PDA

View Full Version : School Paper


Over-Kill
12-13-2007, 10:15 PM
Heres a paper about gun laws I quickly wrote for my philosophy class. Feel free to add any comments youd like, I dont hafta turn it in till Friday the 14th at midnight.



Final Paper

Introduction:
The goal of this essay is to convince the reader the gun laws should be amended to be less severe. This debate has been going on probably since the invention of the firearm. To get started lets first clarify some terms and definitions. By ‘guns’, I mean any firearm that is, or could be, considered a weapon that discharges (shoots) a projectile (bullet) via gunpowder. The term ‘laws’, obviously refers to legal regulations or restrictions to the current topic. Also, I will be referring to the owning, collecting, shooting of guns, and hunting, as a hobby, similar to the hobby of collecting baseball cards. Finally, ‘less severe’, in this case, means allowing more leniencies. The conclusion of this essay is that gun laws should be amended to allow more freedom in said hobbies.

One assumption:
There would be less crime, if firearm regulations were less severe. A criminal would be more hesitant about committing a robbery in a bank, if he/she thought about the possibility that someone in the bank, or more that one person in there, might be carrying a weapon. Think how much less crime there would be, if more stories were reported of “A bank robbery going wrong, due to a civilian pulling a gun on the robber”, or “Rapist shot yesterday by armed victim”. Matter a fact, every month in the American Rifleman magazine, there are stories straight from the newspaper, of such occurrences. Also, let us look at Washington DC, where very strict gun control is enforced, and how the murder rate is 69 per 100,000. Yet in Indianapolis, where there is less gun control, the murder rate is 9 per 100,000. Although, not all states have such anti-gun laws, there are some that have “Right-to-Carry” laws, 38 in total. According to the NRA (www.nraila.org), the number of privately owned firearms – including “assault weapons”, have raised by five million a year since the mid-sixties. Also, let us note that violent crime in the United States has also DECLINED in the last twelve years straight, thirty-five percent overall. That is a twenty-seven year low.
An obvious counter argument would be that there are a “numerous” amount of gun related deaths each year. According to the Justice Department, there were 28,874 firearm related deaths in 1999. For example, in such an event that a bank robbery in progress was attempted to be stopped by an armed citizen, could result in a death of an innocent victim. And this is a good point. Another good point is that is it worth the risk of taking a life (or lives) for the sake of money, in the case of a robbery. And lastly, an armed citizen could start taking this power too far. What I mean is, that said vigilante or self appointed doer of justice could get out of control and cause more chaos in a community, by spreading fear among the people. This would definitely not be good.

Second assumption:
According to the Constitution, which is supposed to be strong and never changing, we the people LEGALLY have the right to not be deprived of life, liberty or property (5th Amendment), and have the right to keep and bear arms (2nd Amendment). So basically, if gun laws are to proceed in becoming more and more restrictive, soon all guns and ownership of guns will be completely banned. And that right there is depriving us of our Constitutional rights. As most anti gun law supporters would argue, that when it says “a well regulated militia”, it is referring to the National Guard. How could this be, when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1787, and the National Guard was not created until 1917, 130 years later? Also, not only would our constitutional rights be deprived, but also our sense of history. As gun laws get more severe, fewer guns are allowed, and pretty soon collections nation wide will be destroyed. Guns that are apart of our history, apart of the battles fought for our freedoms, to have such said rights.
Although, as far as the argument about being able to protect our families goes, there is an opposing view to that. That view would be that, for the safety of humanity, and with the advancements in technology, there must as is better ways to protect ourselves and others. Such ways could include pepper spray, tasers, and mace. Although, with the drugs that a lot of criminals can get hold of, such as speed which raises stamina, a hit with a taser might not keep them off for long, where as a .357 hollow point will. Not too mention, the sound of a shell being racked in a pump-action shotgun, will deter most criminals as well, drugged up or not.

