Gun Control Paper Part II

[Kalahari]

So, good news. I got my thesis back and received an A- for the grade. I'm very happy about the teacher's objectivity.

Now, here's the thing. I was also nominated for the Kennedy award (best paper overall). He said though usually only flat A's are nominated, he thought it would be good to have a "right wing anti-gun-control paper in there". One of the restrictions, however, is that I have to cut my paper down to 4500 words. Currently it is 6,100 words, so I have to cut out quite a bit. I was just curious if you guys wouldn't mind giving some feedback on which parts would be the least damaging to the paper as a total. I have a few ideas of my own (gun control effects in Britain, the CDC study, etc.), but I was curious as to what the rest of the gun community thinks are the less important of the facts.

Here is an upload of the file - Thank you very much to Ken Maurer for the upload.

http://ken.strophyx.com/thesis289.pdf

 

[Lynne]

Congrats on the grade hun!! That's great! When does your snipping need to be completed by?

 

[Skald]

Excellent paper.

Though, you may wish to have added a key piece of legislation that passed in NYC that ruled that the police is NOT responisbile for your personal well being and can NOT be sued or held accountable for any harm caused by their inaction. I remember hearing/reading about this deicision a while back but forget the case, or is it just urban myth?

 

[Kalahari]

I'm not sure, but that would have been nice to add. Unfortunately, I have to cut and add now (kind of ridiculous but I understand they have time constraints).

 

[pdm]

Excellent paper.

Though, you may wish to have added a key piece of legislation that passed in NYC that ruled that the police is NOT responisbile for your personal well being and can NOT be sued or held accountable for any harm caused by their inaction. I remember hearing/reading about this deicision a while back but forget the case, or is it just urban myth?

• Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
• DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989)
• Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990)
• California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846
• Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958)
• Freeman v. Ferguson, 911 F.2d52 (8th Cir. 1990)
• Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F.Supp.1521 (D.Conn. 1984)
• McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas, 877 F.2d409 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct.727 (1990)

No, it's not just an urban myth, unfortunately. Link

 

[Lynne]

Excellent paper.

Though, you may wish to have added a key piece of legislation that passed in NYC that ruled that the police is NOT responisbile for your personal well being and can NOT be sued or held accountable for any harm caused by their inaction. I remember hearing/reading about this deicision a while back but forget the case, or is it just urban myth?

Skald luv - if your talking about the AW ban in the city and Dinkins being sued...it's in there.

Kal hun - it's a REALLY good paper. However, since the razor blade needs to come out, you might want to scale back a bit on examples in some sections. I think you can forgo some of the FL examples. Also, I think you can pare down a little on the media section. I can't remember the specific pages, but you should know what I'm talking about. Overall, look for 1 sentence in each of the larger paragraphs - you might reach your 2,000 words by doing that.

I sincerely hope your parents are proud of you for that paper. It really was a good one.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I'm puzzled by the comment - did I miss the memo, or is Indiana still a shall-issue state with full reciprocity for out of state permits?

Indiana, one of the two states in 2006 that completely outlawed the use of concealed firearms, had

 

[Kalahari]

Bah, thats the version with that mixup. I had accidentally swapped Illinois with Indiana, as someone had pointed out before. I have it all fixed in the edited version, so please ignore that fumble-up.

 

[Thor67]

Great job, and congratulations.

On a quick read, I noticed some parts that are repetitive, others don't add much to the overall argument. For instance, the gun ownership part could be condensed significantly, the paragraph on Britain could be cut down (but not out), the paragraphs on the NRA and media bias on p16 and 17 can be cut quite a bit. You use a lot of great examples, you can probably trim most of them to be one or two succinct sentences.

Basically, decide on an overall argument for your paper and keep it very focused.