A second research paper

[RLKondo]

Hi All, I"m sure you read Racr350's post about his research paper about "if students at colleges should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campuses". It is great to see that the young minds are incorporaint these issus into the classrooms. I too was going to ask for your expertice on gun control. I am a high school business teacher, one of my senior students came and asked me what he should do his senoir research paper on. He is a great kids and just go into hunting this last year. Before I could get the words out of my mouth, he suggested gun control; I couldn't have been more proud. He has not nailed down the exact topic yet, so any suggestions would help. I suggested the researach question of "does gun restrictions really reduce the crime rate?".

So if you have any specific topics, I (we) would love to hear them.

Also, if you know of any data sources that we could use to back up our arguements, please share them. Also if you have any other sources of example so concealed carriers defending them selves we would love to use it. Thank you to all of you who posted links in Racr350's thread, we will be sure to use that information as well.

Thanks in advance, this a great group!

[Captqc]

Try this route, have him research stories of times a life was saved by just showing a gun to the perp. There is a book out with stories like that. I think it's called Thank God I had a Gun or something close to that. Also the NRA has stories of people using their guns in every issue of their magazine. The bottom line about guns is that there are bad people out there who will obtain and use guns no matter if the liberals take all guns away from honest citizen. Gun control in other countries has been a TOTAL failure in preventing gun crime because the criminals don't give a hoot about gun control laws. Also the liberal view of guns is based upon irrational fear of guns and a total lack of understanding of the many uses of guns, they only see them as instruments of death and destruction used by criminals (as shown on the nightly news). Plus they believe that anyone who likes guns must be either a criminal or a green toothed hillbilly. They believe that the police will protect them from the criminals when in fact the police are only there to examine the aftermath and try to catch the criminal after the fact. One joke goes "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy" and another is "When seconds count the cops are only minutes away!" Another route he could take is to take a indepth look at the 2nd ammendment ie: what part of "shall not infringe" don't the liberals understand? One reason that Japan didn't invade the states after Peral Harbor was that they knew that a majority of Americans owned firearms. Hope that helps. Gary

[acloco]

Check Australia & Great Britain gun laws and crimer rates, before and after restrictions.

[Rick in Oregon]

Ross: I assume you're an NRA member, if not, you should be, especially these days. Anyway, just refer to every issue of The American Rifleman or American Hunter magazine, the monthly rags from NRA, and look at the column titled "The Armed Citizen" at the front of every issue. These are stories from newspapers sent in to NRA that show just how many times a gun saved the lives of innocents across the country. Many times no shots are fired, just the mere presence of the firearm difused the incident immediately.

There are about eight to ten stories every month, surely enough to illustrate the falicy of gun control, and enough to clearly show that guns in the hands of honest citizens are the best defense against the cretins and predators intent on doing us harm that inhabit our country.

I'm sure your student will find enough material from that source alone to convice any rationally thinking individual (except true socialist liberal stary-eyed Nobama worshippers that is......)

[Jim White]

Adding to Rick's comment, the articles also provide the source of the report, usually a local newspaper and if your aor the student is not a NRA member, I'd join today.

If it were me I'd try and break down the other sides argument. Gun control comes at us from many directions/issues. For example;

1. Rights (ANGLE). The (individual, (is there any other kind?)) right to own a firearm. Doesn't matter what its for (hunting, target shooting, self-defense, recreational or a some scientific to experiment to watch an oxide layer grow). Also, a good question to ask is; "even though "so-and-so" deplores firearms, do they want to permanently give up their rights to own them?" I ask this question all the time when I get into these discussions and truthfully, I haven't meet one yet who is willing to "give-up THEIR right" to gun ownership. Naturally, they’re willing to take mine (and yours away).

While you’re here, do a search for the ideas in this subject from our founding fathers on this subject. As I mentioned in the previous thread, gun ownership was a pre-existing right. Google search the Supreme Court Heller Decision last year. Its long but there’s good stuff in there.

