for all people against gun laws

[Eric]

hey guys, this is one of the papers i had to write this term and i wanted to know what yall think. any suggestions would be appriciated. keep in mind im only 14 years old so it might not sound too prfetional. thanx


Gun Control
When you hear the word “gun” does it make you fear the people around you? Do you wonder if the person next to you has a gun? Do they know how to use it? Or more importantly, would they use it to hurt someone? Gun laws attempt to solve this problem by ridding all firearms from the country. Sounds like a good idea… right? Well the truth is guns are apart of our life weather you agree with them or not. Three hundred thousand people defend themselves and their families each year with a firearm. The second amendment of the United States Constitution says “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms and shall not be infringed.” This means everyone has the right to own and handle a firearm. Plus criminals will not respond to these laws of firearms being illegal. They will still be able to get position of a gun no matter what anybody does. Great Britain’s crime rate actually rose 10% when all firearms were ban from the country. So of coarse we don’t need gun laws we just need to be lees careless. These are the reasons why I am against gun control in the United States. Everyone has the right to own a gun and should be able to practice there rights because defend, the constitution permits it, and gun laws will not work anyways.

Self-defense is becoming a growing fear all around the world. More and more crime is occurring and criminals are not going to stop willingly. People need a way to defend themselves and there families and a gun would do just that People feel safer with protection and therefore people lead more relaxed lives. However some people believe guns could fall into the hands of a child and cause an accident. Well this is a result of carelessness and there would be no one to blame but the owner. The accident could have been simply avoided by putting the weapon into a safe place. Endless amounts of home robberies occur every year. These crimes might not have not taken place if there was a gun present. If a criminal thinks there is a weapon of some sort in the house they would not even attempt the crime. So the gun stopped the crime before it even happened.

Our bill of rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing individual rights. How do I know this? The ninth amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This means we have other rights beyond what the constitution says and the government cannot take them away from us. So if gun laws take place the government would be going against the words of our fore fathers. Plus if the government takes guns away they would have to take away weapons from the armed forces to make it fair and to keep citizens from taking over the government, which the second amendment also states is legal. Then how would we defend ourselves under attack? So it is silly to think that only the armed forces should have guns.







A shot rings out through the projects. A man lies there screaming in agony as death comes near. No one comes to help for they fear they shall be in the same position. As the man with the gun runs away with regret the police catch him head on and was brought to justice but it was too late for the victim. Now do you think that either of these two men benefited from gun laws? I didn’t think so. It would be absolutely impossible to get rid of every single gun in the U.S. Criminals would still get guns one way or another. It’s always nice to think gun laws work and make the world a better place but they really don’t. There is one to two million unregistered guns just in the state New York even know they have a law that you have to register any firearm sold in that state. Why do you think France was invaded in World War 2? Its because gun laws were In affect. So gun laws obviously don’t work.

In conclusion I think people should be taught how to use weapons and should take classes on safety. I think criminals using guns unlawfully should be penalized more however everyone has the right to own and handle a gun and should practice their rights because guns defend, the constitution permits it, and gun laws will not work anyway.
So I leave you with only one question, is it guns that kill people or is it people that kill people?

[Seabass]

Hey, come up to Canada if you want to see what a waste gun control is. We have a regime (yes, regime) that instituted some insane gun control laws in this country. The original cost was quoted at $2million for this program. Estimates are running in the $5-8 billion range as to what it has actually cost us. Now if you were to give every person $5000 for each handgun they turned in...that's 1.4 -1.6 million hand guns off the street - you do the math. We've made criminals out of Farmer Joe and his 25 yr old winchester. A criminal will not register their gun...Again, a criminal will not register their gun. This was another blatant cash grab by our criminal federal gov't. And they get away with it. All we've been hearing up here is how much our federal gov't(regime) has stolen hundreds of millions of $$$ from us in the ADSCAM fiasco, JAne Stewart boondoggle, etc, etc, etc. Then I check the newspaper yesterday and what do I see? Liberals - 35%, PC 25%, NDP 10%. How can these criminals have any support? Oh yeah, they just passed a bill saying prisoners have the right to vote...I wonder why??? The truth is we have a federal government that would make any tinpot 3rd world dictator jealous... Canadians out there...it is time for a revolution...Let's use these guns for a useful purpose for a change. I'll leave you with this bit of wisdom...

