Defending Gun Rights in a Liberal College Class
Hello Fellow Gun Right Enthusiasts,
I am currently a Political Science Major with a focus in Pre-law. I go to a very liberal college that is often very antagonizing to conservative views on gun legislation. We were given an assignment where we must choose a social issue in our society and defend or attack it. I chose "Firearms Legislation" of course do to my passion for guns. Three other students chose this topic as well. However, I am the only person in my group that is pro-gun. In about a month, there will be a very large debate that will count 75% of my grade. I am very worried because I will be the only one going up against 3 people attacking gun ownership and supporting gun bans. I will need a ton of solid information I can throw at them to skew their attacks. I am here on this forum to ask for any help possible. If anyone has any ideas or information I can use to support my case please feel free to post links or information.
My idea is to prove that gun banning only contributes to more crime.
I will use Cities and States such as California and DC whom have very harsh gun laws and compare their crime rate other states with nicer gun laws. Is this a good Idea?
Thank you very much,
Stevan (addpillz)
I am currently a Political Science Major with a focus in Pre-law. I go to a very liberal college that is often very antagonizing to conservative views on gun legislation. We were given an assignment where we must choose a social issue in our society and defend or attack it. I chose "Firearms Legislation" of course do to my passion for guns. Three other students chose this topic as well. However, I am the only person in my group that is pro-gun. In about a month, there will be a very large debate that will count 75% of my grade. I am very worried because I will be the only one going up against 3 people attacking gun ownership and supporting gun bans. I will need a ton of solid information I can throw at them to skew their attacks. I am here on this forum to ask for any help possible. If anyone has any ideas or information I can use to support my case please feel free to post links or information.
My idea is to prove that gun banning only contributes to more crime.
I will use Cities and States such as California and DC whom have very harsh gun laws and compare their crime rate other states with nicer gun laws. Is this a good Idea?
Thank you very much,
Stevan (addpillz)
0
-
quote:Originally posted by callcameron
I would relate it to something else that is banned (or a rule that is regularly broken) that happens everyday on campus. For example, if cell phones are not allowed in the classrooms, find out how many people have theirs. Or if they have to be turned off, find out how many people turn theirs to silent/vibrate. Bring up the point that criminals have no regard for the law, therefore are not going to willingly participate in a gun ban.
The idea of highlighting lawlessness is a very good start. I am also in college, and recently debated gun control in a negotiations class.
I would first off state, that while the cellphone was a good start, address drinking or smoking of weed. both are far more prevalent and in both cases far more illegal and punishable under law than having a cellphone in class. Its a true case study in how the willing will find a way, and how the only way to control the outcome is to control the criminal, any determined person will find a route to their outcome.
As far as some of the people saying that statistics have no bearing, I'd argue differently, while they may not sway a purely emotional falling off a cliff leftist, they will work with any analytically minded person, which I have found, is a very large portion of collegiate scholars. being either moderate to either side, or a fundamentally conservative will never hurt.
If I had the same laptop I had when I presented, I could send you a whole bunch of data, and while I had no need for sources, I could also have helped you relocate some.
Basically, I'd give Wikipedia a whirl, and see what you can find on there, and remember that if you are using them as a source, to check its parenthetical citation, as well as any syllabus for your course to allow-disallow Wiki's
______________________________________________________________________
EDIT: Finally finished the thread, sorry I didn't get this in before the debate.
Hows the paper going?0 -
I know it's over now but a good closing argument would be that the 2A doesn't say "we have the right to bear arms only IF we can justify a safe/reason for it." 0 -
quote:Originally posted by jebbar
quote:Originally posted by shootstright
"An education is the ability to get though life without intelligence.
Intelligence is the ability to get though life without an education."
To learn one only needs to look for what you need to know or want to learn.
So does this mean you'd seek medical treatment from a faith healer than a physician?
[red]
addpillz
check this on out.
Subject: Mexican Guns
Go here and read about US Guns in Mexico! It may surprise you.
http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/rw807.html
[url][/url]
If not for institutions of higher learning we would not have a problem with this anti-gun crap.
A lot less liberals at the polls on election day.
Many more people with common sense.
In the last 8 or 10 years of dealing with doctors and having one for a brother there is do doubt the witch doctor might be the better choice.
My massage therapist in two visits fix what 5 years of going to the pill pushers couldn't do and for a lot lest money.
