PDA

View Full Version : Excerpt from my pro-gun term paper.


Supernam
04-11-2006, 8:19 PM
I wrote a term paper last quarter for a class titled American Socio-Legal Theory. It is primarily about how social science research is used in the courtroom. I wanted to share with you all a segment of my term paper. It is part of a mock brief that is opposing the SF gun ban. I selected this segment because it is the research part of my brief. My teacher was a self admitted bleeding heart liberal who was VERY anti gun. So I decided to write my paper from a pro gunner perspective. BTW, I got an A-. hehehe. I hope you all enjoy it.


III. Research Findings

In 2001, the National Opinion Research Center (NGPS) of the University of Chicago conducted the National Gun Policy Survey for the fifth year in a row to gather public opinions, attitudes, and trends on gun related topics. The data collected has been consistent with the previous years. The NGPS is a random-digit-dial telephone survey of 1,182 adults which represents the US population in the fall of 1999. It has a sampling variation of +/-3 and a response rate of 58.9 percent. The survey sho[w]s that 35-36% of respondents were gun owners and 22% contained a handgun. The data on respondents show that most gun owners are men, most are married, about 49% are college educated or more, and the trend is that gun ownership rises as income level rises; most gun owners earn $60,000 or more. The middle-aged (40-64 years of age) lead in carrying behaviors of handguns with permits and use. Most of the reasons behind gun carry are for shooting sports, while 30% of those who choose to carry do so for the purpose of personal protection. Carrying a gun is defined as taking a gun out of the home. 30% of all the respondents kept a gun at home as an anti-crime measure. The data shows that the typical gun carrier and gun owner feel that guns are needed for defensive purposes against crime. The Ordinance would therefore strip law abiding citizens of their means to self defense. It is obvious that most gun owners feel safer when they carry their guns or else they would elect not to. Forcing law abiding citizens to relinquish their guns will either make those who once owned guns feel more prone to victimization or will criminalize those who choose to retain their abilities to defend themselves. The question whether this perceived attitude that guns can protect their owners from victimization is at this point contingent on whether guns actually save lives. The following research will show that guns do indeed defend owners against victimization.

In 1993, Dr. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz conducted an extensive survey which concluded that there are 2.16-2.55 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year. The survey part of the study "National Self-Defense Survey" was an anonymous survey in which 4977 people were interviewed over the telephone. The survey was a random-dial survey conducted in 48 states to represent the entire U.S. population. Unlike past surveys, the Kleck-Gertz survey limited the DGU questions to within the last year or five years instead of asking “have you ever”. This eliminates the likelihood of respondents losing memories of incidents. Additionally, the survey limited DGUs to civilians and excluded occupational uses such as those by the military, police, or security. DGUs did not include those against animals. 222 of the 4799 respondents reported that they had at least one DGU in their household in the past 5 years. The figures were corrected for over sampling in some regions which drops the figures to 66 personal accounts of DGUs in the past year, which indicates that 1.326 percent of adults had experienced at least one defensive gun use. The figure was multiplied by 1.478 which is the average number of DGUs reported per DGU claimer for the previous year, and multiplied by the total adult population of the United States. An estimate of 2.55 million DGUs per year was concluded. Kleck and Gertz flagged questionable DGUs such as occupational uses, interviewer recording errors, when it was unclear if the respondent actually confronted the perpetrator, or if it was not recorded what specific crime was being allegedly committed. After throwing out the questionable respondents, the 2.16 million “conservative” figure was concluded. The claimed confidence rate was 95% +/- .32% for the 2.55 million estimate. Arguments that the figures are overestimates are that some respondents may have been pro-gun and constructed answers accordingly to their bias or perhaps the inclusion of events that happened before the time period that was questioned. While critics that claim the figures are underestimates cite that the survey did not ask about minors who had DGUs nor did it ask about DGUs for the sake of another person, rather only for self DGUs. Also some respondents may have reported false negatives in that they may have felt morally wrong by their decisions or those who fear of admitting a DGU for distrust of the interviewer or perhaps persecution. The underestimate arguments greatly outweigh the [over]estimate arguments. While the survey would never be able to compensate either way for false memories, it can only be true that had the survey included minors’ DGUs and DGUs for the sake of another person, the figures would have been greater. According to the 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics figures, 483,000 firearm crimes were reported to the police in 1996. Taking the Kleck and Gertz study into consideration, guns are used defensively up to five times more than they are criminally. We are still left to ask whether the benefits of legal gun ownership outweigh the drawbacks of gun ownership.

