Please help me to debate my anti-guns classmates - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37
  1. #16
    Senior Member

    Member #
    12865
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    789
    Liked
    0 times
    If you get a bad grade based on the topic, I'd take it to the school board and the news paper. However, if you get a bad grade because your report/debate sucks...well, that's something you'll have to remedy.

    What I mean is, if the teacher goes off and nails you for supporting the 2nd Amendment only because he's anti-gun, there's an issue there. It should be about your methodology, how much information you have, how well organized it is, and how well you present it. Focus on information to be sure, but also focus on delivery, maintaining composure and knowing your shit inside and out. Never let 'em see you sweat!

    Good luck.

    Zhur

  2. #17
    Senior Member

    Member #
    12865
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    789
    Liked
    0 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Norinco QBZ-95
    And there are those who say that we don't need guns. Remind them that there was actually a Supreme Court ruling that it is not the job of the police to protect you (you should find the exact case). Also the police cannot be at your service in a few seconds. When you call the police, they will definitely come. But whether they come in time to stop your killer or take a picture of your body is a whole different story.
    Warren v. Dist of Columbia

    Here's the case Norinco mentioned. (probably should have let him find it on his own for research purposes, but he did ask for help hehehe)

    Zhur

    PS. Please be respectful when broaching this topic in your report, it shouldn't be about how police aren't doing anything. I have the utmost respect for police officers and what they do, they're just spread to thin most times.

  3. #18
    Senior Member

    Member #
    8689
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    1,303
    Liked
    2 times
    Here is an essay I wrote that has some links to statistics in it. This was written in the context of people calling for gun control after a mass shooting.

    Why Gun Control Doesn’t Work

    When a highly publicized shooting occurs, why do the politicians and pundits reflexively call for gun control? I believe that it is because societal violence is an emotional issue, and they are making the mistake of using their emotions rather than intellect to address the problem. Gun control is attractive precisely because it requires little thought; a pat answer to a complex problem is always attractive, but also nearly always wrong.

    People unfamiliar with guns are conditioned to equate guns with violence through movies, books, television and the news media. However, when one examines the facts without emotion, the facts lead to a conclusion that is counter-intuitive for most people: guns in a society do not lead to more violence in that society.

    One emotional component that generally compels people to reflexively embrace gun control is a misperception of risk. Risk is generally measured by two factors, probability and impact. Something with catastrophic impact but extremely low probability is usually not worth worrying about. For example, even though we all know getting attacked by a shark can be catastrophic, we do not generally worry about shark attacks when we go to the beach, because we understand the probability of occurrence is low. However, publicity can change this equation. When a few shark attacks in Florida were highly publicized a few years ago, beach tourism fell off even though the probability of occurrence remained infinitesimally low.

    Gun crimes, particularly mass shootings and the day in, day out gang shootings that plague some of our cities, are highly sensationalized and create just such a misperception of risk. The facts are that gun violence has plummeted since the early nineties, but many people perceive the risk as being higher than it is. Further, there are many activities that we perceive as less risky and accept without question, but they are in fact much riskier than allowing people to own guns, in that the probability of occurrence is higher and the result is equally catastrophic. Yet because these things are not as sensationalized by the media, society generally incorrectly perceives them to be less risky than gun ownership. In 2005, the last year for which data is available, the National Center for Health Statistics says there were 45,343 motor vehicle deaths in the US , and 30,364 firearms deaths. See http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf But we accept the risks presented by motor vehicles because of our misperception of the risk.

    Violence in a society is a complex socio-economic problem that has to do with things like the lack of economic and educational opportunity, poverty, oppression, the breakdown of the family and societal norms in inner cities, mental illness and substance abuse, rather than something as simple as whether guns are present in that society or not. Russia is a good example of this. All of the above enumerated factors are present in Russia. Stalin introduced gun control in 1929, effectively disarming the populace, yet Russia’s homicide rate is roughly four times that of the US. Scroll down to the “International Comparison” of homicide rates found here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

    Most importantly, practically speaking, gun control just does not work at making society less violent. Assault is a behavior, not an implement. Violence is caused by societal factors, not objects.