" IF GUNS CAUSE CRIME - THAN PENCILS CAUSE MISSPELLED WORDS"

[ATC crazy]

Very well said. I myself, just finished writing an 8 page pursuasive essay of how I am against gun control. Im not going to re-write it here though...my fingers are already killing me from work. Did you also know that the armed robbery went up 300% (yes, three hundred percent) after Austraila established gun control? We need to get guns into law abiding citizens hands and out of the criminal's hands.

[Billy Golightly]

It is my firm and true belief if every able bodied person, regardless of age or sex was required to carry a gun, that there would be very very very little crime if any at all.


Whos going to walk in and rob a bank when theres 20+ people inside packing?

I'll tell you what, there wouldn't be any terrorists either.


I don't remember who said it, but "The most dangerous and deadly army in the whole world is an armed public"

[J.D.]

Welp we have a saying around here and it sums up how I feel. Gun control is being able to use both hands, shoot the thing and hit what your aiming at. That's my definition of gun control.

[TimSr]

Well done. The only thing Ill add is that crime rates in the US have actually been on the decline for the past 15 years while gun laws have vbeen relaxed while the crime rates in the UK, Australia and Japan have increased over the same time period while their gun laws have gotten more invasive in Australia to near basn in Europe, and total bans in Japan.

One other point you may want to explore is that each US state that has passed a concealed carry law has seen a sharp decline in crime way beyond the decline on the national average.

If you want some really good statistical evidence to make your case, look up the works of a guy named John Lott. He was a staunch prohibitionist until he decided to do research for an anti-gun book. Mr. Lott collected his data and analyzed it with an open mind. His finshed book was quite the opposite of his original intentions.

[Trikeaholic]

my favorite thing to say to an anti-gunner is "how about you put a sign in your front yard that says "proud to have a gun free home" "

I bet nobody does it!

[Wickedfinger]

AH-Men to that holic.

[3 weelin geezer]

Actually trikeaholic, I think they do. Its that protected by (.....) security company. As for something I learned last week is that there are people so stupid they will still try to break into a house with a known gun inside. Hell, I went to see the local class III dealer looking for the price of a Glock .45 today and he told me that there has been a few robbery attempts before. The most recent one was two years ago when a guy went in there to steal guns but his jammed and he ended up getting shot by the associates who carry .45's all the time. That just blew my mind. I think who would be stupid enough to go rob a gun store??? Hello, guns, ammo. Lots of guns and lots of ammo. More than you have. Not a good idea. 7-11 maybe, Bank of america not too bad of a haul with tellers that don't resist but a gun store??? That takes the cake.

[Billy Golightly]

Paul Harvey had a story a couple a years ago about a man trying to rob a gun store with a knife (I swear to God it was true!) The guy ended up getting shot and killed by the store owner from a 12 gauage shotgun.

[ScottZJ]

Well I agree to everything said here about the gun control issue. I do training classes for handgun permits here in TN sometimes. I tell the people that if they decide to purchase a gun then remember who you are voting for next time you vote. That could change wether you keep your gun or not.
I also have some great stats on states that have issued guns permits and the crime has fallen majorly. Look at Fla, the first 5 years they issued gun permits the fatal crime rate dropped 32.8%. I dont think it was cuz they added more police on the streets. Fact, where gun permits are legal, you hear alot less fatal crimes or crimes to individuals. There will always be the stupid ones out there, that no matter what they will do the crimes but they will end up paying alot earlier than used to..........peace

[Russell 350X]

I agree with everything said in your report. Nice work.

[Live4today]

This reminds me of the bumper sticker:

"Kids who trap, fish, and hunt, don't grow up to rob old ladies."

Makes you think doesn't it.

[Name Brand]

I have my own perspective mainly from growing up in Alaska, but I've found that the only thing you will ever get people to agree on is gun safety.

[TimSr]

Even then you cant get poeple to agree on what is safe! Whats safe for one household may not be best in others, but people constantly try to make universal "safety" rules into law.

[cyclepsycho]

Eric it seems like you have a few people who agree with you; I, among them. Since it seems that no one wants to answer your question, so I will. Following is a critique of your paper. Don't be a hater, remember you asked for it.

