gun control

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by domsupra90, Mar 8, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. domsupra90

    domsupra90 New Member

    3
    0
    0
    Hey I'm a gun owner from Utah, also I'm in school and I have been asked to write about gun control. Does anyone have any info? I need both sides of the opinions. Also, I need to interview a reputable gun expert. Any ideas of who I could talk to?
     
  2. Fred_G

    Fred_G Active Member

    448
    28
    28
    Maybe think about how 'gun control' is going to make criminals obey laws.
     

  3. domsupra90

    domsupra90 New Member

    3
    0
    0
    that is a good thought, ha because I know criminals are still criminals. but that is not how others see it
     
  4. kdog

    kdog Member

    449
    2
    18
    Ask who gun control will control.....law obiding gun owners or criminals

    Check the statistics on gun violence, etc.

    Snoop through the forums, you will find tons of information
     
  5. Jagermeister

    Jagermeister New Member

    6,811
    1
    0
    Talk about how other nations used gun control in the past to control or destroy populations of people....Nazis, Chinese, British etc...
     
  6. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
    To put it simply, gun control just doesn't work. Look at Chicago, LA, New York City, and Washington DC. All EXTREMELY anti gun. Their violent crime rates are horrible. Now look at the rest of America. MUCH better by comparison. If you look at the violent crime rate in the UK, you'll see it's actually 3-4 times greater than ours. Despite them having extremely strict gun control laws.

    In the last 20 years, gun ownership has skyrocketed. Millions upon millions of guns have been sold. More and more pro gun laws have been passed in most of the United states. More people conceal carry guns now more than ever. In that 20 years, the crime rate has also fallen greatly. The few exceptions are anti gun states. Specifically their major cities. (as said previously).

    Here's a few really good infographics for you. :)

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Mar 8, 2014
  7. Vincine

    Vincine New Member

    3,495
    0
    0
    "Lies, damm lies & statistics." Really!

    You have to take a good hard look at the data when anyone throws numbers around. For 'children's' shooting for instance. The CDC counts you as a child until the age of 19. Something like 84% of children involved in shootings are by 16 to 19 year olds involved in drug related gang violence, not young children playing with someone's firearm. Most of the rest are 'adults' shooting kids, either by negligence or on purpose.

    It is true the violent crime rate went down during the Assault Weapons Ban. It is also true it was going down before the ban and has been continuing to go down since the ban was rescinded.

    Over 97% of gun violence was done with handguns. The 3% that was left is divided up between ALL long guns, shotguns, bolt action rifles & semi-autos. Of the smaller percentage that was done by semi-autos, I'd bet an even smaller percentage was done with 'Assault Weapons'.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2014
  8. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,369
    57
    48
    I don't know what angle you are looking at, but ....

    A gun is an inanimate object that, by itself, cannot function. The operator of this inanimate object should be what is controlled. We have laws in effect that limit who can operate a gun, but these laws are not obeyed by the criminal sort.

    Rarely does the gun turn to the criminal. The criminal turns to the gun. And controlling an inanimate object is not the answer to reducing crime (if that is what the end means is to be).

    Or, for best control of a handgun, use two hands.
     
  9. NC1760

    NC1760 New Member

    1,104
    0
    0
    I recommend you watch this quick video. I personally couldn't have said it better than this man;
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKxjVYFwwSk[/ame]
     
  10. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    19
    38
    I've removed a number of posts good and bad that were just argumentative and served no purpose over all. Texas woodworker surmised every true fact there is on gun control vs gun ownership in america and around the world for the most part. I don't want this devolving into political arguments.

    As for the op your going to have a very difficult or impossible time finding any real study that shows gun control works anywhere its tried as every argument for it is nuh uh school ground type stuff which typically gets threads locked or deleted. All evidence shows gun control is a direct factor in increased levels of violence in places where rule of law is well established. In places like russia korea north and south japan britain a lot of asian countries its really hard to tell what stats are true since media and crimstatistics are controlled and censored by their govermemts.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2014
  11. SB777

    SB777 New Member

    943
    0
    0
    How about some reference to the mental state of the most sensational mass killers driving the anti-gun arguments? All had known psychological issues and the debates have danced around those facts.
     
  12. TekGreg

    TekGreg Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,000
    0
    0
    TW, those are great statistics! Can I ask where you obtained those? I'd like to see if there is a printed version they sell.

    To help the OP, here are two sources (Note: I remembered you needed to cite two sources for your paper!) below that detail the psychotropic drug history of every mass shooter in the last 20-30 years and the fact that all of them either were using or going through withdrawal from prescription mentally-altering drugs.

    Brief killer drug history

    One thing killers have in common...it's not guns

    Hopefully this was on topic and not controversial so JonM won't knock me off! :D :cool:
     
  13. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,980
    416
    83
    Give It to Them Straight
    by John Ross


    The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue, and letting our
    enemies define the terms.

    THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."

    WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: The implication here is that if you
    COULD succeed, it would be a reasonable plan.)

    WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the
    lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed.
    Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun."

    ***

    THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer --
    they're only for killing people."

    WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire.
    My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah."
    (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace
    your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)

    WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is
    designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity
    military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most
    reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with
    freedom is that they're good practice."

    ***

    THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West, with shoot-outs all the time for fender-benders, in
    bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it."

    WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." (flaw: You have implied that if studies showed CCW laws equaled more
    heat-of-passion shooting, CCW should be illegal.

    WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What is important
    is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than anything else, why don't we throw out the Fifth amendment? We have
    the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken
    arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"

    ***

    THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period."

    WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You
    have implied that if waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

    WHAT WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is
    reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people
    who ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to
    live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny."

    ***

    THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should
    all have atomic bombs."

    WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ."

    WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the
    citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each
    issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not
    howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid
    for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or
    electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."

    ***

    THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing
    these weapons of mass destruction."

    WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

    WE SHOULD SAY:"You know, driving is a luxury, where firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But
    let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE
    go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to do anything if
    you don't use them on public property. If you DO want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This
    license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteenyear-
    old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot
    them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country
    to shoot these guns on public property."

    ***

    Final comment, useful with most all arguments:

    YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant
    more to you than anything."

    THEY SAY:"Huh?"

    YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither Bill
    Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to open up internment camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of your
    worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the
    next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you
    REALLY want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them
    to have been stripped of it BY YOU?"
     
  14. domsupra90

    domsupra90 New Member

    3
    0
    0
    Thank you! this all helps a lot
     
  15. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    looking back at the history of all gun control laws ever made, one can see a definate pattern in that they were enacted to control a group of people from having guns, not in reducing crime. into current times, the only thing that has changed in new gun control laws is the group of people they wish to restrict from having guns.
     
  16. Jagermeister

    Jagermeister New Member

    6,811
    1
    0
    Just tell them.....

    Gun control is hitting what you are aiming at.:cool:
     
  17. G30USMC

    G30USMC Well-Known Member Supporter

    15,107
    39
    48
    Amen !!!!! :D
     
  18. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
  19. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,369
    57
    48
    Enacting laws against guns to "reduce deaths" is like restricting the horsepower output of cars to reduce drunk driving. Neither make any sense.
     
  20. eatmydust

    eatmydust New Member

    4,360
    0
    0
    This piece is from ballistics101.com. If you go to the site, in the headings bar, you will find a tab for "Education 101", click on it and at the bottom of the drop down menu, you will find this op/ed piece.

    the gun is civilization


    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.




    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

    People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

    So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

    – Marko Kloos
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.