PDA

View Full Version : Help Me Influence Young Minds


JP4C
04-27-2009, 8:23 PM
I'm in a public speaking class at the local college and will be giving a persuasive speech against gun control. My idea is to build 3-5 cases against other subjects that can cause death, auto accidents for example, get the class riled up with stats, without the subject being revealed until they are agreeing to banning or strict control, then slam them with reality, revealing the subject where they will quickly back peddle and state that it's illogical to restrict something as common as autos, or candles maybe, because they can cause harm if misused.

They will catch on and realize that stats can be misleading. Soon, I will have them agreeing that strict control is unreasonable before they even know the subject, at which time I will reveal the stats on gun related deaths. Before knowing the subject they will already be agreeing that stricter regulation is clearly not the answer. I'm hoping by setting the logical precedence of the other subjects, they will be able to see the emotional, not logical, bias against the right to bear arms. I will conclude with B Franklin and T Jefferson thoughts and quotes as well as the idea that an infringement on any of our constitutional rights is an infringement on all our rights.

So, my question is if anyone has any good thoughts about my other subjects and a reliable place for stats? Such as candles causing X amount of deaths per year, or electrical accidents causing X many deaths per year, so we better ban electricity. No one will stand for that and gun control is no different. I hope you guys can follow my logic. I'm open to any and all advice and am hoping to sway a few naive minds to start thinking for themselves. Thanks.

FelixP
04-27-2009, 8:32 PM
Found this (http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html) on Google.

radioburning
04-27-2009, 9:25 PM
There are many tables with the yearly statistics on U.S. deaths on the F.B.I. webpage, as well as the webpage for the Center for Disease Control(CDC). I've lifted plenty of info from those pages to bury anti's in forums.

Meplat
04-27-2009, 9:39 PM
I'm in a public speaking class at the local college and will be giving a persuasive speech against gun control. My idea is to build 3-5 cases against other subjects that can cause death, auto accidents for example, get the class riled up with stats, without the subject being revealed until they are agreeing to banning or strict control, then slam them with reality, revealing the subject where they will quickly back peddle and state that it's illogical to restrict something as common as autos, or candles maybe, because they can cause harm if misused.

They will catch on and realize that stats can be misleading. Soon, I will have them agreeing that strict control is unreasonable before they even know the subject, at which time I will reveal the stats on gun related deaths. Before knowing the subject they will already be agreeing that stricter regulation is clearly not the answer. I'm hoping by setting the logical precedence of the other subjects, they will be able to see the emotional, not logical, bias against the right to bear arms. I will conclude with B Franklin and T Jefferson thoughts and quotes as well as the idea that an infringement on any of our constitutional rights is an infringement on all our rights.

So, my question is if anyone has any good thoughts about my other subjects and a reliable place for stats? Such as candles causing X amount of deaths per year, or electrical accidents causing X many deaths per year, so we better ban electricity. No one will stand for that and gun control is no different. I hope you guys can follow my logic. I'm open to any and all advice and am hoping to sway a few naive minds to start thinking for themselves. Thanks.

Swimming pools, bicycles, and falls are a good place to start. Auto accidents are a no brainier. household poisons/chemicals are also more deadly than firearms. You may also want to explore the fact that those who oppose firearms concider people in their twenties "children" in order to inflate their statistics with gang bangers.

JP4C
04-27-2009, 10:16 PM
Thanks, thanks and thanks...

All good stuff. Been to these sights and built my case upon them. Any other thoughts? Links to your arguments against ignorance? I know, a little too serious for a pre-req class, but I will never pass up the opportunity to enlighten the foolish masses.

If you had only 8 minutes to change the thoughts of impressionable minds, how would you approach it? Your ideas can and may change the world. Every effort counts. Thanks!

Flogger23m
04-27-2009, 10:38 PM
Just don't compare accidental deaths with murders. As in, don't compare accidental car crashes with the amount of people murdered with guns. Or, at least try to minimalism it as much as possible.

Show how many people are killed by alcohol each year. Especially drunk driving. Explain how 80,000 or so people die each year due to alcohol, while only 33,000-40,000 people die each year to gun violence (this counts police and self defense to. Then ask these two questions:

1) Why should we put further restrictions on firearms, when alcohol kills more people?

Alcohol can provide the following things:

1. Entertainment/recreational use
2. Is used in many traditions

While firearms can provide the following things:

1. Entertainment/recreational use
2. Is used in many traditions
3. Can be used in self defense
4. It is a constitutional right that all Americans have

Firearms are tools which can be used for real purposes outside of recreational use. The same can not be said for firearms. If you want to enact tougher gun control claiming that you are doing it for safety, then you should also being trying to enact tougher restrictions on alcohol.


Then, if you want to get into accidental deaths, explain how rare gun related accidents are, especially with kids. For example, more people drown each year than die in gun related accidents.

Another is that a kid is more likely do drown in a swimming pool at their own home than get injured by a firearm stored in their home. More households have guns than pools, yet more children drown in swimming pools. This makes swimming pools much more dangerous to children than having firearms in the house.

