Long Island Shooters Forum banner

So I wrote this paper...

9K views 120 replies 27 participants last post by  viper720 
#1 ·
I post this with hesitation, but what the hell. If it ain't appropriate it'll get deleted.

A little over six months ago I presented a thesis in some undergraduate class at some college to a small crowd of people of mixed age and background.

Essentially, the thesis was a large collab of a handful of related research papers I wrote that more or less amounted to my angle on gun ownership as it pertains to legislation and politics within the United States, with a couple of points tossed in that I aimed to prove or disprove.

I started it a few years ago and played around with up until last winter when I finally got the motivation (easy A) to put my thoughts together and get it all down on paper, and the response from my peers was surprising, to say the least. The audience was a mix of individuals on both ends of the liberal/conservative extremes including active 2A supporters that regularly attended rallies along with people who actively opposed 2A supporters, including an individual involved in the My Sister's Keeper project that had actively campaigned against various forms of gun ownership.

I was thoroughly impressed with the meaningful dialogue that followed, carrying on for some hours. But, I digress. It was suggested to me by a professor that I present my project to other groups. The entire project was mostly verbal, with the use of audio/visual presentations, but I figured I'd just upload the text here as a start for whoever might be interested in critiquing. I'm wondering if it's worth taking it any further and expanding on it for future courses should the topic become relevant again.

In the paper I tackle a handful of interesting things; a brief historical analysis on 'gun culture', analyzing some pro-gun/gun control arguments, active shooters and gun-free zones, "assault weapons", the NRA, Hurricane Katrina, the Weschester and Rockland County fiasco, Various issues with the SAFE act including registries and 'evil features', the magazine argument, concealed carry, illicit firearms, the concept of total gun bans, law enforcement, self-defense, the fallacy of comparing statistics between two or more countries, the complexity of more guns = less crime or vice versa, the AR-15, interpreting 2A, Fast & Furious, potentially positive approaches to 'gun control' and more.

Just a disclaimer for the die-hard 2A defenders out there: it is a moderate-views paper, I do humor some liberal ideology so if you find it offensive, please excuse me. For the most part I make an effort to remain neutral.

I'm not exactly sure what I'm hoping to gain by posting this here. Open discussion, criticism, factual errors, argument, I welcome all of it. Thanks a ton to anyone who puts aside the time to read it, I hope you enjoy.

Gun Politics in the United States
 
See less See more
#4 ·
And the reason I'd be interested in reading this is...............?
You rotated your sock draw yesterday and tomorrow you're busy doing that again but tonight you're free to frolic.
Humoring Liberals, what could go wrong?

I know, it gives them a stage for their Kabuki Theatre.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SOUTHSHOREROB
#9 ·
Following the Newtown shootings, the public became so disgusted at firearm dealers and manufacturers that numerous manufacturing facilities were moved from the Northeast, and a number of other dealers
5 / 35
refuse to do business in New York and other surrounding states (Ghosh, 2014).
I'm going to stop reading the paper at this point because the above is incorrect in its premises and because if I keep finding more inconsistencies like that my response will be longer than the paper.
It wasn't "public disgust" but legislative malfeasance that created yet more laws burdening gun manufacturers and owners. It can be successfully argued that gun manufacturers, like any other manufacturer, are in business to make a profit and it can also be argued that the Northeast isn't very conducive to manufacturing businesses because of burdensome regulation and taxation. Combined with an anti gun attitude why would any manufacturer remain in the northeast when there are many other states willing to have them?
Gun dealers and retailers refused to business in New York because they couldn't figure out the SAFE act. Can you sell a 10 round magazine or only a 7? Can you have this bit of plastic on your rifle or did that make it an "assault weapon"? Business doesn't like uncertainty and would rather not do business than risk exposing themselves to vague rules and regulations, especially when it comes to rules and regulations written by legislatures that have an agenda against your type of business.
That is all...
 
#19 ·
Damn, so now I gotta start reading this to see where it goes wrong, if it goes wrong?

I too read the first full para on page two. And just the simple history was wrong. Wasn't Bunker Hill (and the battle was actually fought on Breeds Hill on June 17, 1775, but I digress)where the war "started;" the war "started" on Lexington Green and then spread to Concord Bridge and then from Concord all the way back to Boston on April 19, 1775. The Redcoats were there (remember, at the time everyone was "British") to capture a couple of rebels and confiscate arms and powder that were reported to have been stored there. Bunker Hill came two months later, after the rebels had surrounded Boston and put it under siege.

I worry that if simple history is wrong.....

