Help with college paper on Gun Control in CA

[kar6man]

I've got a paper on gun control in Ca that I'm working on right now. The assignment is to pick a controversial topic to write a research paper so that's how I have narrowed it down so far. I'm trying to come up with a couple good solid claims that will make all the leftys think long and hard. I just need a couple good points to use on the class discussion of my paper tomorrow. Thanks you for any help.

-Cody

[winnre]

The Gun is Civilization by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...
And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USM C (Ret)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

[UserM4]

I've come to realize that a lot of anti's are low on the IQ scale. They have no comprehension skills, do not understand anything rational you've said, so they ignore your logic and reply with their emotions. There is no getting through to them.

And the ones that can and do think, post misleading and incomplete data and not facts. And use the steamroller effect of the masses to weasel out of a head to head debate.

[lugar]

Check out this site. I think you'll find lots of good info.

http://www.gunfacts.info/

[Librarian]

I've got a paper on gun control in Ca that I'm working on right now. The assignment is to pick a controversial topic to write a research paper so that's how I have narrowed it down so far. I'm trying to come up with a couple good solid claims that will make all the leftys think long and hard. I just need a couple good points to use on the class discussion of my paper tomorrow. Thanks you for any help.

-Cody

Just as a general observation, try this: people who support gun control cannot describe what they hope to accomplish.

Here's what I mean: pick any law you or I would think was a gun control law. For now, let's pick '10 day wait before picking up a purchased gun'.

Why?

The law does NOT apply to intrafamilial transfer, so we know the legislators were not concerned with fathers and sons.

The law does not apply to 50-year old long guns. Real WW2 milsurps, proven effective man-killers, are exempt; mere deadliness must not matter.

The law DOES apply to people who already own guns, so it can't be aimed at preventing 'in the heat of anger' kinds of killings - why wait for the 'new' gun?

So, what is it supposed to do? What problem does it address? Are places that have such waiting periods different from places that do not? In what way are they different, if so?

No one will be able to give you a coherent answer.

If you think about it, you will be able to find similar defects in nearly every so-called gun control law. (I suspect you'll be able to do it with all of them, but I haven't thought about all of them, or even know all of them, so perhaps not all will be so amenable to destructive analysis.)

[develown]

Check out this site. I think you'll find lots of good info.

http://www.gunfacts.info/

WOW!!,

That is an outstanding source, and very well researched. Thanks

[tombinghamthegreat]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=297892

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=77784

here are two reports that i did that might be of some use to you. The recent one is more of a legal view of Heller/McDonald and the second one is more of a debate i did for my speech class.

[Nate74]

I would also suggest finding a news account of a female who fought off an attacker with a legally owned and carried (CCW) handgun in another state. Then ask the question "aren't CA women entitled to the same protections?"

The Armed Citizen in the NRA magazines might be a good source.

Whenever I'm having this conversation with an anti, this is more fun than you can believe to drop on them.

[MichaelKent]

In order to persuade people, it is important that you NOT distance or differentiate yourself from them with pejorative language like "lefties" or "liberals." The moment you start throwing out labels you lose credibility (and rightly so). The best method to persuade is to be understanding and humble, and direct their thoughts so that you help them reach your conclusions on their own. That's why famous con artists have said, "It's called a confidence game - not because you put confidence in me, but because I put confidence in you." It may be a little advanced, but the enthymeme is a powerful rhetorical tool...

You're going to need to be calm and reasonable, don't become impassioned or emotional. It may help to avoid philosophical or abstract concepts concerning the second amendment, the right to protect yourself, and so on... weaving claims of policy, value and fact together can be tricky. Focusing on facts which can be supported with solid evidence can make for a strong case. Be sure to explain how the evidence you present supports your claim (this is the "warrant" part of an argument structure), and be sure to ask rhetorical questions as it helps make their brain actively think.

A good example to use is Kennesaw Georgia and Morton Grove Illinois. In 1982 Morton Grove passed a law banning handguns for everyone except LEOs while Kennesaw passed a law making gun ownership mandatory! Everyone in Kennesaw had to own a gun and know how to use it. What happened In Kennesaw? Crime rate plummeted 74% the first year, and another 45% the year after while the population went way up. Homicide is almost nonexistent: there has only been one fatal shooting in 25 years - and the shooting perp wasn't a resident. They went from a troublesomely high crime rate to one of the lowest in the country.

What happened in Morton Grove following the gun ban? Crime went UP.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/738709/firearm_ownership_is_mandatory_for.html?cat=17

http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html

Now the opposition may bring up that conservative "red" states and cities have generally higher rates of murder, crime, rape, etc... that's technically true, but just point out that there is no demonstrated correlation with gun ownership (would be very indirect at best). Many of these areas are more dysfunctional for other reasons ranging from socio-economics to religion and so on. Again, the facts of Kennesaw GA is a direct correlation you can fall back on. Direct always trumps indirect or inferred.

Good luck!

[teflondog]

What will your hypothesis be? Gun control is a very broad subject and there are many aspects of gun control that you could write your paper on.

[Look Wat I kAn DO !]

I've got a paper on gun control in Ca that I'm working on right now. The assignment is to pick a controversial topic to write a research paper so that's how I have narrowed it down so far. I'm trying to come up with a couple good solid claims that will make all the leftys think long and hard. I just need a couple good points to use on the class discussion of my paper tomorrow. Thanks you for any help.

-Cody

I just finish doing a paper for my class as well.

Have you tried going to the library or to your schools library web site for sites such as. CQ reader? opposing view points?

What type of paper is it?
Compare and contrast
Argumentative
Analytical
Compare and contrast
Cause and effect