In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
I need some help on gun control
gun_gal1682
Member Posts: 36 ✭✭
I need some good arguements defending a person's right to own guns for a paper I am working on. So what better place than here to ask? Can anyone help me out with some kick-butt arguements against the gun-control freaks?
Comments
Good Luck!!
Rugster
Reach Out for the Bill of Rights -- Your Best Friends Might Be on the Other Side of the Political Spectrum
Nazi Weapons Law of November 11, 1938
Do Jewish "leaders" want us all to be victims?
A Blueprint for Ending "Gun Control"
The Last of the BOHICANS -- How You've Been Conned into Surrendering Your Gun Rights, And How You Can Turn the Tables
How to Recognize a Skunk -- Would you like to better protect yourself against the propaganda and disinformation that masquerades as "news"?
The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment
A Psychiatrist explains "Raging Against Self Defense" (Why gun prohibitionists act the way they do) -- an essay by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
Look at all the states, The ones with the most crime are the ones that have the strict gun laws. IE NEW YOUR< CHICAGO< D>C
"A wise man is a man that realizes just how little he knows"
Another good book is "safeguarding liberty" which is a selection of essays compiled by Larry Pratt. That book is available from gun owners of america(GOA) www.gunowners.org
Personally, I find it easier to reach people on the right of defense issues, rather than a second amendment argument. There will always be someone arguing the meaning of the second amendment, while it is very difficult for someone to argue you do not have a right to defend and preserve your life.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
Topic
Josey1
Advanced Member
4651 Posts Posted - 07/29/2002 : 09:13:30
Guns and violence
Note: The following is the first of a two-part series
Blaming violence on guns and fanning hysteria over accidental deaths to children from firearms are staples of anti-gun propaganda. Media help gun-control zealots spread false information that gun ownership and self-defense are certain paths to injury and death. Handgun Control, Inc., gives erroneous advice that if you are attacked, the best way to avoid injury "is to put up no defense." Anti-gun zealots blame the actions of criminals on guns and argue that disarming law-abiding gun-owners is the best way to reduce the crime rate.
Scholars such as Gary Kleck, Don Kates and John Lott have demonstrated the falsity of these claims. Now comes an important new book from Harvard University Press. "Guns and Violence" by Bentley College history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm brings new evidence that guns reduce violence. Malcolm's carefully researched book is a study of guns and violence in England from the Middle Ages through the present day. When the English were armed to the teeth, violent crime was rare. Now that the English are disarmed, violent crime has exploded. Indeed, crime in England is out of control.
Offering instruction for the United States, the English experience will be covered in a subsequent column. Malcolm presents many facts about guns and violence in America, and it is to these we turn first.
Did you know that water is 19 times more dangerous to a child than a firearm? In 1996, 805 children died from accidental drownings and 42 died from firearm accidents. (Gun-control zealots inflate "child" firearm deaths by including teen-age drug-gang members killed in turf battles.)
Bathtubs are twice as dangerous to children as guns. Fire is 18 times more dangerous to children than guns. Cars are 57 times more dangerous. Household cleaners and poisons are twice as dangerous.
Did you know that defensive gun use prevents far more crimes than the police? National polls of defensive gun use by private citizens indicate that as many as 3.6 million crimes annually are prevented by armed individuals.
In 98 percent of the cases, the armed citizen merely has to brandish his weapon. As many as 400,000 people each year believe they saved a life by being armed. Contrary to Handgun Control's propaganda, in less than 1 percent of confrontations do criminals succeed in taking the gun from the intended victim.
Did you know that the testimony of incarcerated felons supports the large number of defensive gun uses? Thirty-four percent of felons said they were scared off, wounded or captured by victims who turned out to be armed.
Convicted felons say that they are more deterred by armed victims than by the police. In the United States, where roughly 50 percent of households are armed, only 13 percent of burglaries occur with residents at home. In contrast, in Britain, where homeowners are disarmed, 50 percent of home burglaries take place with the residents present.
Gun-control zealots claim that the availability of guns is the primary cause of homicides. Between 1973 and 1994, the number of guns in private ownership in the United States rose by 87 million. During this period, both the homicide rate and the percent of homicides committed with firearms dropped.
Another test of the relationship between guns and violence is provided by the concealed-carry laws now in force in 33 states. Gun-control zealots predicted that traffic accidents and other altercations combined with an armed public would result in a bloodbath.
