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. 
(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!
Drjones
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.
(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!
Drjones
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.