But I'd have to read more.

It's an ambitious, very ambitious undertaking....and tough to do, trying to encompass 240 years of politics, industrial history, sociology, law, changing public opinions, changing needs, the economy, and god knows what else in a paper. It would be tough to do in a big book.

I'll start...we'll see how it goes.
 
#21 ·
Stopped reading at about the 15th conclusion that was incorrect. I'll probably go back and read more, too much to do right now
 
#24 ·
After a couple pages, the conclusion is 1)The paper isn't remotely moderate in any way. 2)The source quotes I see (so far) are all
from the anti crowd, and their information is (again) incorrect.
It doesn't seem from what I read that this was an attempt to write a moderate paper on gun control, AR's, what have you, rather it appears to be a piece from the anti's point and perspective, while saying "we're moderate". Kind of like the "common sense" gun laws.
Your fact checking needs an awful amount of work. When you put up progressive drivel as what actually happened, you lose.
 
#26 ·
After a couple pages, the conclusion is 1)The paper isn't remotely moderate in any way. 2)The source quotes I see (so far) are all
from the anti crowd, and their information is (again) incorrect.
It doesn't seem from what I read that this was an attempt to write a moderate paper on gun control, AR's, what have you, rather it appears to be a piece from the anti's point and perspective, while saying "we're moderate". Kind of like the "common sense" gun laws.
Your fact checking needs an awful amount of work. When you put up progressive drivel as what actually happened, you lose.
I wrote this paper....
 
#27 · (Edited by Moderator)
Guys, looks like he worked hard on this, and decided to post it to hear our opinions. I like reading different perspectives, ideas, and thoughts on the 2nd amendment...whether they're right or wrong. I don't think we should be ripping him a new one and insulting his work, then we're just like the gun grabbers.

The paragraph regarding the establishment of the 2nd amendment could be improved by looking at the Federalist Papers (like others have mentioned). They clearly outline why out forefathers established the 2nd amendment and their thinking behind it.

Haven't finished reading beyond that since I have to go to work. Will keep reading when I get back.

I also agree that the gun grabber sources probably aren't the best, since they're heavily biased and are generally inaccurate.
 
#38 ·
I read through it, looked at a lot of the conclusions and sources cited, and gave my opinion. You want sugar coating? Go to the Bakery
 
#28 ·
OK, I just finished reading the entire paper.
While I'll agree he put a lot of work into it,
I could also say someone put a lot of work into the SAFE act as well.

I'm sticking with my original observation, facts are twisted, sources are biased and incorrect.
I understand seeing, understanding the other side. Know your enemy. I'm on just about every single article regarding gun control
you see on Newsday, and I've recently made HUFPO my playground. At least with the vast majority of those against guns, it's quite easy to spot, and easier to deal with. I don't post to change the hearts and minds of the anti, I post to educate those who are anywhere between me and Bloomberg. That's where the difference will be made. (Don't listen to the anti's, we're winning).

Sorry, but I see papers like this as the type of thing we see from Gabby Giffords and crew... "Lets just have REASONABLE gun control. We don't want to take anyone's 2nd amendment away, we just want to see REASONABLE controls enacted. We just want to protect the children".
So a paper like this, which time and time again sources the anti side, while proclaiming middle ground. Yeah, I know who does that.
 
#34 · (Edited by Moderator)
OK, I just finished reading the entire paper.
While I'll agree he put a lot of work into it,
I could also say someone put a lot of work into the SAFE act as well.

I'm sticking with my original observation, facts are twisted, sources are biased and incorrect.
I understand seeing, understanding the other side. Know your enemy. I'm on just about every single article regarding gun control
you see on Newsday, and I've recently made HUFPO my playground. At least with the vast majority of those against guns, it's quite easy to spot, and easier to deal with. I don't post to change the hearts and minds of the anti, I post to educate those who are anywhere between me and Bloomberg. That's where the difference will be made. (Don't listen to the anti's, we're winning).

Sorry, but I see papers like this as the type of thing we see from Gabby Giffords and crew... "Lets just have REASONABLE gun control. We don't want to take anyone's 2nd amendment away, we just want to see REASONABLE controls enacted. We just want to protect the children".
So a paper like this, which time and time again sources the anti side, while proclaiming middle ground. Yeah, I know who does that.

In other posts he refers to Assault weapons,the gun culture etc.
Right out of the antis playbook. So if he's a moderate, he's using the language of one side, which would be indicative of not being moderate at all.
I read up to the second paragraph in his paper.
When I read the first sentence in it where he said this
"There seems to be a general consensus that some form of legislation will have an effect on violent crime in the United States as it pertains to firearms."