In an original study conducted by Professor John R. Lott, JR. and David B. Mustard of The University of Chicago published in 1997 in The Journal of Legal Studies titled “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns” findings suggest that states who adopt “shall issue” policies regarding the distribution of concealed carry permits for handguns, significantly deter violent crimes without increasing accidental deaths. The study employed county level data from 3,054 counties in all 50 states within the 16 year period from 1977-1992. The crime data used in the study was initially collected from local law enforcement agencies for use in the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report. Shall issue licensing laws are those that grant applicants to concealed carry handguns permits if the applicant is not disqualified for criminal reasons such as past felonies and some misdemeanors. States with restricted licensing laws are called “may issue”, and differ in that they require the applicants to be interviewed by the issuing agency to determine if the applicant has a need or cause to carry a concealed weapon. The Lott and Mustard study looked at crime rates leading up to the year that states adopted shall-issue carrying laws and they years following them to see if there were any effects. There was clearly a gradual increase in crime leading up to the year that they adopted shall-issue laws and crime rates were distinctly falling following the adoption of the new laws. To summarize the findings of the Lott and Mustard study, states that adopted shall-issue laws deter violent crimes including murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery. However, crimes in which the perpetrator has less of a chance of confronting an armed victim such as property crimes, larceny, and auto theft increased. Also, the study concluded that adoption of shall-issue policies did not have any effect on the number of accidental deaths. Lott and Mustard’s analysis suggests that the benefits of increasing the number of persons with concealed carry permits greatly outweigh negative effects, if any, on society. Lott and Mustard also estimate that if states that did not have shall-issue licensing laws were to adopt them, there would have been 1,570 fewer murders, 4,177 fewer rapes, and over 60,000 fewer aggravated assaults in 1992. They also estimate that the net annual economic gain would amount to $6.2 billion dollars in 1992. The major objection to Lott and Mustard’s research is that they did not actually show that the adoption of shall-issue policies caused violent crime to fall. Rather, it just showed that violent crime fell after the adoption of shall-issue policies. One is left to draw that conclusion. However, this survey still has weight in that it does not show gains in violent crimes after the laxation of gun carry as probably perceived by anti-gun liberals.

ohsmily
04-11-2006, 8:30 PM
I couldn't help myself and was particularly amused by this one "The underestimate arguments greatly outweigh the underestimate arguments." The arguments must have occurred in an alternate universe where like items don't equal each other.

where do you go to school?

Supernam
04-11-2006, 8:32 PM
LOL, sorry, this was the first draft. BTW, I'm not asking anyone to critique my work. I just wanted to share the research findings.

Mayhem
04-11-2006, 8:35 PM
He does that to every one.
You know the old black and white movies that show the grumpy old school teacher smacking kids with a ruler? ..... thats Ohsmily.

ohsmily
04-11-2006, 8:53 PM
LOL, sorry, this was the first draft. BTW, I'm not asking anyone to critique my work. I just wanted to share the research findings.

Just read Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime." Done.

Supernam
04-11-2006, 8:56 PM
Were you beat up a lot in elementary school or something?

Justang
04-11-2006, 9:25 PM
I think you had a comma splice someplace, along with a run on sentence that you. And since you had those imperfections in your essay, I will no longer read them. Nevermind what the paper meant, I'm too upset by the grammatical errors to go on reading it.

Good for you for sticking it to your professor. I had a professor who was anti-military. Being from a Navy and Airforce family, I felt compelled to write a pro-military essay. Of course my paper was much more grammatically correct than yours. But according to the other posters here... you're an idiot.



I hope you catch my sarcasm.
Good paper. "More Guns, Less Crime" is a great read.

