PDA

View Full Version : My speech for the 2/10/09 OC meeting


eflatminor
02-04-2009, 11:51 AM
This is the speech I'm planning to give next week in front of Sheriff Hutchens. If anyone cares to give advice, suggest additions or correction, I would be most appreciative.

My less-than-three-minute speech:

As you consider whether or not to allow OC citizens to protect themselves and their families via a conceal carry permit, I would like to address three of the most common arguments against the issuance of CCWs: that it’s the job of the police to protect us, that we need gun control to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and lastly, that an innocent bystander might get hurt. I offer the following for your consideration:

1) The police have NO duty to protect an individual

Despite what may be written on the side of patrol cars, the courts have ruled, as in the case of Warren vs. the District of Columbia, that the police are not duty bound to protect an individual. This was also found to be the case in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez where the Supreme Court found that the police have no duty to protect an individual. These court rulings make it clear that it is up to us, not the police, to defend ourselves from attackers and Americans are doing just that with many studies indicating that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection.

2) Gun control does NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals. If anything, it appears to result in more crime.

In 1996, Australia effectively banned civilian gun ownership, even requiring citizens to turn in their firearms:
• Twelve months later, homicides were up 3.2%, armed robberies 44% and assaults 8.6%
• In the six years after the ban, violent crime rates average 32% higher than they did the year before the ban went into effect. Armed robbery rates increased 74%.
• In the decade since the law went into effect, a report in the British Journal of Criminology found that “restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia”
• In fact, according to the International Crime Victimization Survey, Australia’s violent crime rate is now double that of the U.S.

Over in England, hand gun ownership is banned and long guns are severely regulated following a 1996 school shooting. Let’s see how that worked out for England since the Jan ’97 ban?
• In the four years following the ban, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled, the ‘serious’ crime rate increase 64% and overall violent crime was up by 118% .
• The Economist Magazine reported that prior to the handgun ban, “…armed robberies were falling dramatically. After the ban, armed robberies started rising.”

Here at home, cities with the toughest gun control, such as Chicago and Washington DC regularly rank among those cities having the highest murder rate. It seems that it is easy to impose laws on the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, don’t take much interest in well-meaning legislation.

3) Innocent bystanders are NOT in danger

Often, gun control advocates will suggest that we should not be able to protect ourselves because someone other than the bad guy might get shot. This argument defies logic. Innocent people get shot when went gang members, thugs and felons seek eliminate witnesses or to intimidate by shooting into crowds. The CCW holder under attack has no reason to focus on anyone but the perpetrator. I wonder if the students at Virginia Tech would have minded an armed teacher or fellow student that day. Would they have said “No, put your gun away, you might miss”?

More importantly, I challenge any of you to produce one incident of a conceal carry permit holder using his firearm in lawful defense and accidentally shooting an innocent bystander.

In conclusion, we know that the police are not obligated to protect us, gun control results in more crime, and finally, there is nothing to suggest innocent people would get hurt by conceal-carry permit holders defending themselves. I urge this department to focus on criminals, not guns, for if guns are to blame for crime, we must also blame spoons for obesity. Thank you for your time.

Glock22Fan
02-04-2009, 12:02 PM
How long does it take for you to say this?

It seems a little long to me. When you practice, try speaking slowly, with pauses at the end of sentences and paragraphs. Better to be thirty seconds short than get stopped two words before you have finished.

Edit:

I read through it out loud, at the pace I would use for a lecture (I've done a lot of those). I got as far as "Often, gun control advocates will suggest . . ." when the 3 minutes was up. And that was without interruptions and applause :)

Looks as if you need to trim out about one third.

Dr Rockso
02-04-2009, 12:05 PM
This is the speech I'm planning to give next week in front of Sheriff Hutchens. If anyone cares to give advice, suggest additions or correction, I would be most appreciative.