Third assumption:
Putting more restrictions on gun laws, will put more restrictions on gun collectors, target and competition shooters, hunters, and all around gun enthusiasts. This in turn, will lead to more and more gun related deaths due to the specific occurrence of miss handled firearms. What I mean by this is that these laws infringe on the ability of people to learn how to properly use firearms. Take for example, automobiles. First off, I would like to say that I can almost guarantee that there are more vehicle related deaths then gun related. According to United States Department of Transportation, there were over 43,300 traffic deaths in 2006. Compared to the 28,874 firearm relate deaths in that same year (www.ojp.gov US Department of Justice). So should we also infringe on peoples privilege to drive? So back on point, similar to guns, if people were not taught how to properly handle a vehicle, I am sure that number of car related deaths would probably almost double. Same goes for the gun related deaths number.
Fourth assumption:
One of the arguments supporters of antigun laws use is that rifles with detachable magazines, pistol grips, and single shot capabilities are “dangerous” and “high powered”. Yet first of all, the so called “assault rifles”, are actually less powerful then let’s say a hunting rifle. The assault rifles banned, such as the AR-15, shoot 5.56 mm ammo, which in comparison to a hunting rifle round (7.62mm) is a lot smaller and less powerful. Also, these rifles have said features, such as pistol grips, and fore grips, for the same reason, hammers and computer mice are designed, for comfortability while operating.

Fifth assumption:
America could just turn out healthier if less hunting restrictions existed. How does this relate you ask? Well, anyone who has worked in the food business will tell you about all the preservatives and chemicals put in our food that we eat everyday. Those chemicals do not make us any healthier, matter a fact they do the opposite. In October of 1993, Judith Foulke of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration wrote an article on the effects of food preservatives and our health, linking them to many health problems. So, as I was saying, if more people hunted for their own food, and ate it fresh without all those chemicals, maybe America wouldn’t be considered so “unhealthy”. Yet, animal rights activist and anti gun activists alike, would both consider this way of thinking as inhumane. They would mention how there would be a highly likely chance of an over-killing of the animals and possible endangerment or extinction. But, if professional hunters, animal experts and land management workers came together, I am sure they could come up with the right amount of balance. I mean, in states like Louisiana, some animals are targeted to maintain a balance, maybe allowing another species to thrive. Hunting isn’t always about getting that trophy, or getting that nice slice of meat, it’s sometimes about keeping equilibrium among nature.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, I would like to make it clear that I do believe some gun control is a good thing. Laws such as the waiting period, a person must wait a total of ten days before receiving a firearm once purchased. Also, requiring a background check prior to every sale or distribution of a firearm, as well as not allowing any criminal to legally buy a weapon. And finally, having the law that all firearms be registered through the government and also licenses be mandatory to carry a firearm in public. These laws I do feel important to obtain. Because with out some sort of control, there would be consequences to not having any gun laws. Like some mentioned earlier, vigilantes going out of control, a possible over killing or imbalance of game species (deer, bore, etc.), possibility of more guns in hands of criminals, more ‘of the moment’ murders due to lack of waiting periods, and the list goes on. What needs to happen, in my point of view, is for both sides of the dilemma, to suspend all judgment of the matter. What I mean is both left and right politicians need to put aside their pride and biases, and discuss what laws are necessary to for the protection and safety of the people, and what laws just hinder a hobby that could potentially keep kids from doing other activities such as drugs, or sitting in doors all the time playing video games.

Work Cited:
www.NationalGunForum.com
CLASS (Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting Shooters) www.c-l-a-s-s.net
NRA-ILA (National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action) www.nraila.org
Jonathans Bell’s, More Gun Control Now, June 2007
Bruce Gold’s, Ten Good Reasons to Ban Guns, 2002
(www.ojp.gov US Department of Justice)
Judith Foulke, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, A Fresh Look at Food Preservatives, October 1993
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, M-W.com
www.dot.gov

dasmi
12-13-2007, 10:21 PM
I think your conclusion is flawed, and plain wrong. Getting a license for a right recognized by the constitution means that the right is otherwise denied. Which is unconstitutional. Gun laws don't prevent crime. Criminals ignore laws by definition.

Shotgun Man
12-13-2007, 10:31 PM
As my grandma used to say, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all."

CavTrooper
12-13-2007, 10:48 PM
Heres a paper about gun laws I quickly wrote for my philosophy class. Feel free to add any comments youd like, I dont hafta turn it in till Friday the 14th at midnight.
....snip....