Really?
There's a general consensus we need gun control laws?
That's the anti's position that the OP is stating as a fact.
There is no consensus OP. If anything the general consensus is the opposite.
While far left liberal states like NY CT and MA might "generally " agree with that anti statement the majority of the country in fact believes the opposite, proving your paper is at best poorly written. Most likely something else.
I think you're about as progun or "moderate" as the Obama administration is transparent.
.


.
 
#29 ·
Before I delve into this, does the paper discuss how the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the US Constitution and affirmed as an individual's right by the US Supreme Court? Extending beyond the "I support the Second Amendment but we need 'reasonable', 'common sense', and 'sensible' gun laws" rhetoric that never goes any further? Does it detail proposed laws on how we're going to achieve the commonly desired goal of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill? While explaining step-by-step, how the law or laws will freely allow the law-abiding American Citizen to exercise their right inside and outside the home?

This is where we're at. I don't want to rehash the last 30 plus years of numbers and statistics.

Paul
 
#31 ·
Possibly the difference between a degree in engineering from an actual college (Univerisity of Texas in my case), and what I'm imagining is a degree in liberal arts from "some college" as described in the OP. Is why my brain started hurting about 2 minutes into reading that mess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frank57
#32 ·
OP, I will refrain from most comments until I fully read your paper, but I leave you with this though.

May congress or a state legislature enact laws that supercede the constitution? I'll give two examples, one 2A and one 1A.

Some advocate that we can enact laws that define certain speech as hate speech, and that hate speech is not protected by the 1A. In your opinion, do you think its wise to adopt a policy that allows laws to carve out exceptions like this?

Applying this to the 2A, one low level court has stated that legislators can define certain weapons as assault weapons, based on whatever definition they want, and by doing so, those weapons are outside the 2A. Do you think this is wise?

If so, do you think this approach could apply to other aspects of the BoR?

If not, why not?

You seem to legitimatly want some kind of feed back, so please take this in the spirit in which it is offered.
 
#43 ·
Personally, I agree with the approach. Under extreme circumstance, with public safety in mind I feel it is reasonable to specify exceptions to the bill of rights, as the supreme court has done in the past. However am directly opposed to the notion of defining and then removing 'assault weapons' from our 2A rights on the basis that there has not been any substantial evidence to show that assault weapons pose any greater risk to the public than any other weapon. In fact, the statistics show to the contrary. The big difference between the two analogies is the fact that the first one has concrete evidence to show a necessity for infringing upon a civil right in the interest of public safety, while the other analogy fails to meet that necessity. The concept of amending or superseding the bill of rights is one that has been around for a long time, and the process for doing so was laid out by our forefathers. It's more a matter of when it is appropriate to do so, and from what I've seen it seems to be something that's considered when the specific risk outweighs the benefit of the liberty in question.
 
#35 ·
I know I've posted this two or three times in the past, but maybe the OP should watch this.
It would change the whole paper.
In fact this explanation is all that's necessary.
There need not be any debate. The Founders were clear in their intent and the Right was seen as a God given Right, or for the secularists, a human right. Just because you are. That's it.

 
#39 ·
Hey, I know a jeanieus when I sees one....it the guiy who can make a one cylabble woird into a two cylabble woird....and a two cylabble woird into a tree cylabble woird....like:

nail....become duhnail duh nail
hammer....becomes duhhammer du ham mer

etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5.56
#41 ·
I have to plead TL;DR, but I applaud the OP for offering it at least, One thing that has always struck me in discussions with both sides is the vast difference in perception regarding the availability of guns, and I'm not sure if OP's paper covers that. That alone could be a paper- the gun control supporters largely believe that any person can trot down to the sporting goods store or local mall and buy a "gun"- and they often do not differentiate between longarms and pistols.

BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS, they have no IDEA how burdensome it is to us. I like to ask "Do you thjink it's easy to buy a pistol" and when they invariably say "yes, it's too easy" I like to counter with "I'd like to bet you five hundred bucks PLUS the cost of a pistol you couldn't buy one legally in NY with the current laws, and I'll even give you three months to do it- that's how sure I am that you really DONT know what's involved. You can only intelligently propose changing the laws when you know what the actual, existing laws are".

More often than not, they are totally surprised by what we have to go through and they'll say "But all these kids running around shooting people have guns" to which I like to reply- "Oh yeah, those are all the people who don't care about the LAWS."
 