    Here is the real problem with gun control. Gun control does not work because it begins with a false premise. The false premise is this: if you pass a law banning or otherwise restricting guns, criminals will obey the law. The problem is, they won’t – by definition they are criminals. Because they are criminals, those who have guns and are predisposed to use them in the types of crime that account for the vast majority of gun violence in the US will not follow such a law.

    Who will follow such a law? The responsible law-abiding gun-owning citizen, who by definition is the person who does NOT commit such crimes. The result is that the law abiding citizen is left defenseless and the only effect on the criminal is that it is safer for them to engage in crimes of violence against the now disarmed populace.

    This has in fact been proved empirically. Britain effectively banned guns in 1997. Gun crime has not gone down, it has gone up, as discussed here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm and
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... l-ban.html

    At the same time, despite what the sensationalist media would have us believe, in the U.S., where hundreds of thousands of guns are legally bought and sold every year, the US Bureau of Justice statistics show that “Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005”. See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm This is during the same time period that many states enacted “shall issue” laws regarding concealed handgun licenses. This demonstrates that during the same time that many hundreds of thousands of people were given the right to carry concealed handguns, the gun crime rate was falling.

    Anytime there is a mass murder, it is a tragedy and people rightfully feel a wide range of emotions. But we should not allow our emotions to blind us to reason.

    joedog
    When the talkin' is over, it's time to get a gun. - Fred Eaglesmith

  4. Remove Advertisements
    TheAKForum.net
    Advertisements
     

  5. #19
    Senior Member

    Member #
    8800
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    3,882
    Liked
    4 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhurdan
    PS. Please be respectful when broaching this topic in your report, it shouldn't be about how police aren't doing anything. I have the utmost respect for police officers and what they do, they're just spread to thin most times.
    Yeah, my bad. I did not mean that cops are lazy. I just meant that they can't do everything and that it is not their job to protect you. All the cops I know though take it upon themselves to do their best to protect people. Still them doing their best does not mean showing up within seconds.

  6. #20
    Member

    Member #
    4435
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    46
    Liked
    13 times
    Thank you all for your supports and contributions to my thread. After reading all the information in this thread, I feel much better and well arms with facts to support the pro-guns agenda debate in my class tonight.

    As you can see, my English skill is not that good. English is my second language. Any correction or suggestion is greatly appreciated. I am on the learning curve for the rest of my life. I don't think I am ever be able to speak and write like the American who English is his/her first language, but I am an American. I do value and enjoy the freedom that we have in the United States of America and I am willing to fight to protect our rights.

    Thanks,
    Cal

  7. #21
    Senior Member

    Member #
    286
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    tucson, az
    Posts
    1,239
    Liked
    0 times
    Good luck, Cal. Soldiers and Sailors swear to uphold the Constitution and you're doing the same.

    My favorite argument is that the bill of rights reserves the rights for the people, in order of importance. the 2nd doesn't reserve the rights of states to have a national guard while the other 9 defend peoples' rights, that's ridiculous.

  8. #22
    Senior Member

    Member #
    12865
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    789
    Liked
    0 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Norinco QBZ-95
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhurdan
    PS. Please be respectful when broaching this topic in your report, it shouldn't be about how police aren't doing anything. I have the utmost respect for police officers and what they do, they're just spread to thin most times.
    Yeah, my bad. I did not mean that cops are lazy. I just meant that they can't do everything and that it is not their job to protect you. All the cops I know though take it upon themselves to do their best to protect people. Still them doing their best does not mean showing up within seconds.
    Didn't mean you, I meant when he writes/gives his report.

