Writing a debate topic on gun control.

[tombinghamthegreat]

My group at my college for my speech class is going to debate another team on the gun control. They will present their view, ban all guns in CA and then my team has to discredit there claims. I think I got some sources but any scholory scources to help me would be good. More intel later

[bohoki]

i guess you could ask how much the wall around california would cost to keep out guns form other states

also would that cause drive by crossbowings to increase?

also ask if all guns are banned does that mean the police can turn theirs in and just use pepper spray tazers and clubs?

[Wyatt]

I'd like to sit in on that debate. I just cannot for the life of me understand gun control and the logic it's proponents use. Maybe I might learn something? I just don't see how gun control does anymore than regulate law abiding citizens, which my logic demands are not committing gun related crimes. So what is the point of gun control?

[Shotgun Man]

I'd like to sit in on that debate. I just cannot for the life of me understand gun control and the logic it's proponents use. Maybe I might learn something? I just don't see how gun control does anymore than regulate law abiding citizens, which my logic demands are not committing gun related crimes. So what is the point of gun control?

Yeah, anyway you can record it and get a transcript?

[wilit]

I had a similar debate in speech class too. One of my arguing points was how the NFA of 1934 restricted FA firearms and the GCA of 1968 banned AP ammo, but the North Hollywood shoot-out guys happened to possess both. Proof criminals don't follow 30 and 60 year old laws.

[Shotgun Man]

I had a similar debate in speech class too. One of my arguing points was how the NFA of 1934 restricted FA firearms and the GCA of 1968 banned AP ammo, but the North Hollywood shoot-out guys happened to possess both. Proof criminals don't follow 30 and 60 year old laws.

Yeah, so how did the debate go?

[rivviepop]

This might be of use to your team: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

If I may offer some advice - your opposition will probably rely heavily on emotion and sentiment, as there are few actual statistics to back them up (there are some, be sure to acknowledge them as valid - it makes you look good). Your best course of action - were I to be on your team - would to be arguing based on facts and do your best to segregate the emotional portions of the debate out - address them (never ignore, that makes you look bad) for what they are and have counterpoints that are factually supported for anything you can think they might say.

Most anti-gun activists I come across have broad views and don't actually know the underlying facts - just what the media and other outlets have presented them. These people are the ones judging your debate, not the other team - so it would be in your team's best interest to make sure your facts are concise, clear and easily digestible -- what I mean by that is stay away from long lead-in stories to a fact or figure where possible, and instead use something like on that facts page:

"Mark, most 2nd ammendment advocates entirely understand the fear a person has about others around them carrying weapons and do their best to educate the public why they believe these are irrational fears fueled by the media." <- you have adressed and acknowledged his talking point and tell him "I get you. I hear you."

However, statistics have show that it's actually in their best interest - for instance in 1987 Florida adopted a law that gave citizens the right to carry handguns. During the years of 1987 to 1996 while the entire US saw a 24% increase in the handgun homicide rate, the state of Florida experienced a decrease of 41%! Wouldn't you agree that is a huge discrepancy?" <- you have used his talking point to present very cut and dry facts with big, big discrepancies that are hard to just dismiss out of hand as a random variance

You get my drift. Brainstorm on every possible emotion you think they'll use and try and have a factual counterpoint to prove it as unfounded. Do you best to NEVER say they are wrong or incorrect unless it's about a fact -- these folks *believe* in what they're saying, it's like trying to tell the Pope that God doesn't exist. They will be emotional - your team should try and keep it calm and bring logic and sense to the debate.

[wilit]

Yeah, so how did the debate go?

I got an A.

Come on man, this is California. Everyone wins, because we don't keep score. When you have victors and non-victors, some one is bound to have their feelings hurt.

[LECTRIKHED]

Use DC as an example on how gun control does not work. Also bring up the 2nd amendment.

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Felons and parolees are banned from firearms yet they still ignore the law, why is that?

You might give a look to UK and Australia for some background on the banning of firearms as it relates to criminal activity and public safety.

I think about 40 states have CCW and crime rates have declined.

Like mentioned before, keep the emotions out of it and attack with clear thinking professionalism. Keep statements short, don't get wordy but to the point of your argument.

Referenced facts rule.

Vick

[Librarian]

My group at my college for my speech class is going to debate another team on the gun control. They will present their view, ban all guns in CA and then my team has to discredit there claims. I think I got some sources but any scholory scources to help me would be good. More intel later

Look for Jacobs, J. B., Can Gun Control Work.

The answer, by the way, is "no".

Here's his NYU Law School page.

His law school class requires Kleck, G., Targeting Guns, an update to Kleck's 1991 Point Blank

Beyond those two is mostly law review articles on what is permissible, and some research from academics attempting to get some information.

If a gun control work was published in Journal of the American Medical Association, you can dismiss it as hopelessly biased; similarly, anything published with Douglas Hemenway is invariably outcome-based.

Try also the Yale Cultural Cognition Project. They have lots of papers - see especially "More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun-Risk Perceptions", "Modeling Facts, Culture and Cognition in the Gun Debate" and "Overcoming the Fear of Cultural Politics: Constructing a Better Gun Debate".

If you can understand and argue the last 3, you'll destroy the other side.

[Wulf]

Get yourself a copy of "Nation of Cowards" by Jeff Snyder.

Its a collection of essays Snyder wrote on various 2nd amendment topics. What's very unique about it is that he argues for guns not based on statistics but on fundamental principals. A lot of the essays grew out of debates so its particularly germain to your task.

[tombinghamthegreat]

Wow, thanks for the sources and the intel. I hope i do well in the debate. I just gone done with Persuasive speech on Ron Paul and I did pretty well.

[Patriot]

Yeah, like Librarian says, be wary of medical sources. CDC may be a useful source, but they've flirted with gun-control activism in the past, so be wary. If your opponents cite studies suggesting gun control works, you can counter by citing this report, which suggests that almost all studies on the effect of gun bans are inconclusive:

In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence

The Task Force's review of firearms laws found insufficient evidence to determine whether the laws reviewed reduce (or increase) specific violent outcomes

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

If you're going up against competent but uninformed people who are willing to research, they might take pages from the following:

http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/

http://www.vpc.org/

[Shotgun Man]

You might want to mention Laurence Tribe, a well-known, respected liberal Harvard Law professor and scholar. He was once of the opinion that the second amendment was more or less irrelevant, but in his latest tome of American Constitutional law he thinks the Second Amendment assures that "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification."