PDA

View Full Version : College student in debate about the ban of hand guns needs your help!!!


mlindberg0716
09-07-2007, 10:25 AM
HI, my name is Marc Lindberg and i just recently signed up for a speech/debate on the item of banning the sale of hand guns. Me personally I do not own a gun. However i have many family members who do. I'm posting this thread to get as many replies, opinions or links to other web sites involving this topic. To state my view i believe that the ownership of a gun is what makes this country what it is. The founding fathers of this great nation stated that we should have the ability to have weapons in our homes to protect our home and country from invaders forigen and domestic. I completely agree with this. I understand the cons of stolen weapons however I do know there are many precautions to be taken which can avoid this. Please feel free to comment or just share any thoughts you may have. The more people the better

Thanks in advance, Marc

Grouch
09-07-2007, 10:26 AM
check this site out.

http://www.gunfacts.info/

JawBone
09-07-2007, 10:34 AM
Read the D.C. Circuit Court opinion in Parker v. D.C. (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html) (now "D.C. v. Heller" on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court).

Soundman
09-07-2007, 10:39 AM
go to you tube or google videos and search for penn and teller gun control. It's a great video.


I just did a speech for a class on gun control and have lots of good facts. PM me your email address and I'll send you my powerpoint to check out. One of my favorite facts is the extremely high percentage of guns in Switzerland. Many of them are even fully automatic. Nearly every single home in the country has at least one gun. Over there, the government madates that all men must serve in the military for a certain percentage of each year and they get to keep their firearms during their "off duty" times (ammo too). Yet they have 3X less firearms related homicides and injuries per capita than the U.S. I like using that argument when people tell me that "guns kill". I also showed that in Texas where there are many more people carrying guns each day (CCW) that they have approximately 1/2 of the firearms related homicides as California. I don't remember the exact figure of how many CCW permits there are in TX vs. CA but it's in my powerpoint.

I commented on how gun owners are not "rednecks" or "thugs" and then I showed a slide covered in celebs that own guns.

My speech went over quite well, I even converted a few anti-gun students.

slick_711
09-07-2007, 10:43 AM
Use some stats on Australia if possible. They banned ALL guns just a few years ago and their crime rates all went up. It's cliche as hell, but "when guns are illegal, only criminals have guns" is about as truthful as it gets.

Be sure to drill home that there is no 811 (i.e. a number to call to prevent crime) the police only respond to crime, and in many cases (no offense to our LEOs, but you know its true) they are overworked and understaffed and do not show up very quickly. My own home was burglarized just this week and some guns stolen, we called 911 and after being on hold for 5 minutes, said "My house was burglarized, some guns were stolen, and we don't know if the burglar is still here." 911 told us to call the non-emergency line and hung up on us. The non-emergency line had us on hold for 15 minutes and sent an officer out the next day @4pm. Had I not had my 1911 and the burglar still been in my home, myself and two of my closest friends could have been seriously injured. If you can drill through that "the police will be here in 30 seconds and save me" mentality that so many people have, you can help them to see that a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen is not a bad thing.

Something you're certain to face is the # of child/gun related accidents. Jump on that as soon as it is brought up and explain that responsible gun owners give their children proper instruction in safety & avoiding firearms, and don't leave loaded firearms where children can gain access to them.

Also, I don't remember where the below list came from, an e-mail or post here perhaps. It's written up very satirically, but quite a bit of it is truthful, furthermore, I'd imagine some of the arguments in there are sarcastic twists on some arguments you'll actually be facing. So perhaps take a look at some of them (make sure you verify their legitimacy) and reword them into a context that will either make a good argument for you, or a good response to specific arguments you are likely to encounter.


40 reasons to ban guns.....

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun
control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the
lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics
showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into
effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,
which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting
spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a
lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot
with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking
gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -
give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete
Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about
guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.


