1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A paper I wrote. Newbies might want to read this.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Drjones, Jun 22, 2003.

  1. Drjones

    Drjones member

    Hi all. Here is a paper (well, two actually) that I had to write for a summer school class. I am quite pleased with how it turned out. I got a 97/100 and the teacher asked me if she could post it on the course website as an example of excellent writing for that assignment. :D (It's an online course.)

    With the recent influx of newbies here, I thought it would be a good idea to post it.

    Enjoy and let me know what you think!


    1) To gun control proponents.
    Gun control is an issue of great concern for many people today, and I
    understand that you are in favor of it. Have you ever stopped to really
    consider why you are for gun control, and to fully consider the total
    ramifications of your actions in supporting it? A far more accurate and
    suitable name for gun control is victim disarmament laws, since that is
    precisely what gun control does; it prevents the average, law-abiding
    citizen from owning, using, carrying, and otherwise doing whatever they
    see fit with their firearms, provided of course, that they are not
    harming anyone else. Preventing an innocent, law-abiding citizen from
    owning firearms prevents them from owning and carrying a tool that can in
    many cases save their life or the lives of their loved ones is precisely
    what gun control accomplishes, hence the appropriateness of the term
    victim disarmament laws. Gun control laws simply make our streets safer
    for criminals.
    It is very clearly evident from statistical data that every
    single state that has made it easier for their law-abiding citizens to
    carry firearms has experienced a decrease in the overall crime rate. Even
    in states that did not experience as great a drop in crime as other
    states, crime most definitely did NOT increase, as many victim
    disarmament proponents predict.
    What could drive someone to hate firearms so much as to wish to
    deprive law-abiding citizens of them? Whether you believe in the validity
    of the second amendment or not, current gun control laws are immoral and
    unethical. Most everyone will agree that every human being has a right to
    life. If one does not have the right to defend ones life, or is deprived
    of the proper tools with which to do so, the initial right to life is a
    hollow, meaningless promise. What good is it to have a right to life if
    one cannot defend ones life from those who would take it?
    Victim disarmament laws by definition apply only to law-abiding
    citizens. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. Murder and rape
    are already illegal, so to follow the logic of victim disarmament
    supporters, there should be no murder or rape. But there is, because some
    people simply do not obey laws. And those same people would not be
    bothered by gun control laws any more than they would laws against rape
    or child molestation. If they wish to do something, they will. The same
    is not true of law-abiding citizens; they, by definition, obey most all
    laws, including laws against harming other people. This remains true even
    when they own firearms.
    Perhaps the best evidence of the idiocy of gun control is the
    fact that today there are approximately 300 million firearms privately
    owned by law-abiding citizens. Thats a lot of guns. That is approximately
    one for every man, woman and child in this country. Yet there are only
    approximately 20,000 firearm-related deaths in this country each year,
    and that includes murder and suicide. In other words, there are
    299,980,000 crimes NOT committed with firearms each year. Thats a pretty
    good ratio, and a heck of a lot better than cars, for example. Im not
    sure how many automobiles there are in the United States, but there arent
    nearly as many cars as there are firearms, yet there are approximately
    40,000 car-related deaths annually. The ratio for automobiles is
    significantly worse than for firearms. Yet no one cries for the banning
    or regulation of cars. Why? They clearly pose a far greater risk to
    Americans than do firearms.
    I urge you to strongly reconsider your stance on victim
    disarmament laws.

    2) To a concerned citizen.