Here is a good site which deals with these topics:

http://www.guncite.com/


Hopefully I helped you a little.

evan69
04-27-2009, 10:43 PM
I like OP's idea better. Show some figures about different causes of death, and then reveal that guns are the least to blame, then go to explain that many of these "deaths" were justified, and that self defense vastly outweighs homicides when it comes to firearms.

You will have them convinced before they even know what is coming.

avdrummerboy
04-27-2009, 10:48 PM
You need to drill into them that more laws equals more crime, not more firearms. For example, there are many driving laws, as well as licensing, yet there are many many people killed in drunk driving events and other accidents each year; where is the public outcry to ban driving? Nowhere, because a vehicle is a useful tool that many millions utilize, as is a firearm, but the general public doesn't realize this due mostly to media bias and other pressures that make most uneducated people believe that firearms are intrinsically evil and bad.

You may also want to compare Switzerland with other countries that have total gun bans, show that in places where all guns are banned, the crime rates, especially violent crime, goes up drastically, compared to say Switzerland with basically no gun laws; they enjoy the lowest violent crime rate of any "civilized" (whatever that means) nation.

Hope some of this helps.

Josh3239
04-28-2009, 12:24 AM
Switzerland has the highest per capita firepower in the world and is one of the most peaceful nations in the world. They avoided both world wars and have considerably lower amount of murders than the gun ban nations of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and England.

99.8% of firearms and more than 99.6% of handguns in the US will not be used to commit violent crimes in any given year.

Washington DC - 1987 banned handgun sales = Early 1990's the murder rate tripled with handguns .

California has added waiting periods, safe handgun lists, assault weapon bans, 1 handgun per month, and handgun registration and has essentially been the most anti-gun state in the union yet our annual murder rates average 32% higher than the rest of the country.

Since Maryland adopted gun purchasing limits, waiting periods, AW restrictions, and regulating transfers between family members their murder rate has shot up and has some of the highest robbery rates in the country.

Federal Gun control Act of 1968 = first five years the national murder rate rose almost 50% higher = the five years after that the national murder rate rose 81%

Criminals create crimes not law abiding gun owners - In 1991 162,000 criminals released on parole committed 46,000 violent crimes. 19% of people involved in the killings of LEOs over the last decade were on probation or parole at the time of the officers killing.

Virginia's Project Exile = sentenced felons convicted of illegally possessing guns receive a minimum of five years in prison. Richmond immediately saw firearm murder rates drop

In the 20th century, apprx 170 million people were killed by their government. Compare this to the fact that in the same 20th century, only 38.5 million people were killed in warfare.

John Lott and David Mustard's conducted a study and their report, The Right-to-Carry Concealed Guns and the Importance of Deterrence found that essentially the more CCW permits, the less the crime. Lott and Mustard also reported that gun accidents didn't increase. Lott wrote, "An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 or 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men". Lott and Mustard also noted that, "States that have right to carry laws have lower violent crime and homicide rates on average, compared to the rest of the country. RTC states have a 24% lower total violent crime rate, a 19% lower aggravated assault rate, and a 39% lower robbery rate." In their conclusion they wrote, "People who obtain carry permits are by far more law abiding than the rest of the public. In FL, for example, only a fraction of 1% of carry liscenses have been revoked because of gun releated crimes committed by license holders."

Gary Kleck claims that guns are used in defense at least 2.5 million times each year in the US. In his book Kleck wrote, "The best available evidence indicates that guns were used about three to five times for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes."

James Wright and Peter Rossi claim in protective gun uses, only about .1% of criminals are killed and only 1% of criminals are wounded. They claim this isn't because people are missing their targets, but because the sight of a gun is enough to scare the intruder.

Anti-gun researcher David McDowell writes, "Waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."

Instant background checks - Instant background checks can immediately nab a criminal attempting to buy a gun. Waiting periods give a criminal more time to walk the streets, meanwhile average Joe who needs a handgun immediately for defense remains defenseless. In an 8 year period Virginia's instant checks nabbed 3,380 criminals, 475 were already wanted.

National Center for Health statistics 1996 accidental deaths per capita =
Motor Vehicles 16.3 per 100,000
Falls 5.6 per 100,000
Poisoning 3.6 per 100,000
Fires 1.4 per 100,000
Drowning 1.3 per 100,000
Choking 1.2 per 100,000
Medical Mistakes 1.1 per 100,000
Gun Accident .4 per 100,000

^above^ Yes that means you have a better chance of having a doctor kill you during surgery or choking on dinner and dying then dying from a gun accident.

Gary Kleck says in 98% of "reported cases, criminals flee the moment they realize their intended victim is armed".

John Lott belives that based on 15 national polls, LA Times, Gallup, and Peter Hart Research Associates guns are used for defensive purposes 760,000-3.6 million times per year.