11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil
engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer
programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which
was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using
federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing
trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of
the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain
rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,"
and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states
respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of
the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban
and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to
that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the
army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military
weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because
they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,
government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is
responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's,
anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,
variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no
fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling
guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch"
campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them
properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical
adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun
is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at
women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers
but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun
shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority
of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a
"weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which
most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned
because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use
of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and
typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of
the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the
Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap
lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a
representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is
entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger
capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone
and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns
because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that
private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the
police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the
police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police
chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with
cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of
people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential
promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to
buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for
defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their
duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong
hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

Soundman
09-07-2007, 10:48 AM
Oh I almost forgot that you may want to mention that there are currently 20,000 gun control laws in theis country.

I said something like "If 20,000 laws aren't working, what makes politicians think that 20,001 will. Maybe they should just enforce the laws that will actully help stop crime instead of passing new laws to take firearms aways from law abiding citizens" My whole class started nodding their heads in aggreement when I said that.

Soundman
09-07-2007, 11:57 AM
I just sent you off an email with a copy of my speech script and a link to the powerpoint.

I hope it helps.

ldivinag
09-07-2007, 12:17 PM
what do you guys counter argue when someone says

"guns make it easy to shoot someone. without a gun, people are less likely to hurt someone..."

Fjold
09-07-2007, 12:19 PM
Use some stats on Australia if possible. They banned ALL guns just a few years ago and their crime rates all went up. It's cliche as hell, but "when guns are illegal, only criminals have guns" is about as truthful as it gets.




Australia did not ban all guns!

I get invitations to hunt there all the time. They banned semi-automatic firearms and handguns are only licensed to competitive shooters. You can still hunt there with rifles and shotguns.

Goose season just opened this week there.

SemiAutoSam
09-07-2007, 12:20 PM
Im sure you meant 20,001 not 200,001.
And then some comic relief from a great source. KT ordanance.

The pics below the link came from the page listed below BTW some good quotes there as well about gun rights and gun control.
http://www.molonlabearms.com/mla/
http://www.molonlabearms.com/images/solution.jpg


This page is also great for political pics and quotes.
http://www.ktordnance.com/kto/humor.php

http://www.ktordnance.com/images/s-foryourprotection.gif
http://www.ktordnance.com/images/1775vs2005d.jpg
http://www.ktordnance.com/images/according_to_sarah.jpg
http://www.ktordnance.com/images/resist.jpg
http://www.ktordnance.com/images/thesigning.jpg





Oh I almost forgot that you may want to mention that there are currently 20,000 gun control laws in theis country.

I said something like "If 20,000 laws aren't working, what makes politicians think that 20,0001 will. Maybe they should just enforce the laws that will actully help stop crime instead of passing new laws to take firearms aways from law abiding citizens" My whole class started nodding their heads in aggreement when I said that.

AJAX22
09-07-2007, 12:24 PM
what do you guys counter argue when someone says

"guns make it easy to shoot someone. without a gun, people are less likely to hurt someone..."

Sure... they're less likely to SHOOT someone with a legally purchased gun if you make it difficult to legally purchase a gun. however that would seem to work in favor of the murderer and not the disarmed victim.

Its already illigal to murder someone, what makes you think they'll follow the law getting a weapon to commit the murder?

there's nothing magical about guns, its just metal, people make them out of plumbing hardware in third world countries, If there truly are no guns available what makes you think that they won't improvise one on their own?

and finally, last I checked europe has only had the firearm for about six hundered years.... and cartridge arms have only existed for the last 160 years. people must have not been able to kill eachother during that age of eutopian bliss :rolleyes:

what were our founding fathers thinking?

bulgron
09-07-2007, 12:29 PM
what do you guys counter argue when someone says

"guns make it easy to shoot someone. without a gun, people are less likely to hurt someone..."

Ask the person if they think they would just up and shoot someone out of anger if a gun is present in the room. If they say 'no' (which they should), then ask them why they think everyone else is different from them. If they say 'yes' suggest to them that they need professional help with their anger management issues.

Librarian
09-07-2007, 12:32 PM
Other web sites:

http://www.ccrkba.org/

http://www.saf.org/

http://www.guncite.com/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626381/posts -- this one is kind of random; the explanation for that is at the top of the page. Lots of good things, but you have to already know what you're looking for.