It’s pretty good but needs some help. This is Formal Essay and should be written in the third person. Do not use words like I, we, you. Never use numbers; 3 is written out as three.
This is an argumentative topic so use the argumentative writing style. Do not ask questions and then answer them, it is contradictory; in one instance you don’t know something and then you immediately “know” the answer. It is best to avoid asking questions at all.

It proceeds as follows.

Introduction: State your case and describe your point of view but not why:

- Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.
Not:
- I think that guns aren’t responsible for killing people because if there was no-one using it, it wouldn’t kill anyone.

- Make statements but don’t try to support them until later.

Body 1; your case: Here is where you will defend the statements you made in your introduction. Use data, statistics, and facts that you learned in your research. Each claim must be supported in its own paragraph; minimum of 3. you must be able to cite the source of your data. You can not just say that Great Britain experienced a ten percent increase in their crime rate, you must state where you got that data from, other-wise it is an unfounded claim.

Body 2; refute your opponent’s opinion: Here you will anticipate your opponent’s views and use data to disprove it. Again, there should be one paragraph for each point. It should have the same number of points as body 1. For instance:

Those in favor of gun control repeatedly state that guns are the cause of many deaths in the United States and around the world. They declaim their opinion in a loud voice to any and all who will hear them, as if, in the repeating, the claim will gain relevance. If the scientific approach were used to measure the number of deaths actually caused by the firearm itself, one hundred guns should be loaded and placed on a long table with on hundred people positioned in front of them. It should then be observed how many of these guns will actually fire if left to their own devices and the number of people who are killed as a result of the firearm’s malice. The outcome of such an experiment is easily deduced; very few if any of the guns will fire on their own and it can be safely concluded that the gun is an instrument of its controller’s intent. Removing them from those whose intent is not to kill will have little effect on the overall crime statistics for a given population.

- What the above paragraph does is; state the opponents view and refutes it in a way that makes it sound silly. Only do this once, you do not want all of your refutes to be condescending.

Conclusion: This should be a well thought out summary of your argument. Do not just repeat your introduction. There are only two words that should never be included in your conclusion: “In conclusion…” The wrap-up should speak for itself, you should not have to state that you are concluding.

- I like to start some of my papers with a SHOCK paragraph. It should only be in the beginning of the paper; yours is in the body and this is a no-no. Here is a possible preclude to your introductory paragraph:


The man squeezes the trigger. The hammer engages the firing pin and the bullet bursts from the barrel in an explosion of sound and flame. It impacts the back of the head of the man standing infront of him and exits what was, only an instant before, the man’s face. His body crumples to the floor and blood pools around him. The casket at this man’s funeral will be closed. The gunman steps over the body of the fallen man to his wife and children. They are now safe; the perpetrator is dead. Thankfully he had a gun.

- Lastly you must pay attention to punctuation and word usage. You do not want you opinion to lose credence, simply because of a few misspelled or misused words. Your sentence:

Well the truth is guns are apart of our life weather you agree with them or not.

- Should read:

- Guns are a significant part of many American’s lives. Those American’s staunchly defend their right to own and carry that gun.

“apart” is two words, and “weather” is really: whether. But the sentence itself was boundless, because in certain parts of the country guns are already illegal and for many they are not a part of their lives. Remember, your statements must be TRUE.

Three hundred thousand people defend themselves and their families each year with a firearm.

Great Britain’s crime rate actually rose 10% when all firearms were ban from the country.

- Where are these statistics from? You must state your source; otherwise it is an unfounded statement and does not entice the reader to believe you. Spell out ten percent

The second amendment of the United States Constitution says ...

- This is actually a greatly contested issue and merely stating the amendment does not add to your case. Some gun-control proponents believe that the “well regulated militia” is the local police department and thus residents do not apply. This should be addressed.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms and shall not be infringed.” This means everyone has the right to own and handle a firearm. Plus ... Everyone has the right to own a gun and should be able to practice there rights because defend, the constitution permits it, and gun laws will not work anyways.

- The last few sentences are pretty bad, they are not well thought out, contain misused words (position should be possession, anybody should be anyone, there should be their, coarse should be course and “anyways” is not a word, so don’t use it), and missing and improper punctuation. It sounds like you are talking; you are not; you are writing.