My less-than-three-minute speech:

As you consider whether or not to allow OC citizens to protect themselves and their families via a conceal carry permit, I would like to address three of the most common arguments against the issuance of CCWs: that it’s the job of the police to protect us, that we need gun control to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and lastly, that an innocent bystander might get hurt. I offer the following for your consideration:

1) The police have NO duty to protect an individual

Despite what may be written on the side of patrol cars, the courts have ruled, as in the case of Warren vs. the District of Columbia, that the police are not duty bound to protect an individual. This was also found to be the case in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez where the Supreme Court found that the police have no duty to protect an individual. These court rulings make it clear that it is up to us, not the police, to defend ourselves from attackers and Americans are doing just that with many studies indicating that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection.

2) Gun control does NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals. If anything, it appears to result in more crime.

In 1996, Australia effectively banned civilian gun ownership, even requiring citizens to turn in their firearms:
• Twelve months later, homicides were up 3.2%, armed robberies 44% and assaults 8.6%
• In the six years after the ban, violent crime rates average 32% higher than they did the year before the ban went into effect. Armed robbery rates increased 74%.
• In the decade since the law went into effect, a report in the British Journal of Criminology found that “restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia”
• In fact, according to the International Crime Victimization Survey, Australia’s violent crime rate is now double that of the U.S.

Over in England, hand gun ownership is banned and long guns are severely regulated following a 1996 school shooting. Let’s see how that worked out for England since the Jan ’97 ban?
• In the four years following the ban, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled, the ‘serious’ crime rate increase 64% and overall violent crime was up by 118% .
• The Economist Magazine reported that prior to the handgun ban, “…armed robberies were falling dramatically. After the ban, armed robberies started rising.”

Here at home, cities with the toughest gun control, such as Chicago and Washington DC regularly rank among those cities having the highest murder rate. It seems that it is easy to impose laws on the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, don’t take much interest in well-meaning legislation.

3) Innocent bystanders are NOT in danger

Often, gun control advocates will suggest that we should not be able to protect ourselves because someone other than the bad guy might get shot. This argument defies logic. Innocent people get shot when went gang members, thugs and felons seek eliminate witnesses or to intimidate by shooting into crowds. The CCW holder under attack has no reason to focus on anyone but the perpetrator. I wonder if the students at Virginia Tech would have minded an armed teacher or fellow student that day. Would they have said “No, put your gun away, you might miss”?

More importantly, I challenge any of you to produce one incident of a conceal carry permit holder using his firearm in lawful defense and accidentally shooting an innocent bystander.

In conclusion, we know that the police are not obligated to protect us, gun control results in more crime, and finally, there is nothing to suggest innocent people would get hurt by conceal-carry permit holders defending themselves. I urge this department to focus on criminals, not guns, for if guns are to blame for crime, we must also blame spoons for obesity. Thank you for your time.

I think gun control is a different argument altogether, and should be left out of your speech. I would focus much more on the fact that ~40 states (not sure the exact number) allow for any law abiding citizen to carry a concealed firearm if he or she so chooses. If the consequences are so dire, why haven't those states experienced them? Furthermore, why the lack of problems in OC when it was effectively a shall-issue county?

If you do decide to go with the gun control arguments, make sure your numbers are correct. There are a lot of simply made-up 'statistics' floating around in chain emails and gun forums. Don't stoop to the level of the antis, check and double-check your facts. If you can't find a reliable source, leave it out.

GenLee
02-04-2009, 12:14 PM
I personally like your speach. I also admire the fact you are taking your time to A write it and B give it. Well done sir. :thumbsup:

CitaDeL
02-04-2009, 3:50 PM
This is the speech I'm planning to give next week in front of Sheriff Hutchens. If anyone cares to give advice, suggest additions or correction, I would be most appreciative.

My less-than-three-minute speech:


1) The police have NO duty to protect an individual
2) Gun control does NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals
3) Innocent bystanders are NOT in danger

I like the three bullet point format. I believe it would however, run long. I'm also not convinced that bringing up gun control statistics is going to be very effective when the issuance (or lack thereof) of "CCW" IS gun control. Challenging the Sheriff or the BOS to find facts that refute your position is perilous, as it is plausible they may have anticipated this arguement and are prepared to refute it with anecdotal evidence supported by factual or fictional statistics.

