Professor's comment: but within the limits of the federal law?
My response: No. There are states with more and states with less strict laws than the federal laws. (back)
 Professor's comment: 12% and 10% are not significant? How many injuries and deaths does this equate to?
My response: I was not clear in my quotation. Prof. Kleck, when read in entirety, notes that handguns were used in violent crime 10% of the time, and other types of guns were used another 2% of the time. Furthermore, later in this very study Prof. Kleck points out that violent crime involving guns is the type where the victim and/or the perpetrator is most likely to have no injuries: "...in about 83% of the cases in which an [sic] victim is faced with a handgun, he (or she) submits; in 83% of the cases in which a victim with a handgun confronts a criminal the criminal flees or surrenders." Oddly enough therefore, having a gun, on either side, seems to lower the incidence of injury in violent crime. (back)
 Professor's comment: cite solid evidence to support this claim? [unreadable word] additions to references.
My response: I'd have happily kept looking up sources, but I ran out of time before the paper was due. Thus I simply cite the studies cited in the paper in which I read this assertion. I would suggest the Kleck examinations of Florida's new gun laws for proof of such. (back)
 See Wright & Rossi 1986. Also, Kleck references the following papers on this subject: "See, e.g. Murray, "Handguns, Gun Control Law and Firearm Violence", 23 SOCIAL PROBLEMS 81 (1975); Lizotte & Bordua and Bordua & Lizotte, above; Kleck, "The Relationship between Gun Ownership levels and Rates of Violence in the United States: in D. Kates (ed.) FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE (1984); McDowall, Gun Availability and Robbery Rates: A Panel Study of Large U.S. Cities, 1974-1978, 8 LAW & POLICY Q. 135 (1986); Bordua, "Firearms Ownership and Violent Crime: A Comparison of Illinois Counties: Kleck & Patterson, "The Impact of Gun Control and Gun Ownership levels on City Violence Rates:, a paper presented to the 1989 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Gun Control and Gun Ownership levels on City Violence Rates:, a paper presented to the 1989 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology (available from the authors at Florida State University School of Criminology). See also Eskridge, "Zero-Order Inverse Correlations between Crimes of Violence and Hunting Licenses in the United States", 71 SOCIOLOGY & SOCIAL RESEARCH 55 (1986)." I have included all of these in the footnote, since I wish to give credit where it is due. (back)
 Professor's comment: on both sides of the issue? Politics?
My answer: I admit by the time this paper was finished I was no longer avidly searching for examples of disinformation by pro-gun advocates. Notwithstanding, I found numerous examples of lies in research on the anti-gun side, but could find no such research-based lies on the pro-gun side. I found hysteria on both sides, of course. Concerning that hysteria, I refer to my later comment within this paper about the differences between anti- and pro-gun advocates: Pro-gun people are not trying to force anti-gun people to own guns. (back)
 Professor's comment: define terms relevant to various types of weapons at issue?
My response: Yeah, I should've done more defining. ;-) (back)
 Professor's comment: ad hominem [against the man] fallacy?
My response: Actually I am referring here to my opponent in this topic of research. When asked if he wished to cover the anti- or pro-gun side of the issue, he disdainfully informed me that he didn't know anything about guns and he didn't want to. (back)
 Professor's comment: good point.
My response: Thank you. ;-) (back)
 Professor's comment: I'm impressed with the way you skillfully use Jensen's [a model for argument] as a tool in constructing this argument.
Additional comment by me: The House voted to revoke that bill a few days after I handed this paper in. Unfortunately the Senate and the President did not. (back)
 Professor's comment: amazing! (back)
 "There are three kinds of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics." -- Mark Twain (back)
 Professor comment: is this a faulty analogy since use (in terms of hours) is not compatible?
My response: I was perhaps not clear on the thrust of this comment. I'd meant to imply this showed statistically that we would all benefit by aiding the police in stopping violent crime, due to the larger number of responsible citizens available to help prevent crime, as compared to numbers of police available. I did not mean to imply the police were somehow incompetent -- they're certainly not.(back)
 Letter from Prof. Gary Kleck to the MD Governor's Commission on Gun Violence, Sept. 3, 1995 (back)
 Wright & Rossi credit the following in their footnotes (and I quote): "'Aspects of the Priapic Theory of Gun Ownership' in W. Tonso (ed.), The Gun Culture and its Enemies (1985). Also see, e.g. Harriet Van Horne, N.Y. Post magazine, (June 21, 1976, p. 2), U.S. Catholic magazine, editorial 'Sex Education Belongs in the Gun Store,' August, 1979, Harlan Ellison, 'Fear Not Your Enemies,' Heavy Metal, March, 1981. This view is also espoused by Carl Bakal, 'No Right to Bear Arms' (1967) 88-90, and E. Tanay, 'Neurotic Attachment to Guns,' The Fifty Minute Hour. (1976)." (back)
 Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y. 2d 579, 293 N.Y.S. 2d 897, 240 N.E. 2d 806 (1958) (back)
 Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1975). (back)
 Professor's comment: what is really at the core of the problem for the American people? (not advocates for either side). Is it safety? Is it keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, gangs, and children? It seems these macro-issues need to prevail in this sort of case. (back)
 Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, "On Democracy 20." (back)
 from "Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia," taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg. 2nd ed. Richmond, 1805. (back)
 A few quick notes that unfortunately didn't come to my notice until too late:
In every case, there was on the books before the murdering began, at least one 'gun control' law, sometimes the last of a series. In [most of these] cases, 'gun control' was first enacted by a regime that came before the genocide regime -- sometimes decades before" (Kopel 1992).
Those who say, 'It could never happen here -- we would never need to defend ourselves against our own government,' are quite wrong. In 1950: "GIs returning from W.W.II were faced with a corrupt county government that was forging election returns and violently stopping legitimate voters from exercising their civil right to vote, through the use of armed force.
These brave veterans decided to run their own candidates in the election for county Sheriff and state Senate against the 'machine candidates' Paul Cantrell and Pat Mansfield. The GI ticket's platform was based on honesty and integrity in government and the premise that free and open elections should be held. The GI ticket was considered non-partisan.
In the hours following the closing of the polls the Cantrell machine attempted to seize ballot boxes so that they could alter the outcome of the election. The GIs were not about to let this happen and a gun battle erupted. The GIs won. Knox Henry of the GI ticket became the next sheriff of McMinn County, TN. (JPFO report)
Mr. Kopel has challenged those who say they support "gun control" because they wish to save lives. He asserts that the only way to prevent genocide -- the extermination of 'human lives' -- is through an armed citizenry. He writes in the 'New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law:'
Genocide is a human rights violation that dwarfs all other crimes. If we are to be serious -- and not merely sanctimonious -- about human rights then we must be serious about eradicating genocide. ... If the people of the world were much better armed, many fewer people would be the victims of genocide. Unless one can propose a different method of ending endemic genocide, then the authors' prescriptions stand as the best, and only, potentially effective medicine. The burden has shifted to the opponents of firearms rights to either come up with a more effective anti-genocide medicine or to admit that saving lives was never the primary objective of the gun prohibition movement in the first place [emphasis mine].(back)
Last Updated: Mon, March 30, 1998