Malcolm confronts this false prediction with empirical evidence: "In all the decades of experience with concealed-carry laws in an increasing number of states, there is only one recorded incident of the use of a permitted handgun in a shooting following a traffic accident, and that was determined to be a case of self-defense."
The 17 states and the District of Columbia without concealed-carry permits enjoy an 81 percent higher rate of violent crime. Their restrictive gun laws produced 1,400 more murders, 4,200 more rapes, 12,000 more robberies and 60,000 more aggravated assaults.
Malcolm disproves the claim that family members are the main victims of gun ownership. This myth results from FBI reports that most victims are "known" to the murderer. In the category of "known to the murderer," the FBI includes members of rival drug gangs, prostitutes and their pimps and even cab drivers killed in robberies by "customers."
Far from the picture of hot-tempered spouses turning the family firearm upon one another in moments of rage, it turns out that 90 percent of adult murderers have prior criminal records involving major felonies. Three-quarters of juvenile murderers and their victims have an average of 10 prior criminal arraignments.
The English Bill of Rights guarantees English citizens "arms for their defense." Politicians and bureaucrats stole this right from the people by subterfuge. In England today, only outlaws have guns. Sens. Lieberman, McCain and Schumer are working to duplicate the English calamity by stealing gun rights from the American people. Do these three senators represent the criminal lobby? Are they trying to create a black market in guns?
"A wise man is a man that realizes just how little he knows"
I Refuse to be a VictimGrumpy old man
Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of All Those that Threaten it
Gun control people rely upon a few high court cases, which they badly misquote and misrepresent, as interpreting the Second Amendment differently from the First or Fifth to define, not an individual "people's" right, but a right intended only for state-sponsored organized militia groups. Recently, court cases have rectified decades of misinterpreted past court decisions by clarifying that the Second Amendment does indeed describe a right of the individual.
Another way you can tell the gun controllers are making it up as they go along is that they are hung up on words like "sporting purpose" and "hunting." If you will please re-read the Second Amendment at this point, you will be struck by the fact that the amendment concerns itself entirely with defense, moreover, militia-style defense, for the people. (Remember the minutemen?) What this implies is that the guns most likely protected by the Second Amendment are NOT those for hunting or sport, but those designed for and appropriate to a "militia," or military purpose. In other words, the very small arms which the gun controllers find so heinous and lacking in redeeming value.
"Why," they shout sanctimoniously, "this gun has NO PURPOSE BUT TO KILL PEOPLE!" as if that were a no-brainer indictment. But of course, per the Second Amendment, that is the very point of the armed citizen. By the way -- what good would an organized militia be, or the National Guard, if it WERE the militia described in the Second Amendment, if armed only with guns "suitable to a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose, and limited to 10 round magazines"? Not much, of course. So what guns does the amendment protect for the people's militia? The answer is self-evident.
Would you rather defend your neighborhood block from a riot or looters with a) a cowboy six-shooter, or b) a modern carbine? If you do not pick b), you are being silly. The Second Amendment, if it protects anything at all, protects many guns that organized gun control groups hve banned or would like to ban. They wish "the people" to have only hunting and sporting guns. IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THIS, THEY HAVE TO CLAIM THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO US -- because it is all about militia guns. They wish to reserve modern defensive guns to the police and the military. Yet it is not at all clear that the police may legally possess weapons which are available to the military but unavailable to the public.
Now re-read the Second Amendment one more time and tell me these gun ban groups haven't got it exactly backward....
If you are willing to research back a number of pages in the posts on this board, you will find discussions of the specific court cases from the 1930s to today which supposedly give gun controllers their leg to stand on for limiting access to guns. One important case had to do with whether a sawed off shotgun was a military weapon or not, and therefore qualified as a militia gun. It was, but the accused was without benefit of counsel and lost his case. You will find that such cases as this were never intended to be interpreted as they have been misapplied.
Much of gun control legislation only survives in the absence of a Supreme Court decision to strike it down. Mr. Ashcroft's recent direction to the DOJ, the FBI and the BATF, of course, is that there IS an individual right to keep and bear arms. The gun banners "how dare he" reaction is predictable but shrill, because Ashcroft is virtually a shoo-in to be right, if tested in the Supreme Court.
