials) would prevent people of lower income from legally buying a new firearm. So, you point out that of the people living below whatever income level are minorities, you can make the jump in the argument that there is underlying racism
attached to such laws. The same goes with registration laws. Research gun registration laws passed by various dictators and how easily it made ethnic cleansing when they knew who could resist and eliminated them first.

It goes on and on. However, I think you get the idea and more importantly it gives a different reason for people to be pro-gun. I think you'll find it more compelling and thought-changing to a college crowd than the traditional arguments.

[HGUNHNTR]

First off, don't regurgitate the words "gun control". The paper, regardless of subject, should be on gun rights or preservation of second amendment rights. Guns don't need control any more than we need car control, or beer control legislation. The phrase gun control was created to impart a sense of need for controlling an inanimate object. Don't propogate that nonsense.

Gun control all that means is both hands on the gun:barf: That isn't all that original. Try guns don't kill people do, or just let us know you lost all of your guns in a boating accident.

[Geckgo]

dig around on the FBI website, they cite violent crime statistics. While it's never exactly what you are looking for, there is a lot of good information, specially the trend lines since the AWB was eliminated.

I second the "assault rifle" idea, but I don't know any other sources you could cite. Basically the idea that the rifles the govt goes after as being for soldiers only also tend to be the least used in actual crimes. How many times do you see a video of a roberry commited with anything other than a handgun? How often is that handgun illegally possesed?

[HGUNHNTR]

^ You can argue what assault rifle is til your are blue in the face, but at the end of the day people don't like how semi auto style rifles look. They look scary to people, and calling them sporting rifles, won't change opinion. The reason it matters is because like the words "gun control" the words "assault rifle" were created by some very intelligent marketing gurus at anti gun rights organizations. Have you ever heard pro choice advocates call themselves pro death, or pro lifers claim to be anti choice?
I would address the need of individuals to be able to defend themselves when police are not sleeping on their couches. Don't forget to include potential beneficiaries of gun rights in your argument, and focus on those groups that may represent those particularly opposed to gun rights. I have gay friends, single mom friends, etc that absolutley NEED, and welcome expanded gun rights laws. They themselves are frequently targets of violence and desparately need a way to keep from being victimized.

[Skribs]

I read through 2/3 of this and skimmed the rest, originally linked to me by NavyLCDR on these boards. It's a nice, long paper full of myths and facts about gun ownership.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.0/Gun-Facts-v6.0-screen.pdf

Lots of good myths to cover if you want to use it as a starting point, and lots of good information if you want to use it as a source.

[Axel Larson]

IF you want to look at some of New England, Vermont has lower crime rates, where crime rates in Massachusetts are high and have very strict gun laws, as well as may issue, Vermont has constitutional carry. The thing you would have to account for is that Vermont is more rural than Mass. is.

[Alex45ACP]

The gun laws vs crime rates thing has been done thousands of times already, it's boring. I would focus on one of the following:

1. The racist history of victim disarmament laws in the US (originally used against blacks, etc).
2. The connection between victim disarmament laws and democide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide).

People rarely discuss these aspects of the issue so it will be something a little more original and interesting.

[stumpers]

An interesting topic, that you will likely learn from as well, is the meaning of the Second Amendment. Recent Supreme Court cases (Heller, McDonald), the debates surrounding the Bill of Rights should provide more than enough background to form a good question and decide what you think.

For example, militia clause vs. individual right to bear arms. I think it's an individual right, but others disagree....

[Telekinesis]

I did a paper on gun control in college a few years ago. My professor was looking for me to do more refutation of the other side's arguments than to really convince everyone of my side (it was one paper in a series, and he was a debate coach so he liked this part of the assignment). I found it was pretty easy to poke holes in the anti's arguments by attacking the actual studies they site. Go to the VPC or Brady web sites and download their PDFs, then follow their citations to the actual studies and there's so much to refute in there that I spent 5 pages just refuting one source! Its no even opinion that you're refuting, it is just incredibly bad scientific method. Anyone could see the flaws in their experiments.

[J-Bar]

Get a copy of "More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott, Jr.

He has done your research for you.