Our bill of rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing individual rights. How do I know this?

– Never ask questions in this type of paper; only make statements.

- Look at where you use the word “plus”. It should not be there. That is the beginning of a new paragraph since you line of thought has changed and you begin to a new topic.

A shot rings out through the projects... France was invaded in World War 2? Its because gun laws were In affect. So gun laws obviously don’t work.

- This is the shock I was talking about earlier. Put it at the beginning

- Your conclusion about France is an unfounded statement. Since there is no proof to what you are saying, you can make it sound more convincing by putting this thought onto someone else (who is perhaps and unknown expert): Some historians believe that The situation in France during the second world war may have turned out differently had the population been armed.

Or perhaps:

- It is ironic that France, one of the first countries to enact gun-control laws suffers from a higher incidence of violence than Holland where a prerequisite of homeownership is the possession of a gun.

In conclusion:

- AAAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh never, never, never use these two words together in your conclusion.

I think people…

- No you don’t; you know!

should be taught how to use weapons and should take classes on safety. I think criminals using guns unlawfully should be penalized more however everyone has the right to own and handle a gun and should practice their rights because guns defend, the constitution permits it, and gun laws will not work anyway.

- Try this:

Instead of engaging in a futile attempt to prevent criminals from accessing firearms, education on the proper usage, storage and handling of them would be a better way to spend the taxpayer’s dollars. Also, steeper sentences for criminals who use firearms will ultimately prove to be a more effective deterrent than removing an effective mode of self defense from the very people who need it most; the innocent population.

- Notice that this conclusion is not in the first person.

So I leave you with only one question, is it guns that kill people or is it people that kill people?

- Don’t leave them with any questions, this paper is geared to answering questions not posing them.

- Overall it is a good paper; it has an excellent topic and you seem to be on the right track, you just need to stay on it and not get side-tracked. Keep at it and one day maybe we will all vote for you.

- I know it may seem like I bashed a lot of your paper, but don’t get discouraged writing a well balanced paper is difficult at best and down-right horrendous at worst.

- Keep it up and good luck with the grade I hope this helped. If you want to e-mail it to me I will proof it for you. I will not however write t for you, so spend some time on it if you have not already turned it in.

rvajda@netzero.net

rob

[PowerTrike]

If we, common good people, were ever forced to turn in our guns to the govornment in the US. Think the criminals would... NO! Think unregistered guns would actually stop circulating between criminals... NO! Think of the huge amounts of drungs smuggled into this country from Mexico and elsewhere... Dogs can't smell guns. Good Idea, lets ban guns and they'll disappear from everywhere and the world will be a happy perfect peaceful place. :rolleyes: Criminals would be more dangerous becuase nobody would have protection and the cops ain't always around... Just my 2 cents and change.

Join the NRA. Its like $20 and you get a free magazine subscription of your choice... if ya want

[sandrooster]

Guns are bad. Only bad people have guns.










When guns are banned, only the government will have guns.

[Name Brand]

[QUOTE=sandrooster]Guns are bad. Only bad people have guns.


:eek:

WTF! "Only bad people have guns." I hope I'm not misinterpreting what you just said, cause here goes;

Am I a bad person because I have and choose to carry a Compact Glok 40, fully loaded with a ten round clip? I don't carry around town, that gun is solely for bear protection. I only have it to improve the odds of surviving a bear attack. I've only had to point it at a bear once, fortunately he turned tail instead of charging. I thank god it's never been fired outside of a shooting range.

Is my brother one of those "bad people"? He has a gun case full of rifles from semiautomatic to high powered sniper rifles. Probably 90% of the firearms he has were made during WWII. He has the exact same type of rifle that my Grandpa used during that war. He also has rifles that the Nazi's used to try shoot my Grandpa. They have alot of history, but are fully functional and usefull. Shooting a Moose with a sniper rifle can be very effective. It's also good manners to limit your shots up here.

The State Troopers and Police carry guns; our soldiers carry guns; does that make all of them "bad people"?