#42 ·
You've put a lot of work into this and I don't perceive that you came at it with an anti gun bias. You make a lot of factual mistakes, mostly when you quote Violence Policy Center propaganda. I only speed read it but I comment as follows:

The two biggest things you missed were first, any discussion of the import of Heller v District of Columbia. The SCOTUS found that owning a modern firearm for defense of home and homeland is a civil right. This is an important context for all discussions. CIVIL RIGHT!. Just think if the numerous schemes the anti's tried to impose were used to attack voting rights, abortion, free speech. etc. So any cost benefit analysis must respect the fact that we are dealing with a right of citizenship that isn't just a policy issue, but a condition of the nature of who we are and what the government CANT do to us.

Secondly, you completely missed the data on exactly how often firearms in the hands of private citizens are used in self defense. The research of Univ of Florida professor Gary Kleck found that guns in private hands were used successfully in self defense from several hundred thousand times per year to over a MILLION times annually in the US. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html This is more than tenfold annual gun murders. (dont let the gun haters use suicides in gun statistics- unless we are going to ban rope and chairs, people will kill themselves just as readily with other stuff). The cost benefit of gun ownership shows that self defense usage far outstrips the aberration of gun homicides, ie citizens with guns win the utilitarian argument.

Lastly, its fun to note that guns are not just used for killing. A gun is one of humankind's most useful inventions. It can obviously protect you. It can feed you (wild game is tasty), guns entertain and make good recreation (even to the extent that shooting guns is an Olympic and NCAA sport!). Guns make good financial investments and make good collectibles based on their historical value. So beyond being a survival implement their utility is multi-fold.
 
#45 ·
You've put a lot of work into this and I don't perceive that you came at it with an anti gun bias. You make a lot of factual mistakes, mostly when you quote Violence Policy Center propaganda. I only speed read it but I comment as follows:

The two biggest things you missed were first, any discussion of the import of Heller v District of Columbia. The SCOTUS found that owning a modern firearm for defense of home and homeland is a civil right. This is an important context for all discussions. CIVIL RIGHT!. Just think if the numerous schemes the anti's tried to impose were used to attack voting rights, abortion, free speech. etc. So any cost benefit analysis must respect the fact that we are dealing with a right of citizenship that isn't just a policy issue, but a condition of the nature of who we are and what the government CANT do to us.

Secondly, you completely missed the data on exactly how often firearms in the hands of private citizens are used in self defense. The research of Univ of Florida professor Gary Kleck found that guns in private hands were used successfully in self defense from several hundred thousand times per year to over a MILLION times annually in the US. http://www.guncite.c..._gcdguse.html�� This is more than tenfold annual gun murders. (dont let the gun haters use suicides in gun statistics- unless we are going to ban rope and chairs, people will kill themselves just as readily with other stuff). The cost benefit of gun ownership shows that self defense usage far outstrips the aberration of gun homicides, ie citizens with guns win the utilitarian argument.

Lastly, its fun to note that guns are not just used for killing. A gun is one of humankind's most useful inventions. It can obviously protect you. It can feed you (wild game is tasty), guns entertain and make good recreation (even to the extent that shooting guns is an Olympic and NCAA sport!). Guns make good financial investments and make good collectibles based on their historical value. So beyond being a survival implement their utility is multi-fold.
Thank you for adding the sugar coating
 
#47 ·
I am genuinely impressed with the amount of feedback from everyone. Thank you all for putting aside the time. Firstly, I'd like to apologize if I came off as pompous in the first post (may have been alcohol inspired). I'd just like to clarify my reason for using certain sources and terminology that I chose for the paper, it was intended for a largely anti-gun audience which I failed to explain last night, and as such I try to maintain common ground between them. Again, to anyone that it pisses off, sorry. The audio/visual parts of the presentation are more right-leaning, I spent much time showing tests that explained the uselessness of restricted capacity magazines, as well as explaining the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle, ultimately pointing out how asinine the concept of an assault weapon is. Rest assured I don't vote left. I greatly appreciate everyone pointing out factual errors and making suggestions, I do plan on revising and hopefully improving the piece to use in the future.
 
#50 ·
A word of advice: Don't use "sources" that favor one side or the other without explaining just that, use sources that show the facts. If you have to worry about using sources that will entice a certain segment into the debate, you've already decided which side the paper will represent. We are in a war of ideology and the opening salvo usually sets the stage of where the argument starts from, if you get my drift. Start straight up, and cite sources that delineate where things are. There are plenty of cases now that show exactly what was meant and what the laws actually mean. Get the context of all arguments so you can frame them appropriately
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top