School Speech on Gun Control Today

[karl]

I have the fantastic opportunity to witness to a classroom full of malleable college students about the horrible problems of gun control today!

My topics include (chosen by my opponent):
-Legislation to control access to firearms
-Mandatory training for purchased firearms

My thesis revolves around personal responsibility and that legislation is not the answer. I will be able to speak for five minutes as a part of my persuasive speech for my Public Speaking class at UH.

If anyone has any interesting arguments that may pertain to college students, let me know. I'm writing my outline right now.

[seamusTX]

In the year 1900, the United Kingdom had the lowest rate of violent crime that has ever been seen before or after in history. It also had no "gun control" laws.

A century later, they had banned all handguns and semiauto long guns for non-LEO civilians. They now have a higher rate of violent crime per capita than the U.S. They have more homicides and shooting assaults than they had when anyone could own and carry a firearm.

Meanwhile, nearly every household in Switzerland has had a rifle and ammunition since rifles were invented. Their rate of violent crime has always been enviable.

Most of the "gun crimes" committed in the U.S. are committed by previously convicted felons, teenagers, and illegal aliens, none of whom can legally buy or possess firearms.

Guns do not cause crime. "Gun control" does not prevent crime. It never has. It never will.

I'm sorry I didn't include references. If you need them, the Googles should readily provide them.

- Jim

[Beiruty]

Best to avoid accidental death, how about gun safety being taught at school starting at age of 12?

[karl]

Thanks Jim. The Google is being put to work.

[terryg]

Thanks Jim. The Google is being put to work.

I love The Google!!

[karl]

I'm using GunFacts.info as a large portion of my evidence for topic number one. Lots of good stuff.

[seamusTX]

Gunfacts.info is excellent in providing references to government studies and academic research. The "gun control" topics on Wikipedia also are surprisingly reliable and kept clear of nonsense.

(I always put "gun control" in quotation marks because it is a political euphemism. It should be called disarmament of the innocent or something like that.)

- Jim

[terryg]

I'm using GunFacts.info as a large portion of my evidence for topic number one. Lots of good stuff.

I also recommend:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is a bit more balanced in that it also shows the statistical 'warts' (i.e. data on both side of the argument). But it does a really good job of showing why some commonly presented data should not be taken at face value. For example:

* "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."[12] [13]

* Reasons for elimination: This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.[14] This study does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility because:

1) The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as "case-control" studies) "fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized."[15]

2) The study's results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees' honesty) can negate the results.[16] [17]

3) The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).[18])

But it also works for both sides:

* "Right-to-carry" states allow individuals to carry firearms for protection against crime. In these states, the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the U.S., the murder rate is 28% lower, and the robbery rate is 50% lower.[8]

* Reason for elimination: This data does not account for other factors that impact crime rates, such as cultural differences, arrest rates, illegitimacy rates, poverty, etc.

Note that many gun control studies attempt to control for such factors, but opposing sides inevitably point to other factors that are uncontrolled,[9] and due to data limitations, it is practically impossible to control for all relevant factors.[10] Conversely, some researchers fault studies that do not show significant results until the effects of controls are considered.[11]

In accordance with our mission to provide verifiable facts, Just Facts uses time-series data and lets this data speak for itself instead of subjecting it to statistical analyses. For example, we provide homicide rates in the state of Florida in the years leading up to and after passage of the Florida "right-to-carry" law. Such data does not prove cause and effect, but it does allow us to observe trends and limits the impact of numerous variables because the data is drawn from a large population set with limited demographic changes from year to year. To provide additional context, Just Facts sometimes provides comparative data (such as homicide rates for the nation as a whole over the same time period), but we provide this data in unadulterated form; we do not control for it in our calculations.

But I like knowing that the data that I use is 'vetted' when possible.

[karl]

Does anybody know the last time the Texas Legislature passed any type of onerous restriction on ownership of firearms?

[seamusTX]

How do you define onerous?

The last time that I know of, during the 1990s, the feds strong-armed the states into passing laws that made it an offense to allow a child to have access to a firearm. That is PC 46.13. Texas passed the mildest form of the law that met the federal requirements.

(That has made no difference either to responsible parents or the kind of idiots who leave loaded weapons lying around a house with toddlers.)

Before that, the entire penal code was largely rewritten in the 1970s and may have picked up some restrictions then. I think the duty to retreat (now eliminated) was introduced at that time. I didn't live here or have any reason to care.

Most legislative action since 1995 has liberalized weapons law, especially, of course, the CHL program. Meanwhile crime has decreased, as it has nationwide.

- Jim

[philip964]

Remember ownership of all kinds of guns and rifles is illegal in Mexico.

[karl]

I had forgotten about that, thank you.

[seamusTX]

Remember ownership of all kinds of guns and rifles is illegal in Mexico.

I'm sorry, but this is not correct. Mexicans can legally own handguns up to .380 caliber, and some hunting rifles and shotguns.

The problem is that the registration process is so convoluted that anyone can be charged with violating it.

http://www.davekopel.com/espanol/Mexican-Gun-Laws.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course the semi-auto rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, and other military weapons used by the narcotraficantes are completely illegal for civilian ownership.

- Jim

[steveincowtown]

Remember ownership of all kinds of guns and rifles is illegal in Mexico.

I'm sorry, but this is not correct. Mexicans can legally own handguns up to .380 caliber, and some hunting rifles and shotguns.

The problem is that the registration process is so convoluted that anyone can be charged with violating it.

http://www.davekopel.com/espanol/Mexican-Gun-Laws.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course the semi-auto rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, and other military weapons used by the narcotraficantes are completely illegal for civilian ownership.

- Jim

Beat me to it...also if you would like to see a fine example of how big government in the US will take our 2A rights if we do not defend them, take a few minutes to read over the history of the Constitution and firearms in Mexico.

"Mexican constitutional rights have long included the right to carry arms. The 1857 Constitution included the right to carry arms:

Artículo 10: Todo hombre tiene derecho de poseer y portar armas para su seguridad y legítima defensa. La ley señalará cuáles son las prohibidas y la pena en que incurren los que las portaren. [1]

Article 10: Every man has the right to have and to carry arms for his security and legitimate defense. The law will indicate which arms are prohibited and the penalty for those that will carry prohibited arms.

"These rights have subsequently been reduced somewhat through the gradual changing of constitutions and laws. The Constitution of 1917, the current constitution in force and heavily-amended, grants Mexican citizens (and "Inmigrados"; see below) the right to possess firearms. However, this right does not include military firearms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Mexico" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[seamusTX]

Beat me to it...also if you would like to see a fine example of how big government in the US will take our 2A rights if we do not defend them, take a few minutes to read over the history of the Constitution and firearms in Mexico.

This is a good point.

Governments always—unless they are completely dysfunctional—limit civilian ownership of weapons of war. This includes the U.S. government since 1934. It is true of all modern countries because weapons of war have become so destructive.

The trouble with this approach is that "weapons of war" gradually gets redefined until firecrackers can be banned. (Firecrackers actually were weapons of war centuries ago.)

Mexican legislators at least have been honest about the rationale. The country has a history of revolutions, civil wars, and banditry disguised as guerrilla action. The government wants civilian firearms ownership limited to regulated, taxable sports and hunting. They don't want challenges from disgruntled citizens.

- Jim