Gun Control

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by Stschil

Ethics is about as nasty and distasteful to Liberals as it gets. Ranks right up there with such concepts as Personal Responsibility, Gun Ownership, Individual Freedoms and Small Government.

It would be interesting to write such a paper. I think I would entitle it, "Gun Control, The Emotional Arguement". With such a statement in the title, it would be fairly easy to weight the cited resources heavily to the Anti side, yet reach the conclusions, I believe correctly, that restrictive laws and regulations have increased and even promoted violent crime and firearm related incidents and restricted the law abiding individual's ability to react and/or protect themselves from the elements of society that the Antis claim would be non-existent should possession of firearms be outlawed. Also, it could be shown where the concept of Gun Control reared it ugly head. To further promote the idea that one race was not a equal, valid, and responsible part of the American Society and to control them.

Steve, if I may offer a tiny correction to the above, it would be to suggest that you not say "liberals" there, substituting instead, "anti-gunners". It seems a small difference, I know, but I know some liberals who wear that title proudly and are quite ethical. Some of them, I know on here. Another one, I call "Mother". To be completely fair, I'd have to suggest the addition of the word "some" as well, since she also is anti-gun, but less so now than in years past.... Education works wonders.

Originally Posted by NYFelon

Fair point. I suppose I was operating under the assumption that we were discussing purely the quality of the work, not extraneous circumstances such as unethical punitive reaction. I can fairly say my paper was not balanced. Not because I did not give voice to my "opposition" but that I crushed the main points of contention with data, and a sprinkling of founding wisdom where appropriate. We disagreed entirely, and he was definitely a tree-hugging hippie. Honestly, he was a great prof and I'd take him again. Politics or not.

I hear you, and to both of you (and everyone else,) I'd like to add that I'm not being intentionally contentious here... I just don't want to see either someone write a paper and be stuck with the false confidence of, "But... they said you couldn't fail me for this?", nor do I want to see anyone unfairly 'trashed'; let's face it, there are some self-described "liberals" who are very pro-gun rights... and in the battles to recover the ability to lawfully exercise our rights to the fullest extent, I think it fair to say we need all the help we can get.

Blessings,
Bill

[Stschil]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

Steve, if I may offer a tiny correction to the above, it would be to suggest that you not say "liberals" there, substituting instead, "anti-gunners".

Blessings,
Bill

I admit, I used the term in a general political sense, and you are quite right, I should have been more specific. The Anti's come in all shapes, sizes, and political leanings, but the majority whom subscribe to the emotional anti gun mantra also subscribe to many of the general thought that the people can't be trusted to govern themselves and need to be controlled.

[EM45HP]

Haven't been on in a couple days, but thanks for the replies. I'll sort through all this in the next week or so. Paper's due in November. Thank you.

Btw, I'm in high school and my government teacher is an army veteran. I don't think she's anti, but then who knows?

[bingley]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand Luke

College campuses are extremely liberal. The only way youre getting a good grade on this paper is if you write an extremely pro gun control paper.

Originally Posted by Stschil

Ethics is about as nasty and distasteful to Liberals as it gets.

There are a few things that are, through no intention of individuals, tearing our great nation apart by shutting down productive public discourses. One is the extremely polarizing rhetoric we find so often on both sides: us vs. them, and they are all the same, and all bad. The other is a fundamental lack of respect for people who hold views different from your own. This leads to the belief that your opponents do not take their positions and actions because of principled ideals, but because of moral turpitude. The two statements I quote above are precisely the sort of thing we must avoid. This is no way to think, and will just contribute to the downfall of this nation.

The first quote assumes today's colleges have no intellectual integrity and rewards slavish parroting. Some posters have responded with their own experiences, so I need not address the factual merit of the statement. Like the first quote, the second quote, in one broad stroke, questions the very character of people that the author has never met. Many liberals care deeply about ethics, and are ethical people. They value some things more than the conservatives do, and other things less. Many anti-gun agendas are indeed ethically based. Ethics is about debating competing notions of the good. What makes you so sure that you are never wrong, that you feel you are in the right to condemn an entire group of people? If anything, I'd say that statements such as above represent an ethical stumble. A small one, perhaps, and one for which God will readily forgive, but it's still an ethical stumble. Now, I'm quite certain that neither of the posters mean ill. But this is important enough that I feel compelled to point it out.

We need to return to a time where people with different political opinions can debate with civility, knowledge, and intelligence. Elections are becoming a sort of reality show, appealing to the lowest common denominator. A serious process has now become a spectator sport. The news media has moved away from thoughtful analysis to entertainment and to entertaining the viewer's prejudices. Our rulers talk to us like we are children. This has to stop before we as a country turn a new leaf, otherwise it's just going to be more of the same.

Da Bing

[Dead Duck]

Originally Posted by EM45HP

I have to write a research paper for my government class discussing three current issues, each parties view on them, and then tell my own view. My first issue is gun control. I do not support gun control. I was wondering if any of you INGOers have any statistics showing how more lenient carry laws led to lesser crime rates or any other interesting articles that support guns. Thanks in advance.

Gun Control is when you take those pills from that pink packet and they make it so you won't buy anymore Guns. This is sad!
I want to raise as many guns as I can. Pro Gun Life!!

[RangeJunkie]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

Search is your friend! We've had lots of people come on with papers to write... Best link I can send you to is Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths. Great site. You'll also do well to look into books by Dr. John Lott, esp. "More Guns, Less Crime".

Good luck and let us know how you do!

Blessings,
Bill

Awesome read. Ive spent almost 20 minutes on it already! Thanks for posting this!

[pocketpistolpete]

101 of the Best Gun Quotes Ever

all should be read and pondered throughly!

[beararms1776]

Originally Posted by EM45HP

I have to write a research paper for my government class discussing three current issues, each parties view on them, and then tell my own view. My first issue is gun control. I do not support gun control. I was wondering if any of you INGOers have any statistics showing how more lenient carry laws led to lesser crime rates or any other interesting articles that support guns. Thanks in advance.

You might add that when people who can legaly own firearms, have never been a danger to themselves or others, are attacked and scrutinized for excersizing their rights, it's not about the gun, it's about control over the individual/ s. The disarmament of citizens who want to protect themselves, will obviously make an assailants job easier. So ask yourself one question, who's side are you really on? jmo. and your welcome to include it. Good luck!