Ashcroft is merely cutting through the fog to the founding fathers' intent. But does the founding fathers' intent apply anymore, or are they merely an irrelevant anachronism?
The idea that the founding fathers' intent no longer matters in modern society holds no water either, and in fact is a dangerous line of thinking. Remember when Congress was preparing to try to impeach Bill Clinton? Where did they go to try to determine the exact meaning of terms like "high crimes and misdemeanors?" They very reverentially turned to careful research -- of the original intent of the founding fathers who wrote those words. Congress knows where to look, when it needs doing, as do the courts. They can't have a double standard. Either the founding fathers' intent matters when interpreting the Constitution, or it does not. It cannot be vital in one case and quaintly obsolete in another.
As for the 20,000 gun control laws which have sprung up since the 30s, when the FBI became concerned about mobsters' adoption of the famed Tommy gun, the founding fathers had a healthy mistrust of lawyers. They would be shocked and horrified to discover that we have come to a point where a law degree is assumed to be almost a prerequisite for competence to be elected to high office.
Perhaps the most compelling argument against gun control to me is the very genius of the Constitution itself -- it was designed to last for centuries, through a wide variety of human social circumstances. It may seem convenient to one generation to tinker with it, or eliminate some seemingly outdated provision, and then along comes a disaster like the L.A. riots, the California earthquakes, a Florida hurricane, a Miwest tornado, racial unrest, serial murder spree, or terrorist activity, and we find ourselves very glad indeed that we still have the rights available to us in times of need. The Bill of Rights was not designed for the convenience of one or two self-centered generations -- it was designed to weather many unforeseen social conditions, and does so brilliantly. Any rights we voluntarily give up may cause our grandchildren to curse us for fools. The Second Amendment is no more "outdated" than the First. It in fact helps to guarantee that the First will not be taken too.
Just some quick thoughts. You will have an easier time proving the Second Amendment is an individual right than trying to research a case for the other side, because the evidence is all there in the time line of history, in a very few court cases. Keep in mind that the "right" is confirmed in the Amendment's complete sentence. The reason for assuring the right is explained in the subordinate clause which precedes it. Whatever you make of the rationale expressed in the subordinate clause, the "right" is confirmed or codified to "the people" in the complete sentence which ends "shall not be infringed." And again, nowhere does hunting or sporting purpose enter the equation. It's all about military-style defense of themselves. Which today means weapons sufficient to repel enemies foreign or domestic -- hence, "black rifles." The gun controllers have it remarkably backward, haven't they? They'd like to grant us the "privilege" to keep hundred-year old technology for some sporting purpose only, and limit our loading to five or ten rounds only.
Tell me, if Richard Ramirez entered your family's home in the middle of the night, what would you rather be holding to stave off the inevitable assault?
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Edited by - offeror on 07/29/2002 23:06:12
There are really deeper philosophical issues which determine people's positions on "gun control". It is not surprising that those in favor of gun control are also normally "left" in their politics--it's a whole "approach" toward life, a "philosophy" which guides people in their attitudes.
The issue of "rights" is key to understanding the gun debate. "A right" most simply defined is a "just claim"--it designates "ownership". When I say you have a right to your property, I'm saying you own it. When I say you have a right to your life, I'm saying you own youself.
This idea about people having "rights" was a fairly new concept in government when this country's Founding Fathers included The Bill of Rights in the Constitution. People were, at that time, normally considered "a subject" of some "royality figure". The concept of "rights" predates the Constitution (the ancient Greeks debated such issues), but the birth of the USA saw a wholesale implementation of the concept.
If we start with the premise that "a person owns him or herself", then it follows that someone trying to coerce another with violence or threats of bodiliy harm is not recognizing the "self-ownership" which people posess--one person initiating violence toward another is violating the rights of his victim.
Since every person "owns himself" (I won't use the "politically correct" "him or herself" everytime), and can own "stuff", it follows that "ownership of weapons" is also "acceptable".
A person has the right to own tools. (period)
A firearm is a tool. (Whether used for individual self-defense, or to defend against a criminal government, or for hunting, or target shooting, makes no difference.)
Those who are in favor of gun control, either do not "think in terms of rights" (the "left" has extremely "muddled" thought processes--everything is spur-of-the-moment "emotion" with them), or are actually opposed to the concept of "people owning themselves". The concept behind socialism is that people are effectively "the property of the all-powerful state".