You might do well in the class, but you fail in the understanding of rights and freedoms. You actually agree with 10 day waiting periods? You agree with licencing for ownership? Damn son, youve been indoctrinated.
Your paper appears to have been written from the anti-gunner perspective.

Grouch
12-13-2007, 11:05 PM
epic failure?

really though, no paper should start with "It is my goal". Have you been instructed to break your paper into sub-titled sections? If not get rid of them. Also you're citation is way wrong for any sort of formal paper.

oaklander
12-14-2007, 12:01 AM
Here's an edited version of the first paragraph. Is this for HS or college?

"Gun laws should be amended to be less severe."

The goal of this essay is to convince the reader the gun laws should be amended to be less severe. This debate has been going on probably since the invention of the firearm. To get started lets first clarify some terms and definitions. By ‘guns’, I mean any firearm that is, or could be, considered a weapon that discharges (shoots) a projectile (bullet) via gunpowder. The term ‘laws’, obviously refers to legal regulations or restrictions to the current topic. Also, I will be referring to the owning, collecting, shooting of guns, and hunting, as a hobby, similar to the hobby of collecting baseball cards. Finally, ‘less severe’, in this case, means allowing more leniencies. The conclusion of this essay is that gun laws should be amended to allow more freedom in said hobbies.

BlueOvalBruin
12-14-2007, 12:12 AM
Welcome to calguns, Over-Kill.

Over-Kill, I have many gripes with your paper. It needs mucho editing.

1. Your thesis is weak and you don't support it very well.
2. Please don't use the first person (I, me, etc.)
3. The essay flows like jello. If you write your statements clearly to start with, you don't need to make momentum-killing clarifications later on (esp in the intro).
4. "First off, I would like to say that I can almost guarantee that there are more vehicle related deaths then gun related."
"This debate has been going on probably since the invention of the firearm."
Don't write "probably" and quit making guarantees, you're not selling brake pads.
5. You misspelled boar.
6. "By ‘guns’, I mean any firearm that is, or could be, considered a weapon that discharges (shoots) a projectile (bullet) via gunpowder."
Yikes, leave out the weapon comment and exchange "firearm" for mechanical device.
7. Why are you giving the opposing viewpoint? Are you required to?
8. Citations are a mess, in-paper and the Works Cited list.

These were just a few of my suggestions. I'm sorry if I sounded like a total d!ck (former TA). I'm in the middle of a move so I don't have time to elaborate on them all. Good luck.

tombinghamthegreat
12-14-2007, 12:15 AM
You should read my debate that i posted, it may help your paper and enlighten you on the matter. Also there are sources that i posted which should save you time.

oaklander
12-14-2007, 12:19 AM
Here's the second paragraph. Try using shorter sentences and shorter paragraphs. Link them together with words like "therefore" and "subsequently." Try to stay on point, and on message. Don't use "he/she." Use "he" since most shooters are men.

One assumption:

If firearm regulations were less severe, there would be less crime.

For example, common sense dictates that a criminal would be less likely to commit a robbery if he thought that the victim might be carrying a weapon.

As a matter a fact, every month in the American Rifleman magazine, there is a section that outlines the numerous instances of where armed citizens have stopped armed criminals.

The above evidence is anecdotal, but it is backed up by solid statistics. For example in Washington DC (where very strict gun control is enforced) the murder rate is an incredible 69 per 100,000.

Yet in demographically similar Indianapolis, where there is much less gun control, the murder rate is only 9 per 100,000.

In fact, this trend is nationwide.

According to the NRA (www.nraila.org), the number of privately owned firearms have increased every year since the mid-sixties. Yet violent crime in the United States has actually declined during this same period.

If guns caused crime, one would expect violent crime to increase. Yet this is not the case. If anything, the above indicates that there is no solid link between the number of firearms in circulation and violent crime.

[Here you would put something about John Lott's work, etc.]

