I have been poking around some more in the anti-gun section of the term paper warehouse I reported on a few days ago and continue to be amazed at the total lack of quality in writing and reasoning. This one really did it for me though:
carrying a gun will push him to commit a crime which he has never been intended.
Carrying a gun will “push” a person to commit a crime?
This is frequently hinted at in the anti-gun rhetoric but I don’t believe I have ever heard it explicitly articulated. I always figured that they knew it was so absurd they would never say it directly. Surely they were smart enough to know that if they did they would be mocked and laughed into oblivion. Apparently this person wasn’t that smart and/or they actually believe it.
I have to wonder about the mechanism of this “push”. Is it some sort of mind control? Or is it a “flesh magnet” that pulls their hand to the gun and then causes it to squeeze the trigger? Can we measure the magnitude of the “push”? Would that “push” be proportional to the area or mass of the possessor? Does the force extend to nearby people as well? Is it inversely proportional to the distance or the square of the distance? And does wearing a government uniform provide immunity from this “push” for the possessor of the gun?
But there is another option which should be considered. It could be that the author has crap for brains and just doesn’t have a clue as what they are writing about.
I took a cursory look at this piece of trash, (but not all of it since I refuse to sign up), and it is sheer stupidity. I certainly hope that teachers and professors annihilate anyone who plagiarizes these “resources” to help them write a term paper. It is amazing that some people lack any independent thought, the capability to do research, or basic writing skills.
I agree that the statements that emotions will overcome a gun owner and inevitably lead to violence are really silly.
However, more concerning are the initial factoids about certain ethnic groups and their risk of death by guns, without any corrections for gang or drug violence, makes them meaningless. This tactic of trying to imply that it is all due to racism, where no linkage exists, is tiresome.
Once more the liberals show that the difference between the left and the right is the willingness to think, on the right, versus the actions based on feelings, by the left. A cursory look at the FBI crime stats will show that most homicides are committed by criminals on criminals or there acquaintances, furthermore all the stats that I can find on cwp holders is that they commit crimes at a lesser rate than police. That fact alone blows up most liberal arguments, but it does not seem to reach the data processing centers of these individuals. To paraphrase a saying about reading, “If you don’t bother to think it is the same as being unable to think”.
http://www.amazon.com/Disarmed-Movement-Princeton-American-Politics/dp/0691124248
You ever read this one, Joe? It shows that such lack of mental exercise goes all the way to the top.
It talks about the “Effects of Gun control” by referencing all sorts of obscure local ordinances that even I hadn’t heard of…but never once mention the Federal AWB, the Brady Bill, or even GCA.
It reads a lot like the comic Garfield minus Garfield
http://garfieldminusgarfield.net/?76315190
After looking through the essay, I think that it is written by someone who is Asian and speaks English as a second language, and not that well. I see many grammatical constructions that hint at this. I have seen this in quite a few of these essays, and it makes me curious who is writing them.
Just my opinion.
The scent of Krispy Kreme donuts have pulled me into their store more than once, but never in a pushy way.
Have there been any new anti-rights arguments since, say, Heller v. DC, when I read pro and con comments and articles and discussions voraciously? I have not seen any.
Carrying a gun will “push” a person to commit a crime?
Do a Web search for “trigger pulls the finger” or “weapons effect,” and be dismayed at the abysmal “science” that is cited to support just such a laughable claim.