IMO gun control is horribly misguided legislation based on the concept that individuals aren't responsible for their own behavior.
Gun control is an easy solution for these people. They believe that if you take away the guns, the crime will stop. Outlawing hardware is so much easier than changing one's social mindset and addressing underlying causes for violent behavior. You can't teach right and wrong to today's youth if you believe in moral relativism and don't think there are any universal values. So its easy to blame guns as a scapegoat and give people the false illusion that it'll fix the problem.
There's so many ways to poke holes in the gun control argument that it's like shooting fish in a barrel. But one of the easiest ways is to point out that an estimated 500,000 Rwandans were murdered between April and July 1994 in an act of genocide. Huge numbers of them were hacked to death with machetes. Many who attempted to resist attempted to do so with sticks and stones. This didn't occur because of an abundance of guns in the country.
One of the first things Hitler did in the late 1930s was disarm the Jewish population.
But if you want good info for your thesis, I recommend reading Dr. John Lott, who has put together some of the most logical and well-researched arguments against gun control. He has a website at http://www.johnrlott.com/
I think that gun control laws are like all other laws. Government refuses to deal with problems, they deal with symptions. By dealing with the symption the problem never goes away and they continue to apear to be looking for answers. If they deal with the problem they may mistakenly fix it. What would they have to do then?
Gun control is their answer to dealing with the unlawful actions of an individual where a firearm was involved. If the individual had been carrying a rock instead of a gun, we would not hear of rock control. Funny thing about that back door, you never know what's coming thru it. The only thing you can be sure of is that it's likely disenginious and designed as a feel good measure.
Well there's the problem. Unless you go after the guns, you have to admit that vaunted social programs aren't working. You have to admit that law enforcement isn't keeping people as safe as they think. You have to start considering things like breakdown of individual or social values, loss of respect for life, etc. If you allow that a victim might've been able to defend himself/herself, that wreaks havoc with the concept that there's no place for individual judgement when society rules all. You have to admit that the social structure being held up as a panacea for everything doesn't always work.
Bottom line is that if you're left wing and go after guns, you can appear to be doing something without calling in an airstrike on your own position. It deflects attention away from you, and is an effective way of scapegoating your way out of introspection.
Human nature says its easier to look outside at symbols than it is to look inside at causes. Politicians don't get elected by telling people they're the problem.
Wild boars are like many other (male) wild animals in that they will tangle over the affections of the fairer sex. Nature has however given them some additional padding over the fairer sex to prevent them from tearing each other to shreds. This bony cartiledge is most commonly referred to as the boar's shield. This armor helps prevent the tusks of mature males from penetrating into the vitals of their rivals (usually). I'd heard of such a thing before going on my first wild...