Charliegone
04-11-2006, 9:43 PM
..and don't you dare say muzzle break to ohsmily! :D ;)

PanzerAce
04-11-2006, 9:53 PM
muzzle break muzzle break muzzle break muzzle break

:D

Justang
04-11-2006, 9:53 PM
http://www.brushycreekcollars.com/images/pics/72%20muzzle.jpghttp://www.shaneracing.com/Mazda_RX8_Big_Brake_Kit3.jpg

or am I way off base here?

Charliegone
04-11-2006, 10:10 PM
http://www.brushycreekcollars.com/images/pics/72%20muzzle.jpghttp://www.shaneracing.com/Mazda_RX8_Big_Brake_Kit3.jpg

or am I way off base here?

LOL.

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/1261.gif

socal57chevy
04-11-2006, 10:28 PM
..and don't you dare say muzzle break to ohsmily! :D ;)
What if I'm running with my Airsoft rifle and I fall down. If I landed on said rifle would the muzzle break?


Just for the record...I do not own an Airsoft rifle and am somewhat sure-footed.

CowtownBallin
04-11-2006, 10:30 PM
What if I'm running with my Airsoft rifle and I fall down. If I landed on said rifle would the muzzle break?


Just for the record...I do not own an Airsoft rifle and am somewhat sure-footed.

what if I'm French and I drop my rifle and the muzzle breaks? :D

PanzerAce
04-11-2006, 10:39 PM
what if I'm French and I drop my rifle and the muzzle breaks? :D

wait, a frenchie owning a rifle? why? they would never go shoot it, since the instant they got to the range they would wave a flag and run away :p

Note: I am part french myself, but I figure the German and Irish in me makes up for it :D

Justang
04-11-2006, 10:47 PM
Note: I am part french myself, but I figure the German and Irish in me makes up for it :D

Not really you flower loving, cheese eating, surrender monkey.

PanzerAce
04-11-2006, 10:51 PM
Not really you flower loving, cheese eating, surrender monkey.

fine, my Scots-Irish, Anglo Saxon, Pict, and German Heritage makes up for it.


For those that dont know, the Pict are the Scots that would paint themselves blue and run into battle nekkid. Andn any body (including me) with red hair came from that group.

Justang
04-11-2006, 11:03 PM
fine, my Scots-Irish, Anglo Saxon, Pict, and German Heritage makes up for it.


For those that dont know, the Pict are the Scots that would paint themselves blue and run into battle nekkid. Andn any body (including me) with red hair came from that group.

hmm, didn't know that about the Pict. I'm Irish, English, German, and Norweigan(I'm friggen WHITE!). My hair is brown, but my beard is pretty red in the sun.

accordingtoome
04-11-2006, 11:09 PM
LOL.

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/1261.gif


ohhhh i get it now.. muzzle brakes hahaha.. for the record this took 10 min to figure out.. :D

slo5oh
04-12-2006, 2:19 PM
It's all cheese brother.
You'll waste several hours (days?) of your life witing a fantastic paper and your lilly livered, yellow bellied, cry *** liberal of a teacher will give you a D just because he can.

Oh you can add in a "brainstorm" that konked me in the nogin the other day while arguing with a friend who's a lib. If the cry babies main arguement against the 2nd is that a "militia" has now been defined as a states "national guard", then why doesn't our Feral Gubment form a newspaper of it's own. Employ a few thousand people and call them "the press". Thus defining who the 1st amendment is now going to allow their "freedom of speech". ;)

EBWhite
04-12-2006, 2:25 PM
don't let ohsmiley see anything you say, he might call you a name.
Your (You're) asking for trouble when doing that....

kantstudien
04-12-2006, 4:02 PM
Paragraphs are your friend.

ohsmily
04-12-2006, 4:05 PM
Paragraphs are your friend.

I resisted that point as well.... :D

Jarhead4
04-12-2006, 4:23 PM
Good first draft!!

Do you know if there has been a study on how many gun owners have had formal training on the use of firearms. When I say formal training I am referring to training such as hunter safety or safe gun handling.