One assumption:
There would be less crime, if firearm regulations were less severe. A criminal would be more hesitant about committing a robbery in a bank, if he/she thought about the possibility that someone in the bank, or more that one person in there, might be carrying a weapon. Think how much less crime there would be, if more stories were reported of “A bank robbery going wrong, due to a civilian pulling a gun on the robber”, or “Rapist shot yesterday by armed victim”. Matter a fact, every month in the American Rifleman magazine, there are stories straight from the newspaper, of such occurrences. Also, let us look at Washington DC, where very strict gun control is enforced, and how the murder rate is 69 per 100,000. Yet in Indianapolis, where there is less gun control, the murder rate is 9 per 100,000. Although, not all states have such anti-gun laws, there are some that have “Right-to-Carry” laws, 38 in total. According to the NRA (www.nraila.org), the number of privately owned firearms – including “assault weapons”, have raised by five million a year since the mid-sixties. Also, let us note that violent crime in the United States has also DECLINED in the last twelve years straight, thirty-five percent overall. That is a twenty-seven year low.
An obvious counter argument would be that there are a “numerous” amount of gun related deaths each year. According to the Justice Department, there were 28,874 firearm related deaths in 1999. For example, in such an event that a bank robbery in progress was attempted to be stopped by an armed citizen, could result in a death of an innocent victim. And this is a good point. Another good point is that is it worth the risk of taking a life (or lives) for the sake of money, in the case of a robbery. And lastly, an armed citizen could start taking this power too far. What I mean is, that said vigilante or self appointed doer of justice could get out of control and cause more chaos in a community, by spreading fear among the people. This would definitely not be good.

PanzerAce
12-14-2007, 12:41 AM
for you guys talking about I/me/my, there are actually times when it is appropriate to use it in papers, especially if it is an argumentative/position/whatever the word is that I can't think of right now

tombinghamthegreat
12-14-2007, 12:46 AM
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=129548261&blogID=335740576

CCWFacts
12-14-2007, 12:55 AM
I think your conclusion is flawed, and plain wrong. Getting a license for a right recognized by the constitution means that the right is otherwise denied. Which is unconstitutional.

That is not a widely-held view. All rights are subject to regulation. Even the Heller plaintiffs attorneys state clearly:

http://dcguncase.com/blog/faqs/

If the Second Amendment protects military weapons, how about weapons like surface-to-air missiles?

Many gun prohibitionists make wild claims that if the Second Amendment protects an individual right, courts would have to allow people to have their own flamethrowers or cruise missiles. This is nonsense. When interpreting constitutional rights, courts routinely draw lines between the permissible and the far-fetched. For example, our freedom of religion does not permit human sacrifice, and freedom of speech does not protect extortionate threats or disturbing the peace.

it is important to remember that the rights secured by the Second Amendment, like the rights secured by other portions of the Bill of Rights, are not absolute.

Librarian
12-14-2007, 2:47 AM
Urg. Should have posted this a week ago.

The goal of this essay is to convince the reader the gun laws should be amended to be less severe. Not a bad goal. In order to accomplish it, you would need to explain what laws already exist; presumably you live in California, so you would need both Federal and State laws.

That's a HUGE topic. Your scope is already too broad for the apparent form and length.
There would be less crime, if firearm regulations were less severe. A criminal would be more hesitant about committing a robbery in a bank, if he/she thought about the possibility that someone in the bank, or more that one person in there, might be carrying a weapon.This is quite enough for a paper of the size you offer. The issue is 'should the general public be more able to carry firearms outside of their homes (since it is already legal to carry them at home).'

If you were to narrow your topic to that, you might proceed as follows.

On this board, that would be CCW reform; that particular argument is one used by CRPA and others: we're all safer when criminals do not know who is armed. That's where the John Lott reference would come in- beginning in 1997, Lott and David Mustard published some work on the effects of changes to concealed carry laws (Journal of Legal Studies (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf) (v.26, no.1, pages 1-68, January 1997))

His following work - More Guns Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 1998 and 2000) expanded on the original paper, and caused a firestorm of criticism. Note that, on just this narrow part, Lott filled 165 pages excluding appendixes and notes!

The general conclusion one can support is that increased legal CCW does not make things worse - i.e. crime does not go up. One likely reason for that is people who will get a license are rather more law abiding than most, and statistics on the crimes committed by CCW holders bear that out. Another conclusion is that crime doesn't go down much; this is probably because very few people choose to get CCW - the numbers are under 5% of the eligible population in every state, I believe. Another cause is that many of the people who get CCW licenses were already carrying without them; there's no info on how many that might be, but it tends to mean that the net increase of 'good guys' carrying is smaller than the number of licenses issued. There is no evidence to suggest the number of 'bad guys' who carry changes after a state's CCW law changes, but that number is not easy to guess.