I've lived my whole life up here in Alaska and I know that keeping a gun for protection, hunting or historical significance does not make you a bad person. If someone has a gun to aid them in crime, intimidation or any sort of unlawful act, then I will call them a bad person.

Sandrooster - The statement you made is wrong. I'm not mad at you for saying it, just sad.
:(

[trikerider2oo7]

yea...what name brand said

[Billy Golightly]

Guns are bad. Only bad people have guns.
When guns are banned, only the government will be allowed to have guns.


Are you sure enough about this that you would willingly die defending your opinon?

[J.D.]

sandrooster....I'm having trouble interpreting what you're saying. Are you saying guns are good, or bad? If you think they're bad, then you need some help amigo.

[smokinwrench]

Guns are bad. Only bad people have guns.

Since we don't have our cool smilies yet here it goes.


Bann Him

[250SX]

If you've ever wondered where people get bad impressions of gun owners...found this on the 'net. Funny yet it isn't.

http://www.danieldale.com/funnies/guuuns.jpg

[sandrooster]

Sandrooster - The statement you made is wrong. I'm not mad at you for saying it, just sad.

Name Brand,
How do you interpret my second sentence? Opinion on the second pic?

For the rest of ya'll.
3wheelers are dangerous.

[Name Brand]

Your second sentence (of your first post) wasn't clear to me. I really couldn't figure out what your message or meaning was. :confused:


As far as the second pic I'll give you a few different answers;

1) It seems to say that guns should be used to influence a situation, "when ALL ELSE fails" but not before. If it only said 'Vote from the rooftops', that would be sick and wrong.

2) I don't think my opinion of that shirt is as relevant as the wearer of it. Go ask him why he has it on.

3) I much prefer this qoute in case of last resort situations from Possum Lodge's very own Red Green; "Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati; When all else fails, play dead."

[Name Brand]

For the rest of ya'll.
3wheelers are dangerous.


You can include me in that too. :cool:

[J.D.]

sandrooster....you didn't answer me. I can't iterpret what you're trying to say. Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[sandrooster]

Goku,
Does it matter what my position is on those inanimate objects?

My purpose of posting those statements was to see some responses and maybe remind others of the recent past. It worked. WWII wasn't that long ago. Tomorrow,Apr 20, is Hitler's birthday. He was democratically elected and in three years was absolute ruler. Can it happen here in the USA?

I chat with gun owners all the time who think that no one needs or should be allowed to have machineguns. The "No ones taking my hunting rifle" crowd. Add a scope and they are all potential DC snipers to the "main stream press."
My experience had been not good with shotgunners who look at all assault style rifles as unnecessary. They usually comment, "Why would anyone want one of those!" They think they will always be allowed to own their fancy shotguns. Thats one of the reasons why more restrictive gun laws pass. Because gun owners are divided by type and style and aren't concerned about what they don't personally care about. Little do shotgunners realize what feinstein shummer daschel kennedy want to do with all firearms.

Sometimes I wish the gun banners would stop their pretence and get off their arses and outright ban everything. Then this country will see a new black market of real hardware smugglers, exactly what the UK is experiencing today. Then the Border Patrol won't be worrying about drug smugglers but about the next truck load of RPGs and RPKs. I've always wanted my own RPG. :eek:

Goku, you need to read more of CW's books. I believe you and me ain't going to be playing possum. I know youre kinda young, but I'll just say most people your age have a different mindset then yours. I'm curious where you got it.
Anyways, keep your powder dry.


I guess Karnivore now conciders 3ww a subversive site.

[J.D.]

You're right I am kinda young, 16 to be exact....and you're still confusing me somewhat so I'll just leave it at that. Who is CW? I got my mindset mainly from my pops, and some of it through seeing things and such.

And your question about "Can it happen here?" Yes I certainly think it can, the general public is too ignorant to think it will happen. When you don't even elect your own president, what can you expect though?

[sandrooster]

Your earlier signature had a Claire Wolf quote.

Whats confusing? I'll try not to be so facetious.

[J.D.]

Well now that I go back, and re-read it's not so confusing.....you made me use my head, lol. That Claire Wolfe quote I got from an email from one of my dad's old friends. Thought it was good so I added it. Like my current one better though I think. It's good to have an intelligent coversation with somebody, quite a rarity around here sometimes.

Keep on trikin'