[Baba Louie]

What began as a rascist policy to control a selected group of people... if you want to head that direction as historical reference. Look up Liz Michael. You might (or might not) be surprised at how long it's been with us.

Sullivan Act in NYC is still in place, just doesn't only affect the Italians as Tim Sullivan wanted (he who was a ... well, look him up too)... mission creep meant everybody, except the politically connected, not just Italians.

Look up guncite.com

Do a search on Homer E. Cummings (guns AND gold)

A recent CDC study on the subject IIRC.

5 pages? A minimum of 5? ;)

You going in pro or con? Sometimes it's fun to play devils advocate. :evil:

Have fun. Learn a lot. In all of the above posts you've been given wise advice. Me? Not so much

[GEM]

Assault Rifles and Crime - https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

And follow up articles by them.

Found no effect on crime indices due to AWB.

But a double edged sword. They concluded that it didn't work because of:

1. Existing stocks of preban guns.
2. Guns that fit the ban of equal efficacy.

Gun folk - ban stupid
Antigun folk - make it tougher and really get them this time.

Heard the debate at the American Society for Criminology where this was presented.

If you want a good pro and con by legit scholars get a book by Kopel and McClurg

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/GCGR.htm

Lott has a lot (haha) of legit critiques from anti and pro gun scholars - should not be used in isolation against folks who know their stuff.

[Vern Humphrey]

Try this:

GUN CONTROL


The Right to Bear Arms is a Civil Right. It is as much a civil right as the right to vote or the right to trial by jury. Attempts to infringe on this right damage ALL our rights, since the methods used to undermine the 2nd Amendment can be used against all other Amendments.

Further, the bearing of arms by responsible citizens is not the problem – in fact, in state after state, liberalized concealed carry laws have resulted in reduced violent crime. The right to bear arms is therefore a solution, not a problem.

That said, we must recognize that some people will use weapons for criminal purposes. This paper sets forth a concept for reasonable violent crime control, based on three principles:


Targeting. The purpose of crime control is to prevent violence. Violent acts are committed by only a small fraction of the population. The biggest payoff therefore comes in targeting anti-violence legislation on those who commit violent acts, not on applying broad-brush restrictions to everyone.

Incapacitation. Experience has shown that incapacitation (through incarceration) reduces the number of crimes committed by violent felons over their criminal careers.

Enforcement. Many attempts at controlling violence have failed in the past due to lack of enforcement. There are many reasons for this, from simple non-feasance of officials to structural defects that reward non-enforcement.

We target the violent criminal through two laws;

Possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.

Possession of a firearm by a previously convicted violent criminal

We must carefully word these laws to ensure we don’t target the wrong people – we’re not after kids who hunt squirrels out of season. We do this by making the gun crime dependent on another crime – a violent crime, such as murder, armed robbery, rape, and so on.

We incapacitate the violent criminal through mandatory sentencing. Although politically incorrect, mandatory sentencing is proven to work in incapacitating criminals. In this case the sentence is 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive with any other sentence. And additional 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive, is added for each subsequent offense.

A holdup of a local 7-11, for example, would net the criminal 5 years on the state, and he would typically serve two. But before being released, he would serve an additional 10 years for using a firearm in a violent crime.

If he did it again after release, this time he would get 20 years for use of a firearm in a violent crime, second offense, and 10 years for possession of a firearm by a previously-convicted violent criminal, for a total of 30 years. A third stickup would net fifty years.

We get enforcement by reserving prosecution of these to a specialized office in the Justice Department. They would prosecute ONLY these two crimes. If they fail to prosecute, they go out of business. If they prosecute vigorously, they will build up a backlog of work, and according to the natural law that governs bureaucracies, will get more funding, more personnel, and more promotions.

They cannot plea bargain away anything – because they have no jurisdiction over any other crimes and nothing to gain from a plea bargain. They cannot be persuaded not to prosecute, because that would go against their interests.

They can be counted on to be vigilant of crimes committed in the various states, because state prosecution for the basic crime will facilitate federal prosecution of the firearms charges.

