Gun Control

[EM45HP]

I have to write a research paper for my government class discussing three current issues, each parties view on them, and then tell my own view. My first issue is gun control. I do not support gun control. I was wondering if any of you INGOers have any statistics showing how more lenient carry laws led to lesser crime rates or any other interesting articles that support guns. Thanks in advance.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have to write a research paper for my government class discussing three current issues, each parties view on them, and then tell my own view. My first issue is gun control. I do not support gun control. I was wondering if any of you INGOers have any statistics showing how more lenient carry laws led to lesser crime rates or any other interesting articles that support guns. Thanks in advance.

Search is your friend! We've had lots of people come on with papers to write... Best link I can send you to is Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths. Great site. You'll also do well to look into books by Dr. John Lott, esp. "More Guns, Less Crime".

Good luck and let us know how you do!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[revsaxon]

Talk to NYFellon, I seem to remember he came here asking a very similar question.

 

[Double T]

Depending on how liberal your professor is...(9/10 of profs I had are super liberal) You may not get a great grade on any gun issues.

I would swing the "lock" issue for some states/sales of guns and how ineffective they are for "gun control" and then offer a rational and well versed alternative.

You say you are against gun control, perhaps you should urge the education aspect of firearm safety to keep children safe.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Depending on how liberal your professor is...(9/10 of profs I had are super liberal) You may not get a great grade on any gun issues.

I would swing the "lock" issue for some states/sales of guns and how ineffective they are for "gun control" and then offer a rational and well versed alternative.

You say you are against gun control, perhaps you should urge the education aspect of firearm safety to keep children safe.

Great suggestion. Again, lots of threads on here about training... I'm personally in the camp of "Training should be strongly encouraged, even incentivized, but never EVER mandatory to be 'allowed the privilege' of carrying a firearm."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

Depending on how liberal your professor is...(9/10 of profs I had are super liberal) You may not get a great grade on any gun issues.

I would swing the "lock" issue for some states/sales of guns and how ineffective they are for "gun control" and then offer a rational and well versed alternative.

You say you are against gun control, perhaps you should urge the education aspect of firearm safety to keep children safe.

College campuses are extremely liberal. The only way youre getting a good grade on this paper is if you write an extremely pro gun control paper.

 

[Stschil]

College campuses are extremely liberal. The only way youre getting a good grade on this paper is if you write an extremely pro gun control paper.

I wouldn't make that a too generalized statement. I happen to know a History Prof at IU that is a major gun nut and shooting instructor.
There are also many colleges that have Competition Marksmanship teams.

The NRA even has a Collegiate Program.

NRA Collegiate Shooting Programs

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

I wouldn't make that a too generalized statement. I happen to know a History Prof at IU that is a major gun nut and shooting instructor.
There are also many colleges that have Competition Marksmanship teams.

The NRA even has a Collegiate Program.

NRA Collegiate Shooting Programs

They have guns in Bloomington?

 

[jgreiner]

I have to write a research paper for my government class discussing three current issues, each parties view on them, and then tell my own view. My first issue is gun control. I do not support gun control. I was wondering if any of you INGOers have any statistics showing how more lenient carry laws led to lesser crime rates or any other interesting articles that support guns. Thanks in advance.

A good topic might be the denial of rights in Chicago of citizens to legally protect themselves from violence. Gun free zones are simply victim enhancement zones.

 

[jgreiner]

Depending on how liberal your professor is...(9/10 of profs I had are super liberal) You may not get a great grade on any gun issues.

I would swing the "lock" issue for some states/sales of guns and how ineffective they are for "gun control" and then offer a rational and well versed alternative.

You say you are against gun control, perhaps you should urge the education aspect of firearm safety to keep children safe.

I work with liberal professors every day. And they need to have their beliefs challenged (which I tend to do). For a grade, however, you are exactly right.

 

[Stschil]

They have guns in Bloomington?

Believe or not, yes. Every time I have to go to Menards from Martintuckey, at least.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

Believe or not, yes. Every time I have to go to Menards from Martintuckey, at least.

But I thought you had to drive a Prius to shop in Bloomington. You live in Martinsville, theres no way you drive a Prius! I call bull!

 

[Stschil]

But I thought you had to drive a Prius to shop in Bloomington. You live in Martinsville, theres no way you drive a Prius! I call bull!

You should see the disapproving looks I get when I pull up to the mall in my raised 4X4, INGO stickered , DIESEL, pick up. Then the averted eyes and children being ushered away when they see my OC'd sidearm. It's quite fun, actually.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

You should see the disapproving looks I get when I pull up to the mall in my raised 4X4, INGO stickered , DIESEL, pick up. Then the averted eyes and children being ushered away when they see my OC'd sidearm. It's quite fun, actually.

I also drive a lifted diesel and open carry at times.....The good people of Carmel dont like me a bit.