Doctors:
(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000
(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%
Statistics courtesy of the U.S.Dept of Health &Human Services
***************************
Guns:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S is 80,000,000 (yes that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.001875%
Statistics courtesy of the FBI
***************************
So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than guns. Remember, guns don't kill people, doctors do.
***************************
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
***************************
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!
***************************
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.
A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.0 -
A couple of good short stories to use as predebate propoganda.
Sunrise At Coffin Rock
Sundown At Coffin Rock
Just Google either title it's ok to print them as long as the author is given credit. Print out some copies and spread them around.0 -
I still want to know if you won the debate. 0 -
quote:However, I did not see anything wrong with permanent gun registration. All my guns were registered.I thought
The lad lost the debate right here.
He agreed that the government has the power to circumvent the Constitution, and he offered no defense for that document at all.
He also did not do his homework concerning the mexican gun situtation..a perfect chance to point out the blatent lies of those in authority..both in mexico and america.0 -
I don't think I lost the debate.
I beat all of my peers that argued against me, which was my objective after all. The only person that gave me a run for my money was my professor. He is a Judge, so he knew our law better then any of us. He already knew about the Dick Act when I used it. After I took out all of my peer's arguments (they were centered around crime, pretty easy to refute with the stats yall gave me), he stepped in to keep the debate alive. I did refute many of his arguments including the bullet-stamping argument. However, I thought that my State already had permanent gun-registration; because when I bought my AK I had to get it registered at the Police Dep. I didn't know that it was only temporary because the Cop that took my information told me it was permanent. So when my professor mentioned it I didn't see the need to argue against it because my argument was pushing for enforcing the laws we already have instead of making new ones.
As well as for the immigrant gun violence that is happening on the border. I DID refute that by stating that guns cannot be blamed for our administrations incompetence to secure our border. I stated even if it is true, banning guns would not stop the violence.
Plus that article came out in our paper the same day as my debate, so I did not hear about this until the day of my debate.
Anyway,
I am now double screwed because for my FINAL exam, my professor wants me to write an essay against private ownership of guns. He stated that I would be graded on how persuasive I am.
This is going to be really hard because I just wrote a 12 page paper on how pointless and wrong gun-control is....
This weekends going to suck...
I do really appreciate all the help I have received on this site. I have learned more about this issue then I ever learned sitting in a library.0 -
quote:I didn't see the need to argue against it because my argument was pushing for enforcing the laws we already have instead of making new ones.
This position is flawed.
'Shall Not Be Infringed' precludes 'laws we already have'.
Had you spent a bit more time studying the REASON for the Second Amendment, you would have realized that it was intended to keep government in check..and that is difficult when government keeps records of and decides who WILL and WILL NOT get a weapon.0 -
quote:Originally posted by shootstright
Doctors:
(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000
(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%
Statistics courtesy of the U.S.Dept of Health &Human Services
***************************
Guns:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S is 80,000,000 (yes that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.001875%
Statistics courtesy of the FBI
***************************
So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than guns. Remember, guns don't kill people, doctors do.
***************************
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
***************************
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!
***************************
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.
A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
Interesting thought, Guns are designed to kill people, and their practitioners are responsible enough to keep them from doing so.
Doctors are only there to heal and help people, but accidentally kill more than an instrument that's designed to do so, accidentally.
Don't get me wrong, I am by no means flaming against doctors, I'm in a family with numerous doctors, I'm just saying, there's some stigma against guns that most rational people don't see, and somehow it's always the irrationals that influence the legislature to make unconstitutional laws, based on pure empathy, and no statistical proof.0 -
The biggest problem anti-gunners have is that they have no concept of gun ownership. Logic and facts may work in a purely academic forum but usually not in the real world. The arguement needs to be redirected to something they or the audience can identify with. Automobiles are great for gun comparisons. They can be fun, save lives but also deadly in the wrong hands. A couple of examples for you.
Why do automakers continue to make cars that will travel faster than the maximum safe speed allowed by law? (Rebuttal to why do you need assualt weapons?) The technology exists today to make cars only able to travel at the posted speed limit. Would you want your car's speed dictated by someone else, especially in an emergency?
There have been a number of highly publicized incidents where a "crazy" individual drove his car into a group of innocent bystanders. Should we do background checks on everyone who wants to buy a car or get a driver's license? Should there be a waiting period? How else do we prevent crazies from driving into crowds?