The Arther Kellerman Study = Kellerman claims that having a gun in your house makes it 44 times more likely for it to be used to a kill a family member. What Kellerman doesn't tell you is that most of the deceased from his research were suicides. Nationwide 58% of firearm related deaths are from suicides. Gun owners accidentally killing family members is at most once for every 90,000 times they are used in self defense.

Gun control supporter Phillip Cook, "Any gun that can be used in self defense has a legitimate purpose and therefore is not useless. Similiarily any gun that can be used in a crime can be used in self defense."

National Institute of Justice = "There is no evidence anywehre to show that reducing the availability of firearms in general likewise reduces the availability to persons with criminal intent or that persons with criminal intent would not be able to arms themselves under any set of general restrictions on firearms."

US DOJ, FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook: "Only a fraction of 1% of firearm owners ever use their gunsi n crimes and only a fraction of 1% of guns are used to commit crimes."

FBI crime statistics: firearm related vilence is less prevalent in many states and cities where firearm ownership is the greatest. Guns deter violence.

US BOJ Report Based on Interviews With 18,000 Inmates: less than 1% of criminals obtain guns from gunshows. National institute of Justice study claimes less than 2% of criminals guns come from gun shows. (That less than 2% were probably stolen)

JP4C
04-28-2009, 11:01 AM
Thank you very much guys, this info will be put to good use. I'll definitely stick with my set the precedence idea. I will be sure to clarify the difference between violent, accidental and suicide related deaths. That to me is a huge factor and can really change how people view the subject and when they get blasted with these big stats from the media, they'll know that they are being manipulated.

I have a lot I'd like to say, but with only 8 minutes must be selective. The Professor is a gun owner and regular shooter :thumbsup: and was thrilled when I presented my topic. She is tired of all the anti-gun speeches the American youth spits out without any thought.

Nodda Duma
04-28-2009, 11:04 AM
Also, keep in mind how you compare ownership of firearms with ownership of vehicles, etc. Firearm ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Driving a car is a privilege.

-Jason

GunSlinga
04-28-2009, 11:50 AM
Thanks, thanks and thanks...

If you had only 8 minutes to change the thoughts of impressionable minds, how would you approach it? Your ideas can and may change the world. Every effort counts. Thanks!

I call this the Socratic poll:

SPEAKER: Let's have a show of hands. If you could push a magic button and make all the guns in America instantly disappear, how many of you would push that button?

AUDIENCE: [Many hands are raised.]

SPEAKER: OK. Now, of those of you with your hands up, how many of you believe that laws prohibiting firearms ownership will work, EVEN A LITTLE BIT, like that magic button?

AUDIENCE: [A few hands are still raised.]

SPEAKER: OK. Now, if laws prohibiting firearms ownership will get rid of some of those guns, in other words, if it will disarm some people, who will it tend to disarm more: criminals, who by definition will disregard the law, or law-abiding citizens, who by definition will obey it?

(Simplistic, I know, but it makes the point...)

KCM222
04-28-2009, 2:35 PM
As Flogger23m pointed out, I would definitely acknowledge the difference between an accidental death (which people accept as "just part of life") vs a murder (which people obviously get upset about).

In doing so be sure to point out that the egregious acts that precede gun control are never prevented or disuaded by more gun control.

Another 2A thread has an FBI report giving information along these lines:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=178030

It's a little bit of a sidetrack from what you're doing, but it may be something nice to throw in.

Flogger23m
04-28-2009, 2:51 PM
Thank you very much guys, this info will be put to good use. I'll definitely stick with my set the precedence idea. I will be sure to clarify the difference between violent, accidental and suicide related deaths. That to me is a huge factor and can really change how people view the subject and when they get blasted with these big stats from the media, they'll know that they are being manipulated.


Good. Remember that suicides = 30% or so of all annual gun deaths in the USA. Or, maybe it was higher. While suicide is bad, its not as bad as someone taking another persons life.

domokun
04-28-2009, 2:53 PM
Also check out here for more info:

http://www.gunfacts.info/

mydogsmonkey
04-28-2009, 8:57 PM
There are many tables with the yearly statistics on U.S. deaths on the F.B.I. webpage, as well as the webpage for the Center for Disease Control(CDC). I've lifted plenty of info from those pages to bury anti's in forums.

can i get some links plz for my anti friends?

Josh3239
04-28-2009, 9:39 PM
Also, keep in mind how you compare ownership of firearms with ownership of vehicles, etc. Firearm ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Driving a car is a privilege.

-Jason

Not to mention liscencing drivers doesn't seem to have stopped car accidents, drunk driving, hit and runs, illegal street racing, or any other traffic violations for that matter. And while vehicles are driven by insured and liscenced people (atleast theoretically), they are still more dangerous than firearms.

umoja
04-28-2009, 10:21 PM
Make sure to tell us how it goes afterwards :thumbsup:

I had a pretty tough time defending my position in my critical thinking class. The prof was pretty objective, even though I suspect he dislikes guns in general, but the class hated 'em.