 

[Bill of Rights]

College campuses are extremely liberal. The only way youre getting a good grade on this paper is if you write an extremely pro gun control paper.

I work with liberal professors every day. And they need to have their beliefs challenged (which I tend to do). For a grade, however, you are exactly right.

Gentlemen, with respect, I must disagree. A member sought my advice and thoughts about a year, year and half or so ago on such a paper... His was quite adamantly against "gun control" by anyone other than the owner of the gun. He got an "A", as I recall, from his prof. I do not recall if he was at Purdue Calumet or at Ivy Tech, but I tend to think the former.

It depends less, I think, on the campus and more on the professor. One who is intellectually honest will grade the paper on the merits of the arguments, not on the points being argued.



(ETA: It was Purdue Calumet and he earned an 87%. Took me a while to find the PMs from almost two years ago.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[NYFelon]

I had an incredibly Liberal English Lit Prof. We had to do a persuasive argument research project. I chose the universal right to keep and bear arms by all free(d) men or women. I received an A+ on the paper. Unless your professor explicitly tells you that you can't do that subject, and you turn in a well reserached, well written project, he cannot fail you simply because he's a tree-hugging hippie.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I had an incredibly Liberal English Lit Prof. We had to do a persuasive argument research project. I chose the universal right to keep and bear arms by all free(d) men or women. I received an A+ on the paper. Unless your professor explicitly tells you that you can't do that subject, and you turn in a well reserached, well written project, he cannot fail you simply because he's a tree-hugging hippie.

I don't agree that he "can't", just that he "shouldn't". If he claims your logic is faulty (because he doesn't give credence to your cited sources), that would be a reason to lower your grade. Similarly, he could say that your paper is "not balanced" if it doesn't at least acknowledge the validity (he sees) in the anti- point of view.

There are many ways a prof can find to fail you... This is not to say that they are all ethical, of course, only that they exist.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Stschil]

I don't agree that he "can't", just that he "shouldn't". If he claims your logic is faulty (because he doesn't give credence to your cited sources), that would be a reason to lower your grade. Similarly, he could say that your paper is "not balanced" if it doesn't at least acknowledge the validity (he sees) in the anti- point of view.

There are many ways a prof can find to fail you... This is not to say that they are all ethical, of course, only that they exist.

Blessings,
Bill

Ethics is about as nasty and distasteful to Liberals as it gets. Ranks right up there with such concepts as Personal Responsibility, Gun Ownership, Individual Freedoms and Small Government.

It would be interesting to write such a paper. I think I would entitle it, "Gun Control, The Emotional Arguement". With such a statement in the title, it would be fairly easy to weight the cited resources heavily to the Anti side, yet reach the conclusions, I believe correctly, that restrictive laws and regulations have increased and even promoted violent crime and firearm related incidents and restricted the law abiding individual's ability to react and/or protect themselves from the elements of society that the Antis claim would be non-existent should possession of firearms be outlawed. Also, it could be shown where the concept of Gun Control reared it ugly head. To further promote the idea that one race was not a equal, valid, and responsible part of the American Society and to control them.

 

[NYFelon]

I don't agree that he "can't", just that he "shouldn't". If he claims your logic is faulty (because he doesn't give credence to your cited sources), that would be a reason to lower your grade. Similarly, he could say that your paper is "not balanced" if it doesn't at least acknowledge the validity (he sees) in the anti- point of view.

There are many ways a prof can find to fail you... This is not to say that they are all ethical, of course, only that they exist.

Blessings,
Bill

Fair point. I suppose I was operating under the assumption that we were discussing purely the quality of the work, not extraneous circumstances such as unethical punitive reaction. I can fairly say my paper was not balanced. Not because I did not give voice to my "opposition" but that I crushed the main points of contention with data, and a sprinkling of founding wisdom where appropriate. We disagreed entirely, and he was definitely a tree-hugging hippie. Honestly, he was a great prof and I'd take him again. Politics or not.

 

[NYFelon]

Ethics is about as nasty and distasteful to Liberals as it gets. Ranks right up there with such concepts as Personal Responsibility, Gun Ownership, Individual Freedoms and Small Government.

It would be interesting to write such a paper. I think I would entitle it, "Gun Control, The Emotional Arguement". With such a statement in the title, it would be fairly easy to weight the cited resources heavily to the Anti side, yet reach the conclusions, I believe correctly, that restrictive laws and regulations have increased and even promoted violent crime and firearm related incidents and restricted the law abiding individual's ability to react and/or protect themselves from the elements of society that the Antis claim would be non-existent should possession of firearms be outlawed. Also, it could be shown where the concept of Gun Control reared it ugly head. To further promote the idea that one race was not a equal, valid, and responsible part of the American Society and to control them.

Took me a while to find this one again.

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

- Cesare Beccaria (1738 - 1794)