Climax twice at the same time Arcojedi.ignoble

		Proponents of gun control suggest that some of the arguments against gun control are invalid For example they cite statistics that support the fact that if more citizens carried guns to defend themselves there would be little decrease in crime because crime victims rarely use weapons anyway And they point to the fact that so far the US Supreme Court has refused to read the Second Amendment A wellregulated Militia being necessary to the security of a State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed as granting a personal right to bear arms but rather as a declaration that Congress should not do anything to displace state militias in modern terms the National Guard The case most often cited isUS v Miller which upheld a law restricting possession of a type of shotgun
		Additional refutation of antiguncontrol points involves the assertion that if more states passed mandatory sentencing laws for criminals who use guns in the commission of crimes crime would be unaffected because in the past such laws have failed to cut crime Guncontrol advocates further point out that if more states had waiting periods and background checks they would not usher in a police state pointing to the fact that although Congress passed the Brady Bill in it has yet to set off a chain of further steps leading to the establishment of a police state and that there is simply no logical reason to think that waiting periods will cause the emergence of a police state A major question is whether or not guncontrol laws reduce crime Thus far handgun bans have failed to have any significant impact on murder rates because of the large number of handguns in circulation prior to the bans Attempts to outlaw the manufacture and importation of handguns have failed because they stimulate the genesis of a black market for guns similar to the black market for s Laws seeking to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals juveniles and mental defectives have failed to reduce crime because active criminals either have guns already or can steal them Waiting periods and background checks temporarily stop some criminals and juveniles from getting guns but many steal them or get them through the black market Taking guns away from criminals is the one promising approach Proactive arrests made by police officers on patrols in guncrime hot spots using traffic enforcement and field interrogations for carrying concealed weapons substantially reduced gun crimes in Kansas City in the mids
		This is the only way o u t . Also can write to: 14 richardson ave livermore falls me 04254-1534
		Gun control does reduce crime Guncontrol advocates advance several arguments to support their position that the government should restrict the availability of guns to reduce violence More handguns in circulation equals more violent crime Owning a handgun increases a persons risk of being ed Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals prevents violent crime Taking guns away from criminals reduces violent crime Gun control does not reduce crime The National Rifle Association NRA criticizes proguncontrol arguments and offers an alternative proposal for reducing violence Guns dont �only people If more people carried guns to protect themselves there would be less violent crime Guncontrol laws are unconstitutional because they violate the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms Waiting period laws such as the Brady Bill are the first step on the road to a police state Gun control laws dont reduce violent crime An alternative to gun control�mandatory sentences for persons who commit crimes with firearms�will produce greater reductions in crime and require less sacrifice on the part of gun owners than guncontrol laws Evaluating gun control Definitions of Crime Criminologist Paul Tappan definescrimeas an intentional act or omission in violation of criminal law � committed without defense or justification and sanctioned by the state as a felony or misdemeanor Misdemeanors and felonies Possible punishments determine the differences between misdemeanors and feloniesMisdemeanorsare nonserious minor crimes that the government punishes by confinement in a local jail for a year or less Examples include petty theft simple assault disorderly conduct and disturbing the peaceFeloniesare serious crimes that the government punishes by or incarceration in a prison for at least a year This group includes such crimes as murder robbery and burglary Crimes versus torts Acrime or public wrong is to be distinguished from atort or private wrong Actually the same act may be both a crime and a tort For example O J Simpsons alleged ings of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman included the torts of assault battery and wrongful Simpsons alleged acts gave rise to both a criminal prosecution seeking punishment and a civil suit for damages State and federal crimes A notable difference between state and federal crimes is that federal crimes usually include a jurisdictional elementJurisdictionrefers to the geographic or substantive range of a courts authority The US Code for example doesnt punish theft itself It punishes theft from an interstate shipment or theft of government property Federal statutes exhibit a concern for jurisdiction because the Constitution limits Congress to enacting laws about subjects falling within its specific powers The states maintain lawmaking authority not delegated to the federal government When both the federal government and a state can prosecute a person for the same incident there isoverlapping jurisdiction The Constitution permits double prosecution in such cases Take for example the Rodney King beating case The state of California prosecuted four Los Angeles police officers for assault After an allwhite jury acquitted them the federal government held a separate trial based on the same incident In after an FBI investigation and federal prosecution a multiracial jury convicted two of the officers of violating Kings civil rights Types of Crime