I'd keep the first point the same and substitute the following.

2) Revocation and non-issuance policies penalizes those who WANT to comply with the law. Revoking or 'Expiring" licenses are forcing otherwise law-abiding people to chose between breaking the law or providing for their own security.

3) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The Sheriffs constituents may not be able to force her to issue, but when she revokes licenses to carry concealed she risks the possibility every one of those former licensees will chose to carry in the only remaining lawful way in protest. In an environment where exposed carry is not the norm, she should expect to field quite a number of calls when 1,400 former licensees take to the streets.

.454
02-04-2009, 4:03 PM
1. Too long, you won't be able to deliver it in 3 minutes or less.

2. Always start with a joke, making the audience laugh a little in the beginning is the best recipe to catch their attention.

3. Numbers are always tiring, people get bored really fast. Get rid of "70% of the population" and "30% increase" phrases. Use "an overwhelming majority of the population" and "a dramatic increase" instead.

4. When delivering the speech, let your hands move and express what you feel; turn around as much as you can equally looking at the audience and the Board members like you are speaking at a family reunion. Don't just stand looking at the Sheriff Hutchens while reading your script.

Remember: what you say is far less important than how you say it.

Hope it helps and good luck.

BobB35
02-04-2009, 4:28 PM
Great letter. The only thing I would add to the first point is California Government code 845 exempts LEO from any liability for providing protection.

So in effect, The state courts rule the state doesn't have to protect you and then the legislature backs it up with codes. The Sherriff refuses to issues CCWs thereby preventing your from protecting yourself. All hail the criminal who is the only winner in this system.

tango-52
02-04-2009, 4:44 PM
Very nice, and thanks for helping in this.

In addition to the "40 other states" you might mention that 38 California counties accept Personal Protection as sufficient good cause, including San Bernardino County. Is Sheriff Hutchens saying that all those other Sheriffs are breaking the law by issuing under that Good Cause? Or is it just her personal bias against gun owners that is making her do this?

PonchoTA
02-04-2009, 5:25 PM
I agree with all the points raised above. All in all though, try not to put her (or the BOS) on the defensive by stating what/why they are wrong, but how they can do better, and ______ (these) are the statistics why...

- Other states as Shall Issue having drops in the big 4 of violent crimes,
- Other CA counties as Shall Issue having drops in the big 4 of violent crime,
- How often legally armed civilians have come to the aid of LEO's who are being overcome by their opponents
- How OC had fewer problems as Shall Issue, even under the "corrupt" Sheriff Carona
- Keep pinging on punishing the criminals, not the people who are already law-abiding!!!

etc. murder[/U], armed robbery, armed assault, rape/aggravated assault. My interpretation anyway!]

[B]Try to woo them over to help us in the fight, not fight us!!

Lastly, the points I always try to make when dealing with the anti's is:

They are under the impression that armed, we are all potential murderers;
We are convinced that unarmed, we are all potential victims.
and
Gun Control is not about Guns, it's about Control. :(


Good luck! Look them in the eye as much as you can, makes it personal!
Also remember the VEGA!!!

V - Voice
E - Eye contact
G - Gestures
A - Attitude/Appearance (don't look like a slob and expect to be taken seriously. Dress shirt and slacks, shined shoes will go a long way! No jeans!)


.

eflatminor
02-04-2009, 6:30 PM
You're all right about it being too long. I'm working on a shorter version. I'll take in all your suggestions and try to come up with something compelling and irrefutable. I'll do my best to deliver it in a convincing manner. Thanks.

RomanDad
02-04-2009, 6:37 PM
looks good to me... One word of caution... .THOSE 3 MINUTES FLY BY!!!!

xxdabroxx
02-04-2009, 8:30 PM
number one is good. and i like CitaDeL's number three as well. I think with these two you should be able to work up a powerful speech. Take your time, practice it over and over.