I get an NRA mag every month. In the front it has a section highlighting all the times across the country that a citizen has defended themselves or loved ones from vilolent attack. Ask your opponents to show you one recent example where the police, through research and investigation (as opposed to dumb luck), stopped an armed attacker during the commission of a home attack. In experiencing 17 robberies during my banking career, the police always showed up afterwards, never before, we were robbed.
Women are frequent victims of domestic violence. They can get restraining orders but, because the aggressor also has rights, the police can't do anything until she gets attacked again. Ask them if they think women have a right to defend themselves or should they just hope that the police will get there before their ex is done beating the crap out of them.
These are logic games that have simple, obvious, logical answers that run contrary to their anti-gun argument. These do work. Remember when Michael Dukakis (ran against Bush 41) couldn't answer the question about what he would do if his wife, Kitty, was raped and murdered? His poll numbers dropped 9% that night.[:D]0 -
The numbers that the NRA has put out on the use of guns in self defense may be useful. This is it, 1.5 to 2.5 million gun owners lives are saved each year with guns. from rape, robbery and murder, or a combinition of those horrible crimes. This is with NO police assistance. Without guns, or after a ban Those lives would be made forfiet because new prospecting gun owners couldnt own a firearm. And police are of little use in a quickly escalating life or death situations. You have to be able to defend yourself and deserve an edge that a firearm gives.
So if your oposition start talking about the killings in inner cities you have evidence that guns save the lives of over fifty times the amount of Americans they kill due to crime. And without them gangs would kill even more innocent people and spread from the places where only they have guns.
Also the dynamics and mathmatics of violent crime needs to be brought to bear, Like the ammount that can be related to Drugs, crimes of passion, and insanity.. Perhaps pointing out how these things are failings of our government resolve and our civilization's morality rather then inanimate objects.
Maybe even going so far as to draw an emotional response by saying these are the true problems that we as the new and next great generation face and only we can fix them, rather then manicly mimmicking policiticians and news vendors with agendas of there own and dumbly blaming a tool that saves more innocent lives then they take. These are social and economic issues and nothing else, and our government neglects to see that.0 -
So, you have to have a paper now from the opposite point of view. I got to tell you, I just spent some time on the Brady Website
http://www.bradycampaign.org/
and they have more than enough "research" and stories to give you ideas to write about. He wants to see if you can see both sides.
Good luck.
quote:I do really appreciate all the help I have received on this site. I have learned more about this issue then I ever learned sitting in a library.
No better teacher than experience and there is a lot of it in this "room".0 -
Sorry I'm late to the party. I just recently found this forum.
One tactic I use when arguing this issue with leftist loons, is this:
"Ok, hypothetically, I agree to give up my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Now I want you to pick a different Amendment that you are willing to give up."
As someone esle stated earlier, understanding the logic that the Founding Fathers used when creating the Bill of Rights, and particularly the Second Amendment, is key. Reading and understanding multiple sources; The Federalist Papers, Poor Richards Almanac, for examples.
Understanding that the Second is there in order not just to allow people to defend themselves from criminal intruders, but also to defend themselves against a government gone bad.
Without the Second to keep government in its place, the rest of the BoR is meaningless.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison0 -
Guns, Crime and Freedom is a book written by Wayne LaPierre that has a lot of neat facts in it for you.
This is from my sophmore paper:
....However, certain people think gun laws can prevent crimes like this January 1989 incident where a drifter with and AK-47 assualt weapon stood outside a schoolyard fence in Stockton, California and began firing at the children playing inside. Before he was finished, five children died and twenty nine others had been wounded. In response, Congress in 1990 enacted the Gun-Free School Zones Act that made it a federal offense for an individual person to possess a firearm within the boundaries of a school zone.
The man who commited this crime did not care that the gun was illegal, and he did not care that the it is wrong to murder, so why would he now care that it is illegal to bring a weapon inside a school zone? The law was passed in 1990 yet between 1990 and 1992 there were 34 school shootings.
HMMMM HOW COULD THAT HAVE HAPPENED? THE LAW SAYS IT ILLEGAL TO BRING A GUN IN A GUN FREE ZONE...0 -
Look up John Lott. Amazing reference material. 0 -
"How the left was won" is a good book with insights into the liberal mind and their tactics.
its available from amazon0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
46 comments