Visual aids:

http://www.m1911.org/full_1911desc.htm

http://www.sniperworld.com/glock/

http://www.genitron.com/IntPistol.html

http://www.genitron.com/IntRevolver.html

http://www.genitron.com/basics.html -- Genitron has lots of good handgun information

Grakken
09-07-2007, 12:39 PM
This is a little Cliche but

GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE


If guns were never invented, we would kill each other with blades, if no blades, we would kill each other with wooden weapons, if no wood, we would kill each other with saran wrap.....get my point?

I could point a gun wherever I wanted but IF I do not pull the trigger, the gun, barring a catastrophic mechanical failure, will never discharge.

Please represent us well and crush the clowns on the other side.

Tell them they should ban alchohol too since that DRUG takes many more lives than firearms in this country...oh wait we tried that once didnt we?

come back and post how the debate went.

Crazed_SS
09-07-2007, 12:57 PM
what do you guys counter argue when someone says

"guns make it easy to shoot someone. without a gun, people are less likely to hurt someone..."

This might sound calous, but I always respond with, "You're making the assumption that shooting someone is always negative. While it might be negative in the sense that a human was killed or injured, it is not always negative in the sense that a weapon (handgun, bat, knife, etc) can be used by a person to defend him or herself against an attacker. That is a good thing."

Remember, murder is wrong. Killing, however, is not always wrong and in some cases (such as self-defense) it may very well be the righteous course of action.

Im a political science major so I'm constantly doing gun control arguments in class. I differ from most gun owners in the way that I argue for gun ownership. I hardly ever bring up the 2nd Amendment as the basis of my argument, because what if the 2nd didnt exist? I believe people have the right to arms themselves regardless of what the constitution says. I also try to avoid pre-packaged pro-gun cliches. People have heard all the cliches before and you wont change anyone's mind by repeating the same stuff over again. You really need to have substance to your argument for it to work.

Sometimes I will frame my argument around freedom. In the college enviroment you're sure to find a bunch of people who against the Bush adminstration's wiretapping, the patriot act, etc. Those people are concerned with the government taking their freedoms in search of greater security. Well I'd argue that more gun control is simply another example of government trying to take one of your freedoms (right to bear arms) for the supposed goal of creating a more secure society.

EDIT: One more other thing. I do not try to play down the fact that a gun is a weapon. I dont try to liken guns to cars or screwdrivers. A gun is not a screwdriver. The is a reason people on this board have a safe full of guns for defense and not a safe full of screwdrivers. Jeff Cooper said, "The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny." I completely acknowledge the fact that a gun is a weapon, however I will argue that weapons themselves are niether good nor evil. Like Col Cooper said, it depends on who is wielding it.

Patriot
09-07-2007, 1:30 PM
Depending on

(1) your assessment of your abilities
(2) knowledge of the class itself, people in the class, and professor
(3) you evaluation of the other side

you may wish to consider several distinct arguments, and then "customize" your approach, selecting complementary and appropriate arguments you feel are best suited to inform or persuade.

This thread has A TON of great arguments against gun control in general, along with one guy raising a bunch of common gun control objections that you should be prepared to counter:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=297709

Patriot
09-07-2007, 1:37 PM
What type of debate is this, and in what class?

Speech Class lets you get away with murder when it comes to extralogical appeals

Formal debates have strict rules and guidelines

Casual "class activity" debates need to be prepared for any sort of whacko argument, plus you need to take extra steps to keep your argument simple, clear, and relevant

mlindberg0716
09-07-2007, 1:53 PM
What type of debate is this, and in what class?

Speech Class lets you get away with murder when it comes to extralogical appeals

Formal debates have strict rules and guidelines

Casual "class activity" debates need to be prepared for any sort of whacko argument, plus you need to take extra steps to keep your argument simple, clear, and relevant

It's not a formal debate, infact it is for a speech 101 class. another student however was selected to argue the opposing side of gun control so it is somewhat of a debate. Thats why i wanted to get as many opinions from gun owners as I could

pnkssbtz
09-07-2007, 2:10 PM
what do you guys counter argue when someone says

"guns make it easy to shoot someone. without a gun, people are less likely to hurt someone..."
I'd say, your premise is duly noted but false.

The idea that the inanimate object bears the burden of blame for such an act is to deny responsibility where it is due.

Are spoons and other eating utensils then the cause for obesity in America? Or the fact that people misuse them in their over indulgence and gluttony?