    Zhur

  9. #23
    Senior Member

    Member #
    7576
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Troy, Ohio
    Posts
    1,331
    Liked
    0 times
    As you can see, my English skill is not that good. English is my second language. Any correction or suggestion is greatly appreciated. I am on the learning curve for the rest of my life. I don't think I am ever be able to speak and write like the American who English is his/her first language, but I am an American. I do value and enjoy the freedom that we have in the United States of America and I am willing to fight to protect our rights.
    I can sympathize with you. I’ve spent the past year or so attempting to learn Japanese. I’m probably better at reading and writing it (hiragana and katakana, with just a touch of kanji) than I am at speaking it, and though I can communicate on a rudimentary level, I still butcher their language rather horribly. It can be frustrating at times, probably all the more so for my long-suffering Japanese tutor (I have fun with her English from time to time, so its not entirely one way.). I think you’re doing just fine. If my Japanese were as good as your English, I’d be pretty happy!

    Welcome to America by the way!
    "Gentlemen! This is the war room! You can't fight in here!"

    Dr. Strangelove

  10. #24
    Senior Member

    Member #
    12572
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Who Da Ho???
    Posts
    2,168
    Liked
    1 times
    Try to focus them on the constitution of this great country of ours!! And specifically the amendments!! If one is allowed to be eroded, and twisted out of proportion!! Then the rest "Especially" the ones liberals cling to, can be eroded and twisted to other meanings as well!! Use the constitution to your advantage!! Most people don't know much about it!! Also, with some hardliners your in a No win situation!! Know when to back off, and let them meltdown on their own!!
    Bakelite Junky Extraordinaire

  11. #25
    Senior Member

    Member #
    10924
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Freeland, MI
    Posts
    2,879
    Liked
    195 times
    Good luck, I figured English wasn't your first language, you are really good at it though. Good to see some new Americans interested in keeping their freedom. Remember, just keep a cool head when talking with your class and it will turn out well. Good luck!
    andy
    "All we know about the new economic world tells us that nations which train engineers will prevail over those which train lawyers. No nation has ever sued its way to greatness.”

  12. #26
    Senior Member

    Member #
    384
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    126
    Liked
    1 times

    Advice

    (I just finished Public Speaking this semester with an A- so perhaps I can help).
    ATTACK all the potential arguments that you think the class and the teacher will bring against you.

    ALSO... remind the teacher that they have to remain neutral or else they are not teaching in a fair and objective manner (I know, I know, easier said than done).

    STUDY the arguments at HANDGUN CONTROL INC. learn them BETTER than your opponents, and COUNTER them with some facts.

    JUST REMEMBER; EMOTION will trump LOGIC with these people....

    Tell them that you ALL have something in common: The desire for peace and safety for them and their families.

    THEN tell them why your position works while their position does not.

  13. #27
    Senior Member

    Member #
    9461
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Redmond, WA
    Posts
    153
    Liked
    0 times
    If all else fails, perhaps you should question if these people are who they claim to be (ie: Truly Anti-Gun). First ask if they think of themselves if they indeed anti-gun, and then if they still believe that the police and the military should still have guns. And then use this lovely argument that I whipped up and posted a while back to explain the logic to some of these nimrods who think that you can be anti-gun and still be in favor of the police/military having them :

    To be truly Anti-Gun, one must be truly opposed to guns. In that anyone who is truly Anti-Gun does not favor anyone having them, nor even themselves having them. And as far as they are concerned, they would prefer if none of them existed at all. But on the other hand if someone should favor the possession of guns by anyone, then they cannot truly be Anti-Gun. Therefore, they are Pro-Gun. Simple logic. (Pro-One-Gun is Pro-Gun, and if you think that actually reads Anti-Gun then you are hallucinating).

    So, either you are truly Anti-Gun, or you are Pro-Gun. A major problem I’ve seen is that there are people who claim to be Anti-Gun, when at the same time they are still in favor of allowing the police and the military to have them. And because of this contradiction, they cannot be Anti-Gun. So what are they? Well, I refer to them as Gun-Control-Freaks.

    And here’s how it works. First of all, if you are in favor of anyone possessing guns, then you are Pro-Gun. Should you then be in favor of only certain people possessing guns, then you are Pro-Gun-Control.

    You are still Pro-Gun.

    But if you are in favor of restricting only to those who serve the will of the government (the police, and the military for example), the right to possess guns - thus allowing a select group possession of power, which can be wielded over the masses without counter, and without equilibrium – then you are in fact a Pro-Gun-Control-Freak.