    Most every reasonable, law-abiding citizen wants to live in a
    safe, crime-free world, dont they? Unfortunately, many people are led to
    believe that gun control is a means to achieve this end. However, nothing
    could be further from the truth.
    There are many horrible, awful misconceptions about guns in our society
    today. The media and victim disarmament proponents have done a fantastic
    job of demonizing guns. In the eyes of many people, firearms are on the
    same list as satan and child pornographers. I wish I was exaggerating,
    but I fear I am not. Like many fears, fear and dislike of firearms is
    wholly irrational and illogical. Firearms are mere tools, no more. A tool
    is an object that enables a human to do something. Just like a car is a
    tool for transportation, a knife is a tool for cutting, and a baseball
    bat is a tool for hitting balls. Just like firearms, all of the items I
    just mentioned have been used to kill people, both intentionally and
    accidentally, yet no one wants to ban baseball bats or knives. In fact,
    far more people die annually in automobile-related incidents than die
    from firearms, yet no one cries for the banning or restriction of cars.
    Again, this is due to the fact that some people in our society have seen
    fit to demonize guns. You have probably fallen into this trap.
    Do you know anything about firearms? Have you ever shot a gun? Or
    is your knowledge of firearms based solely on what you have seen in TV,
    movies, and on the news? If you do not have firsthand experience with
    firearms, then most likely every single thing you think you know about
    them is inaccurate or flat wrong.
    If you do not know anything about firearms or the 20,000 victim
    disarmament laws currently on the books, you have a few interesting
    questions to ask yourself. Do you feel that your life is worth
    protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? What do you
    think you would do if you were faced with a situation in which your life
    was in grave, immediate danger? Would you call 911? Do you honestly think
    you would be able to operate your telephone while you are being attacked?
    Do you honestly think the police would be able to reach you before
    something bad happened to you? Even if they only took 10 minutes, dont
    you think that is plenty of time for someone to gravely injure, kill, or
    rape you, your wife, husband, sister or mother? Furthermore, you should
    know that the United States Congress, the United States Supreme Court,
    and hundreds of lower courts in America have universally ruled that the
    police have no obligation to protect individual citizens. None
    whatsoever. The police exist solely for the protection of society at
    large; they are not individual bodyguards. For example, if you were being
    raped or attacked and somehow managed to call 911, the police would be
    under no obligation, legally, morally or otherwise, to respond to your
    cries for help. The same applies even if it is your small child crying on
    the line with the 911 operator; the police do not have to respond, and it
    is not unheard of for them to not respond to 911 calls at all.
    Lets assume that you believe that you should and would call 911
    if your life was in grave danger. Who are you calling? Men with guns.
    Furthermore, why should you expect the police to risk their lives to save
    yours? Is your life of incalculable value while the policemans life is
    only worth the $30,000 or so he gets paid each year? Do you really
    believe that? Do you think that the police have some special, magical
    powers or training that better qualifies them to use firearms? And just
    what are these mythical superpowers that police possess that us mere
    mortals do not have? To follow the logic further, only race car drivers
    should own cars, and only concert pianists should own and play pianos. It
    takes incredibly little training to become familiar with firearms, and
    not much effort nor talent to become proficient enough to use one to
    defend your life.
    Please ponder these questions for a good long time. Think them
    through critically, honestly, and seriously. Your life may depend on it.
  2. Combat-wombat

    Combat-wombat Well-Known Member

  3. Thundercleese

    Thundercleese Well-Known Member

    And you got a 97? Hooray for your teacher! Maybe there's some hope left for the public school system after all. Frankly, I'm shocked you didn't get censured for such a "subversive, violent, and hate-filled" diatribe.

    Nice work :)
  4. RVSinOK

    RVSinOK Well-Known Member

    Awesome paper, and equally awesome (if not more) that the teacher chose to use it as a "good example". Way to go!
  5. Freedspeak

    Freedspeak Well-Known Member

    Glad some of the info that you got here was applied so well!

    Keep up the good work.
  6. sonny

    sonny Well-Known Member

    Great writing.....you coverd most every angle.I wish you could have included some of the BIG lies and deceptions that the anti's use.....next time....good job kid!:)
  7. Logistar

    Logistar Guest

    Hey, those WERE good! Great job! I hope plenty of "current" antis read those - just might make them think - a lot!

    (However, in the first paragraph under heading "2" further should read farther ;) ) - sorry... it's the "teacher" in me!

  8. Carlos Cabeza

    Carlos Cabeza Well-Known Member

Share This Page