And finally, they can be given jurisdiction over one other crime – accessory to the first two crimes – so they can prosecute local officials who, knowing of crimes that fall under their jurisdiction, fail to inform them. Any police officer or prosecuting attorney who knows of, or who reasonably should know of a violation of these two laws, and who fails to charge the suspect, or forward charges for prosecution, shall receive the same penalty as the criminal.

[Skribs]

Vern, that is a very well-written post.

[whtsmoke]

You can also show how gun control does work by referencing it to Mr. Hitler in Europe.

[TexasBill]

I've decided to do an informational argument paper on gun control for my collegian politics class. Of course the topic "gun control" is far to broad so I've been considering a number of specific issues I could focus on. The issue needs to be relevant but, more importantly, there needs to be enough information on the topic to fill at least 5 pages. So far I've thought of...

How laws for and against concealed carry permits affects crime.

The effect of laws pertaining to carrying guns has not been nearly as great as the actual carrying of guns by citizens, whether legally or illegally. Criminals, by their nature, are not going to observe restrictions on carrying weapons but the display or use of a firearm by a would-be victim has averted or ended the successful commission of a crime many, many times.

Outside of that, there are too many other factors to credit gun laws with being a primary influence on the reduction or increase in gun-related crime.

How the lifting of the AWB has or has not affected violent crime.

Since so-called "assault rifles" weren't commonly used by criminals before, during or after the ban, the effect of the AWB on crime was negligible. Other aspects of the AWB might have had some influence on the selection of guns available to a criminal, but since a large percentage of crimes are committed with stolen firearms, the total effect was miniscule.

Since most of you are far more knowledgable about firearms than I and have dealt with gun politics for far longer, I would love some input, ideas or criticism.

One of the best suggestions you've gotten is to forget the well-trodden path and explore the origins of modern gun control laws.

Modern gun control began as an effort to restrict certain groups' ability possess or carry guns. These are generally groups that posed a perceived threat to a more privileged group or individual. In certain parts of the country, the primary target of gun control was the newly freed slaves and other blacks. In New York, corrupt Tammany Hall politician Timothy Sullivan wanted to prevent his political enemies from being able to carry handguns while making providing for his own armed protection. The Sullivan Act gave the New York police the power to issue licenses and set the price high enough that most people couldn't afford it. Sullivan, being well-connected with the NYPD and wealthy, had no trouble getting licenses for his bodyguards. In California, the 1967 Mulford Act, which stripped Californians of the right to open carry, was a reaction to the Black Panthers.

A reduction in crime and increased public safety were mostly themes to peddle the package to the public and other legislators since outlawing guns has never had a substantive impact on overall crime.

At one time, a fair percentage of the handguns used in crimes in New York City turned out to be police officers' sidearms. The cop, who needed nothing more than his badge and ID card to buy a handgun, would illegally sell his weapon, report the gun lost or stolen, replace it and come out with a tidy profit. Of course, you had to be very poorly connected or lazy to buy a cop's gun: it was quite easy to have a relative or friend who lived in Connecticut buy a handgun for you there (back in those days, unlicensed open carry was legal in Connecticut and purchasing a handgun required only proof that one was 18 or older).

Researching this topic does two things for your paper: First, it allows you to provide a different point of view of gun control; one that is more difficult to refute. Second, it will provide enough material to make filling five pages a breeze.

[GEM]

Be careful of the Hitler quote - it is bogus.

Also, be careful of the Switzerland usage as the reason Hitler didn't invade. He didn't have to as the Swiss collaborated to a very large extent. Hitler also said that when he was done with Russia and the UK, he was going to clean the Jews out of Switzerland and didn't see one bit of problem in taking the country.

That's why go with legit scholarly sources and be careful with Internet ramblings without being really well sourced.

[AZ]

Thanks for the advice, all. Tracing the origins of modern gun laws seems the more informed approach, with plenty to write on.

[Yoda]

There are several web sites that discuss this issue, and one of the amicus briefs filed in the Heller case did a superb job of covering the issue. Given the mind-set of most college professors, something that shows gun control as racist will certainly put them in a mental bind!

- - - Yoda

[NM Mountainman]

I have sent you a PM containing an offer to share info which might help with your research paper. The info. is a bit long and detailed to put in a post, and it may not be of general interest to other members.