General

@TylerBREW:

I am trying to help you out, you're site is a pro-gun website, you should always take statistics from a non-biased source. The site I linked has exact numbers based from Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reports for the U.S. It clearly states that > 50% of murders are gun related, there is no possible way, even by combining other weapons, that you can get it to be the majority.

@richboyliang okay

You should erase everything on your paper and write "REMEMBER COLUMBINE! NEVER FORGET SANDY HOOK AND AURORA! GUN CONTROL FOR LIFE YA REDNECKS!"

idiot

@dimo i suppose your right, but were talking about fire-arm crimes, not sharp objects. plus im seeking help, not debate whether or not whose site is better, the site i chose clearly states that if you calculate it all, fire-arms are not #1 in violent crimes.

[quote=TylerBREW]Either way, it clearly proves that fire-arms arent the used in violent crimes.
@dimo[/quote]
No it does not, you're making an arbitrary connection between unrelated weapon types in order to get the desired statistic. This is called data dredging. Why not combine guns and sharp objects as they both make entry wounds?

Either way, it clearly proves that fire-arms arent the used in violent crimes.
@dimo

[quote=TylerBREW]http://www. top10stop.com/lifestyle/top-10-most-common-murder-weapons
@dimo un-space the www. top[/quote]

Your link still states number 1 is guns, only becomes lower when you combine blunt and cutting weapons (not just blunt).

@damher Will do, thanks for the notice. :]

http://www. top10stop.com/lifestyle/top-10-most-common-murder-weapons
@dimo un-space the www. top

Your blunt weapon source is definitely wrong. http://www.statisticbrain.com/murder-weapon-statistics/

Each citizen of america is given rights that define the law, and protect the people from the government. Gun control is one of these rights. While individuals may argue against the constitution, saying that the original purpose was to protect the states right to form and maintain a milta. It was ruled by a judge ( Get some evidence from the internet) that this protected the citizens right to own guns.
heres a couple sentences pulled off my head

@TylerBREW: In america, you simply cannot ban gun use. This is one of the rights that america was built on, It would take thousands of years for that change. Im pro gun CONTROL, not gun BAN;theres a difference. There are many times that deaths have accured from the use of guns. We simply cannot ban them but we must impose restrictions on to, who can have them, and harden the process + penalty for crimes. America is one of the top countries in the world with the death caused by deaths. This is one of our rights, to own a gun. But we must have restrictions such as, Backround checks, Training (many accidental deaths ), increasing age, limiting amount of guns. Studies also show that 4/10 people who own a gun, are not licensed. Many massacres from guns, those people werent even supposed to own those guns in the first place.

@vicariously will do, thank you!

I wrote 4 and a half pages easy on my topic.

@numan21 if you dont mind me asking, why are you pro gun control?

It would be nice if you included the political history of gun control laws in the US. Do some research on that and you can probably fill up a page or two. You can also discuss the gun control laws that we have in the USA now and explain how they work. You should briefly summarize recently proposed gun control laws, and tell us the pro and cons of them.

QQ, i have a research paper due on the 6th about the SAME topic, But i'm pro gun restrictions (not total ban),

@TylerBREW: no problem. Glad I could help

@lazylazylazy lol, im not doing anything wrong, im citing my sources and not copy/pasting. im fine.

Plagiarism found on the internet

@lazylazylazy edit what out?
@civfanatics the teacher said it was fine.
@free321123, anything that helps my argument, im going to put in it.
@xlmattmanlx understandable.
@pieshadowxx thank you so much, im definatley going to look all of that up. your help is appreciated tons.

Weak thesis and lead-ins to your arguments.

Would you put something about gun control and gun rights groups and their relevancy in it?

Here is some notes I had for a debate on gun control:
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, grapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.
A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. The homicide rate increased from 52% to 67% when this law was in effect.
In 1982, Chicago passed a law banning hand guns. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower. � Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.
In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns. The hand gun ban lasted until 2008.
� In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.
Similar thing happened in Washington DC. Within a half decade of a hard gun control law being enacted, violent crime once again grew by a ridiculous margin (up about 70%).
When the ban was eventually lifted in the mid-2000s, the crime rate the following year plummeted.

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns
per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

Theres also the whole going against 1st amendment thing

I believe that you aren't supposed to state your personal thoughts in a research paper.

i wrote 3 papers on this topic, but im too lazy too write anything about it.

Don't forget to edit that out

Well in chicago when they banned hand guns, crime rate skyrocketed. Ill write more later