Recent events do show, however, that CCW is the only effective answer to nutcases who enter what they think is a 'gun free' zone and begin to kill. Most recently is Jeanne Assam, a civilian concealed weapons licensee, who stopped the killer at the New Life Church in Colorado. A few months back, an off-duty cop violated a mall's no-guns policy, and killed a shooter. You can research others fairly easily.

Little stuff: as posted, the version we see has a number of to/too kinds of errors. Print a copy, double spaced, and get a good reader to find those for you. At this time of night I don't have the energy.

Bigger stuff: please figure out why you think registration is valuable. I strongly disagree that it is.

Explain why a waiting period is valuable: if one already has a gun, what might be prevented by waiting for a second. How many crimes have been avoided because a person had to wait to get a gun? Who collects that data?

Over-Kill
12-14-2007, 8:35 PM
Man, I know I waited last minute. I have a bad habit of doin that, haha. But I do greatly apreciate all yall help. I took some of yall advise. Anyways, I thank you all again.

ohsmily
12-14-2007, 9:14 PM
Someone asked earlier, is this for high school or college?

If it is for college, which one?

aklover_91
12-14-2007, 9:39 PM
That is not a widely-held view. All rights are subject to regulation. Even the Heller plaintiffs attorneys state clearly:

http://dcguncase.com/blog/faqs/

And that conclusion is also flawed. A threat conveys intent to cause harm, and a sacrifice ends in loss of life, but owning a flame thrower or a bomb hurts no one. Just like the small arms many of us covet, they still require human input to operate, and are easily protected by the same logic and arguments.

None of us argue an AK will kill people without a man behind the trigger, and its absurd to think a rocket would do any different.

And if we all agree that it does protect our right to military weapons so that we may fight, imagine how impossible it would be able to fight a modern war with out even man portable anti armor and anti air weapons in the hands of at least some of the populations?

It don't Jive.

The right to bear arms is a RIGHT, not a priviledge.

wutzu
12-14-2007, 10:38 PM
Try to eliminate the verb "to be" any place you can. "Has been" "will be" "is" "are" etc. That will clean up plenty of your writing.

LECTRIKHED
12-14-2007, 11:13 PM
Stick with your studies. I only read the first paragraph. Some simple writing tips from my college experience. Leave yourself out the essay. You do not need to tell people what you will be telling them in the essay. Simply write what you mean, it comes out much stronger.

examples:

instead of: "The goal of this essay is to convince the reader the gun laws should be amended to be less severe."

Try: "Research has proven that gun control increases violent crime. In order to decrease violence in our society, we must re-evaluate our gun control laws and abolish those laws which disarm law abiding citizens."

or simply: "Gun laws should be amended to be less severe." by cutting off the front of the sentence it is much simpler and sounds stronger.


Stick to your studies. You will never regret education.

Over-Kill
12-15-2007, 8:16 PM
exactly, our teacher actually told us to start with "the goal of this essay.../", but your right, normally I wouldnt use that. Theres some other things that our teacher had us do, that I normally wouldnt of done.

Also, I do feel some sort of waiting period is ok. I dont mind waiting a couple days till I receive my gun. I mean, isnt thats whats wrong with a lot of Americas youth, that "instant gratification". There isnt any patience in the world anymore. Man, I remember having to wait till Christmas before I got any toy. Or how about always having to wait patiently till my brother was done with something, before I had a chance. But I guess thats just my upbringing.

Anyways, papers turned in now. Ill let yall know what I got on it. Again, appreciate all the help and advise!!!!

aklover_91
12-15-2007, 10:44 PM
But when you look into the logic of the waiting period, it doesn't really hold much water. Read around here some more, and hopefully we can change your mind about that :)

And even if it DID do something, it should be opposed on principle. The constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, and until the language is changed, crap like that ain't legal.

It's illegaly illegal to force a mandatory waiting period. Kinda like a double negative.

It's too bad grammar rules don't often get applied to the law.