Beagle-zebub
Member
+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.
Need Help With School Paper:Argument For Handgun Ownership
- Thread starter mattw
- Start date
- Status
+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
Member
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.
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.
Keep it personal
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.
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.
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).
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
Member
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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
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
Member
Actually
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.
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.
Beatnik
Member
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.
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.)
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
Moderator Emeritus
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
Member
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
Member
Now, if you really want to see your classmates' heads spin, get the firearms homicide data from 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):
Notice anything remarkable?
Check the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. The 1999 report says
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 is probably better.
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):
Notice anything remarkable?
Check the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. The 1999 report says
The 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 is probably better.
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
Member
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
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