    You are still Pro-Gun.
    You are still Pro-Gun-Control.

    But now, you have taken this to an extreme; which is the very essence of being a Gun-Control-Freak. And it is at this time that I would like everyone to know, that Adolf Hitler was himself a Gun-Control-Freak, (“Control-Freak,” get it??).

    Although, I do respect the views of people who are truly Anti-Gun so long as they respect my views as well, I cannot respect the bullshit that comes out of the mouths of people who pretend to be Anti-Gun. And I certainly will not support their legislation.

    (Hopefully, this will be part of future arguments I plan on making in favor of gun rights while I am attending the University of Washington)

    -Professor Craigore, Undergraduate of Anthropology
    GET TO DA CHOPPAH!

  14. #28
    Senior Member

    Member #
    4450
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    1,435
    Liked
    0 times
    Here's something I wrote up for an organization I used to work for in response to a NYT article. Helps to understand the CDC statistics without the spin.

    he New York Times this morning posted some numbers that have been used by anti-gun groups for a long time regarding firearm mortality rates. I would like to take this opportunity to break those numbers down for you.

    NYT Assertion: more than 30,000 people — nearly 10 times the total number of Americans who have died in Iraq — are killed by guns each year.

    Lets take a closer look at those numbers.
    The 30,000 number is accurate.

    CDC mortality stats from 2004(most recent year surveyed) puts it at 29,569.

    What they dont tell you is that they include suicides, legal self defense shoots and accidental deaths in the stats.

    Suicides account for more than half. 2004 suicides by firearm - 16,750.

    This leaves 12,819 NON suicides.

    Legal shoots account for only 311 (CDC only counts legal shoots by law enforcement in this category).

    Unintentional shoots only account for 649.

    Homicides account for the remaining 11,624

    **CDC "Homicide" category includes legal self defense shootings by citizens

    Those are the actual stats.

  15. #29
    Super Moderator
    Supporting Member

    Member #
    7125
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dark Side Of The Moon
    Posts
    24,503
    Liked
    11557 times
    There are some good ideas here. People who understand the Constitution usually have an decent idea about the Founding Fathers, their personal experiences, and some of the reasons behind why they worded that fine document the way they did.
    Whatever direction you decide to go with this project, I would highly suggest you use direct quotes form men like Jefferson, Washington, Adams and other Patriots of that era in our history.
    Its very hard to argue the same old bullshit notion that the Second Amendment was really meant for just the Militia when you do this. Men like Jefferson and Washington understood the importance of an armed, and informed society.
    People fear what they don"t understand, and most Americans are content to listen to what the talking heads tell them to think without doing their own thinking, or their own fact checking.
    This is the real failing of the far left as well as the far right.
    I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
    Hunter S. Thompson

  16. #30
    Senior Member

    Member #
    9461
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Redmond, WA
    Posts
    153
    Liked
    0 times
    Whatever direction you decide to go with this project, I would highly suggest you use direct quotes form men like Jefferson, Washington, Adams and other Patriots of that era in our history.
    Its very hard to argue the same old bullshit notion that the Second Amendment was really meant for just the Militia when you do this. Men like Jefferson and Washington understood the importance of an armed, and informed society.
    That's always a good tactic as well, just be sure you have the right quotes and not some bogus ones that someone pulled out of their ass and slapped a founding father's name on.
    GET TO DA CHOPPAH!

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Home | Forum | Active Topics | What's New

Sponsors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. so what if i'm anti-gun control, pro-choice, anti-war....
    By skyugo in forum Assault Weapons Ban Forum
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 02-23-2015, 07:24 PM
  2. Anti gun Pro Gun debate on CNN
    By JBI Armory in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-23-2009, 05:16 PM
  3. Anti-freedom Commie guns keeping the USA free
    By AK_builder in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-02-2007, 06:34 PM
  4. Debate over the M-64
    By pylefmj in forum Yugoslavian
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-05-2007, 08:31 AM

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.