Those who are "against guns" are either "afraid" of them (they are powerful tools) or believe that "nobody, but the all-powerful state should own them".
That's all I have time for, but I hope you get the idea that the "gun debate" is actually a debate about deeper philosophical/political issues.
Make a copy of the paper you're working on ,this is an excellent teaching aid, and shoot six holes into it. Use it for your cover sheet. Start by informing those against gun ownership that this is what someone intent on doing you harm can expect. In turn asked them what the rapist, murderer, robber, or pervert can expect from them?
Good luck with your paper.
www.waveformwear.com
The new wave in free expression.
Bravo, sir. You have taken us back to the point at which we adopted the concept of basic human rights, as opposed to being subjects of a King, and that is the correct place to start. The founding fathers had a conscience, an inner voice, that told them that there were certain rights human beings are entitled to -- self-ownership means the right not to be a slave, and more importantly it means the right in general not to be victimized, whether by rapists, muggers, bullies, killers, government storm troopers, or any other type of attacks on one's personal freedom and basic self-respect. We tend to lump this vitally important belief under the term "the right of self defense." We believe you must have, or are entitled to have, weapons sufficient to repel an offense. If that offense comes from an armed entity, one MUST, by definition of this doctrine of basic American human freedom, have the right to a weapon at least equal to that of the attacker, and preferably decidedly superior.
I would summarize by adding an additional corollary to your point. The rights of ownership that this country champions as basic human rights extend not only to the right to property and the right to self-ownership, but the right to self defense, and defense of family as well.
When we champion human rights, democracy, and personal freedom in foreign countries, we often arm the people so they can free themselves from tyranny. It makes no less sense to maintain in this country the freedom of the people to arm themselves against aggression foreign or domestic. Now that our greatest danger, other than natural disaster and social breakdown, comes from the possibility of a low-tech terrorist attack, the right to effective personal small arms (not for hunting or sport) has never been more clearly justified.
No, you can't shoot an anthrax spore, and you can't shoot a van-load of fertilizer, but you CAN shoot an attacking terrorist, given the opportunity, before he releases his weapon of mass destruction. Don't forget that terrorists often have to overpower individual Americans in order for their plots to succeed. Just as they did, hand to hand, the pilots on four huge aircraft on 9/11. It is preposterous, and I believe un-American, to belittle or ridicule the concept of the need for personal arms in times like these. And, one more time, NOT hunting and sporting arms, but the very arms the banners love to ban. It is critical to understand what type of arms the Second Amendment protects, in order to understand just how far out of line current gun ban legislation has careened.
We do have the right to self-ownership, and personal freedom from assault. What we do not have is enough high court decisions striking down the nuisance patchwork of local prohibitions. Give us the tools and Americans can do the job. Disarm us, and expect the government and the police to protect us -- and you are guaranteed to have a homeland security system based on bloody mop-ups rather than prevention.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Edited by - offeror on 07/29/2002 22:02:43
One problem with talking about gun control is that far too many cliches and "buzzwords" have been over-used to argue the issue.
True communication comes with fresh presentation.
I hope we have been able to introduce some of the supporting facts to you in a way that is fresh enough to help you and your readers learn something about the issue that they may not have appreciated before. We are not oddballs; we are merely Americans who may have grown up seeing guns as a tool, and have no superstitious fear of them instilled by Hollywood. I suggest you walk into a shooting range and fire off a few rounds. There is no better education in the "emotional" indoctrination we've all had through television and movies. I'll bet as you physically approach the range and hear the noise of other shooters practicing, your mind and body will experience some surprising involuntary reactions. There's nothing like a simple trip to the range to educate you for your paper. Just stop by a gun shop with a shooting range and listen to the noise. See if it doesn't make you "feel funny." Ask to pick up and hold one of the handguns behind the counter. Note your reaction. After you leave, ask yourself where you got those feelings. I think you will learn a lot on that little side trip, if you are not already a shooter. But with a name like gun-gal, you may be. But if so, you already know what I mean by this suggestion. A lot of modern society has a superstitious reaction to guns. That's the best way I know how to describe it. See if you don't agree.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Edited by - offeror on 07/29/2002 23:11:04