2. The failures of gun control (ANGLE). Often the conversation spews off target because not all the facts are presented.

3. Personal protection (ANGLE). Do a Google search for; "Required Police Protection". In short there isn't any unless they have you in custody.

4. Human Predators (ANGLE). Along the lines of (3.) do a Google search called; On Sheep, Wolfs and Sheep Dogs. Basically, it points out the predatory nature of the human species, and make no mistake about it, humans are predators.

5. The assault weapons (ANGLE). IMO, assault is an act and whether its an assault weapon or a defensive weapon depends on which end of the muzzle I'm on. If I'm on the breech end, it's a defensive weapon, if I'm on the muzzle end; it's an offensive/assault weapon.

6. Common Sense Gun Control Legislation (ANGLE). Who needs an assault weapon? Don't ever let someone decide, on a permanent basis, what you, I or anyone else needs, Ever! The other side will come across from their angles (who needs them cost of insurance, innocent lives and so on, which are real). What most politicians mean by the term “common sense gun laws” is an outright gun-ban.

There are many quotes out there but these two sum it up the best:

[Stockton, California] Mayor [Barbara] Fass: I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step.

ABC News Special, Peter Jennings Reporting: Guns, April 11, 1991, available on LEXIS, NEWS database, SCRIPT file. [/color]

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.) (boldface added, italics in original).

This link will tell you about Senator Feinstein’s goal of banning gun ownership. It’s from 60 minutes on Feb 5, 1995. This is when she made her infamous comment;

"If it were up to me," she told Stahl, "I would tell Mr. and Mrs. America to turn them in -- turn them all in." http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/hindsight/hs950224.txt

7. Current gun laws (ANGLE). There is a mess of gun laws out there and more often than not they are plea bargained down to go after the larger crime. Guns are heavily regulated at the local (city/county), state and national levels. Not to mention, there is some 250,000,000 firearms out there. IMO, they will never get them all?

8. Training (ANGLE). IMO, one area the anti crowd does make a point is no training is required (in some cases) to own a firearm. Good. The US Constitution doesn't say its required. However, when packing one needs to know how and when to use it. There are good courses out there and true, they're not cheap but in the long run when one looks at what’s at stake, the money and time are well spent and besides, you have fun along the way.

My personal block with this subject is "who" gets to say your training is adequate. If its the mayor of a city (Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Trenton, Washington DC) just to mention a few, they would use a requirement such as this to prevent firearm ownership. I'd dare say that John Q Citizen wouldn't get a carry permit in these cities right now.

I think if you can express these angles, logically, the chance for success is good (as long as the audience is reasonable). Otherwise, some will be turned off. Also, it “must” be pointed out, politicians are the ones making the laws. They are elitist and are driven by opinions and polls (the one sided media) and the only thing they really care about is; who’s taking their place at the head of the hog-trough (the next election).

I tried to be short, sorry about the length.

Jim

[OldTurtle]

Have him pull up books and articles by Prof. John Lott.... He has published several studies dealing with the Armed Citizen and Crime Statistics as related to Gun Control.

There are lots of resources in publication if he starts to research them.

I agree with Jim White regarding a specific angle, or angles if he has time...It's hard to take a 'shotgun' approach and be really convincing to the point where it causes another person to actually focus on the positives and negatives of any subject..

When it comes down to "Assault" weapons.... just remember that "Assault" is an action, a "Weapon" in an object....and in that context, there are 'Assault Knives', 'Assault Hammers', and 'Assault Baseball Bats'.

[Jim White]

I just thought I'd toss out the various issues because there is more than one. You don't want to over-engineer the task because you may loose everybody. But I would leave you with these thoughts as well;

1. No firearm (that I'm aware of) has ever acted on its own (load, lock, cock, aim and fire) without some form of human manipulation. Human manipulation/control can be both local or remote.

2. Power loves itself, and seeks more of it. (Gerry Spence)

Good luck,