TexasCHLforum.com

No I don't want help writing it unless of course TAM wants to do it all, that would get me an A. But I do need help getting references pro's and con's and yes it is on gun control. So if you can post useful links and any insight you would like me to quote you on.

I know point 1 is to define it, Sight picture, Trigger Control, Breathing.

There isn't any 'pro'. gun control doesn't work (except for tracking/confiscation from the law abiding).

Could you be more specific about what your looking for? Data? Laws? Comparisons?

ghostrider wrote:There isn't any 'pro'. gun control doesn't work (except for tracking/confiscation from the law abiding).

Could you be more specific about what your looking for? Data? Laws? Comparisons?

Ya, I guess that is true, so let’s go with "for and against", I need links to data points like FBI stats, Brady propaganda, "reliable" sites no wiki links, so I can show this is gun control and this is why it won't work.

suthdj wrote:
Ya, I guess that is true, so let’s go with "for and against", I need links to data points like FBI stats, Brady propaganda, "reliable" sites no wiki links, so I can show this is gun control and this is why it won't work.

Here's one of my favorite ones that show it doesn't work: List of laws that the Columbine shooters broke before they killed anyone - and that didn't deter them from doing what they did.

It depends on the writers opinion of "works"

Gun control "works" for the antis because it would disarm the law abiding citizen and allow only criminals to carry guns. Since mos politicians are crooks, thereby criminals, that's how they want it.

The latest edition of John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" should provide most of what you need. It's been peer reviewed multiple times and never invalidated.

There are no "fors" either, and it can be shown that it doesn't work, but most of the sites that you will find that do anything more than present raw data for your interpretation, are going to be biased in their own interpretation, so tread carefully.

Also, make sure in advance, that your subject will be accepted. A whole bunch of years ago I turned in a term paper on the history of firearms. The assignment was to present a research based paper, and to show all of the research that took place as an addendum to the paper. Complete bibliography, etc. The "professor" took an entire letter grade off for "inappropriate subject matter."

Pretty simple.

Chicago.

Washington DC

New York City

Anygunanywhere

2011 FBI Homicide Stats: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

Note several things:

1. Note that homicide stats overall have decreased since 2007, even though gun laws and SCOTUS decisions have generally become more libertarian. Also note that these stats do not include statistics AFTER New York, Connecticut, and Colorado passed their ridiculous laws.
2. Note that the category of homicides by "Rifles," of which "assault" rifles is a subset, went DOWN from 2007 to 2011, as it has ever since the federal AWB expired in 2004.
3. Note that the number of homicides by "knives or cutting instruments" for 2011 is 525% higher than the number for "Rifles," of which the dreaded evil black rifles is a subset. In 2007, it was 401% higher. In 2008, it was 497% higher. In 2009, it was 523% higher. In 2010, it was 472% higher. 401% > 497% > 523% > 472% > 525% for those four years represents a downward trend for the number of homicides committed by "Rifles" compared to "kinves or cutting instruments" over a 5 year period.........and so-called "assault" rifles are a subset of all "rifles."
4. Note that this trend holds true for ALL firearms, including handguns, and yet, during this period there have been several panic buying sprees and gun sales are WAAAAAY up, ammunition sales are WAAAAAY up, and more states (including Illinois) have finally passed shall issue CC or Open Carry laws. Why isn't the predicted bloodbath revealed in the statistics?

You're going to have to write the rest of the paper yourself.

Excaliber wrote:The latest edition of John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" should provide most of what you need. It's been peer reviewed multiple times and never invalidated.

This should be read for background info if nothing else. However, it has lots of good references to the material Lott uses to back up his findings. As Excaliber stated, many have tried to poke holes in his findings, but none have succeeded.

You will like this one.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... icide-data" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Edited as this will give you a better overlook.

Firearms and Violence is a book by National Academy Press. It's a little dated. I'm sure the publishers would consider it a neutral, academic treatise. I think it has as many biases as any other academic publication, so read it critically.

I would cite it for background on various firearm issues, as well as for descriptions of measurement, data, and policy analysis issues. I thought the chapter on defensive gun uses was pretty good. Chapters 8 and 9 talk about gun control policies.

Excaliber wrote:The latest edition of John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" should provide most of what you need. It's been peer reviewed multiple times and never invalidated.

Yes, but I need at least 5 ref. thanks for that one.

There was a website I read awhile back written by a jewish person about projection by the anti's.

jeff and the Rabbi had a couple of videos a while back, (not written I don't think....maybe there's a blog with them?)

jimlongley wrote:There are no "fors" either, and it can be shown that it doesn't work, but most of the sites that you will find that do anything more than present raw data for your interpretation, are going to be biased in their own interpretation, so tread carefully.

Also, make sure in advance, that your subject will be accepted. A whole bunch of years ago I turned in a term paper on the history of firearms. The assignment was to present a research based paper, and to show all of the research that took place as an addendum to the paper. Complete bibliography, etc. The "professor" took an entire letter grade off for "inappropriate subject matter."

I hope mine says no before I start it, I already turned in the topic.