"A sword never kills anyone; it is a tool in the killer's hand." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman Philosopher, Dramatist, and Statesman (4 B.C. - 65 A.D.)

"Doctors have been caught using poisons, and those who falsely assume the name of philosopher have occasionally been detected in the gravest crimes. Let us give up eating, it often makes us ill; let us never go inside houses, for sometimes they collapse on their occupants; let never a sword be forged for a soldier, since it might be used by a robber." - ancient Roman educator Marcus Fabius Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, II, xvi (first century AD).

Soundman
09-07-2007, 2:45 PM
Im sure you meant 20,001 not 200,001.
And then some comic relief from a great source. KT ordanance.



Oops, yep I meant 20,001 I'll fix my post

Patriot
09-07-2007, 2:54 PM
It's not a formal debate, infact it is for a speech 101 class. another student however was selected to argue the opposing side of gun control so it is somewhat of a debate. Thats why i wanted to get as many opinions from gun owners as I could

Okay, good. That means you've got much more room to introduce appeals to pathos [appeal to feeling] and ethos [appeal to character] (gotten that far in class, yet?)

This can be particularly effective if you're using visual aids. The plaintiffs in Parker/Heller vs D.C. (their names, faces, occupations) would be good for subtly pointing out that gun owners are normal people too.

Edit: I used to have some of that info on names/faces...anyone here have links?

Patriot
09-07-2007, 3:05 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Consider this also to make the proper carry and use of handguns by "ordinary people" relevant (especially to a college class).

mth
09-07-2007, 7:16 PM
Regarding the efficacy of banning, I would draw a lot of parallels to the ban on drugs and the "war" that ensued.

I would point out that restricting the availability of arms to the public only increases the power gap between the public and the government and ask if they really want the government to have all the power.

I would point out that the government offers no reliable means of protection and removing citizens' legal options for self defense leaves them with no options. Then follow it up very closely with detailed a detailed recounting of local historical incidents hitting close to home, like Hurricane Katrina and the LA riots. If you're in CA bring up the possibility of The Big Earthquake and its likely effect on social order and availability of police, etc. Depending on how into it you want to get, you might also find it good to point out the absurdity of trying (or mandating!) to counter distributed threats like regular crime, terrorism, etc. with monolithic means like a police force. Countering these threats at the edge with an armed and responsible citizenry is a lot more effective and efficient.

Regarding children, I would put the number of accidental deaths in perspective by comparing it to the statistics of other things like drowning, auto accidents, etc. as per statistics from the CDC website. Perhaps ask if we should ban pools, which are only for the purpose of recreation (vs. guns for defense) to reduce these accidents? I.e. point out the absurdity of the "isn't it worth it if it saves only one life?" argument.

If you want to do a public service, you could spend a little time debunking the myths of "super deadly baby killing spray from the hip infinte ammo no reloading 20000 round magazine assault machine gun weapons," showing how nobody can even come up with a solid definition of them and that it's based entirely on appearance, not function. Show that the best 'hot issue' the other side can come up with is just that they don't like some guns that look 'evil' :rolleyes: -- might be a little too specific for something on overall gun control though, you don't want to get bogged down in technicalities if you're supposed to be debunking gun control as a whole. After all, if they stop believing in gun control, the rest just follows.

I would show how governments like the UK which went in the direction of banning weapons are quickly converging to 1984-like police states, and have increasing crime problems. http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html is excellent reading on this count with some examples of how absurd the UK has become. See if a society that prohibits self defense is really one they want to live in?

In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive [...] No one came to his aid. [...] In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

If you feel that your audience is left-leaning (likely, I guess?) you might also point out how having power (guns) in the hands of the people is actually extremely in line with true liberal beliefs. I feel sort of shameless promoting it, but I wrote an OpEd about that subject which maybe you might find useful: http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=14361


So many things you could say, that's probably less than one tenth of it :44:

Also since it's about banning handguns, you might want to tie this all together by showing how handguns are the most effective in today's society for protecting yourself out on the street, where most of the day to day threats are; unless they think it should be ok for people to carry around rifles, shotguns, and car mounted 1919s, which I'm sure we'd all be happy with :)