Please help me to debate my anti-guns classmates
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37
  1. #1
    Member

    Member #
    4435
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    Liked
    14 times

    Please help me to debate my anti-guns classmates

    In my English writing class, there are 24 students. Only 3 of us is the pro-guns. The other 22 is anti-guns. Yes, my math is right. The teacher is also an anti-guns.

    I am the leader of the pro-gun group in my class. Even though, I have 2 classmates on my side, but they don't own firearms, so I am up against 21 students + 1 teacher.

    Please help me with the facts and data to support:
    1) Guns save lives
    2) Guns prevent criminal activities

    I understood that I may get the low grade for this course, but I rather voice my opinion with some actual facts and data to support my pro-guns agenda than going along with the teacher.

    Thank you for all your help.
    Cal

  2. #2

    Member #
    12232
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    789
    Liked
    0 times

  3. #3
    Senior Member

    Member #
    11302
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    465
    Liked
    37 times
    Here is my resonse to an anti-gun comment on a CNN iReport, it may help you out:

    Please show me one example of where banning guns has at all worked?

    I expect you will probably point to Europe as the answer. However, by doing this you fail to realize that European nations where guns are now heavily regulated did not have very high crime rates to start out with. For that matter, some of the lowest crime rates in Europe can be seen in nations which have very few gun restrictions (Switzerland and Austria). With this in mind, European nations cannot be used as evidence that gun control works.

    For that matter, Nazi Germany, although "disarmed" still had strong and armed resistance movements. You mean to tell me that efforts to disarm people in a democracy will have more success than those put forth by one of history's most oppressive governments?

    I collect "assault weapons" so clearly I have a valid reason to own them. To be honest, why should I have to have a reason to own a firearm anyway? The Second Amendment clearly gives me the right to own firearms and that in and of itself should provide ample justification. To claim that certain weapons should be banned while others should not is equivalent to admitting ignorance to the founding father's intentions for writing the Second Amendment anyway. The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, competitive shooting, or even collecting. The purpose of the Amendment is solely to provide the people with a means for abolishing an oppressive government. In order for this to be upheld, it's absurd to think that Americans should be limited to owning only "approved" weapons. And please spare me the garbage that other people spew about the Second Amendment being outdated because last I checked, the insurgency in Iraq has been going on a while, so clearly a determined populace can take on a modern military. Your claims that there were no "assault weapons" when the Second Amendment was formulated express an outdated viewpoint that was discredited by Justice Anton Scalia in the Heller case when he wrote that the Second Amendment applies to any weapons "in common use at the time". A viewpoint which is supported by writings from the likes of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

    The problem with your proposals is that they are not going to solve any problems. To purchase ammunition on the web, you must provide a copy of your drivers license. Additionally, for people like myself who may not have access to a decent gun store, I would be out of luck if web sales were banned. So once again, punish the law abiding for the actions of a few lunatics. Plus, do you have proof that most criminals buy their ammo online? Secondly, any weapon purchased online must first be shipped to a licensed dealer where a background check is performed. Seems to me that buying online is no different than buying in store. Your call for weapon registration is illegal according to the 1986 FOPA. This act clearly illegalizes any attempt to force registration of non-NFA firearms. But, if you want to try and repeal the act, go ahead because then I can go buy a modern automatic weapon. Your call for a minimum age requirement indicates to me that you have never purchased a weapon. If you had, you clearly would have seen the box on the paperwork that says to check if you are over 18 years of age. Guess what? Fail to check that box, no weapon for you! Plus they look at your driver's license anyway. Finally, you call for proof of registration of a weapon in order to purchase ammunition. Disregarding that registration is illegal anyway, how do you plan to answer to all the people that simply collect different types of ammo? Furthermore, how would this registration be any different than the current background check system?

    Your assertion that we should change the Bill of Rights in a manner similar to the way slavery was abolished is truly assinine. We have never, and will never change the Bill of Rights. Slavery was not explicitly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights like weapon ownership is.

    Your reference to your relatives who are in law enforcement in NY only further discounts your position. NY still HAS an assault weapons ban. Much of the 1994 AWB is still in effect in that state yet it still has an incredibly high crime rate. In fact, as you probably know but are unwilling to admit, some of the areas with the highest levels of violent crime are areas where strict bans are already in place.

    In closing I would like to address your comment that "assault weapons" are intended only to kill people. This is a false claim. Any semiautomatic weapon sold to civilians is intended to serve a number of legal purposes. For some it’s as a competitive shooter. For others it's personal defense. For others yet, it's to be a collectors item. So to say that their only purpose is to hunt humans is a flat out lie.

    Its time to look for real answers, and I'm sorry but banning guns isn't one of them.
    And another:

    You are right that I don't NEED an "assault weapon", but I really wonder if you even know what an "assault weapon" actually is. The truth about these firearms is that most have been given their title based on aesthetic features which have little to do with actual function. Based on your argument, I could easily say that your big dog looks scary and that if it were used improperly, could harm or kill somebody so it should be banned. Banning things because they look scary is absurd.

    Seriously most of the recent killings could just as easily been committed with your standard pump action shotguns. And only one of them was committed with an "assault weapon" for that matter.

    Oh and by the way, I own "assault weapons" because I am interested in military history and like owning weapons that are visually similar to those used by militaries throughout the world. So in answer to you question, I am not trying to compensate for anything but more am trying to be knowledgeable about past and present conflicts.
    Use the info on this site against them:
    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

    If you've read George Orwell's 1984, you can draw parallels between an oppressed society and one that is unarmed (the proles).

    Another link (about Australian gun laws):
    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 01,00.html

    If i come up with more, ill post it but these are some off the top of my head to start you out.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    TheAKForum.net
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member

    Member #
    7772
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Gilbert az
    Posts
    665
    Liked
    62 times
    Only three of us is the pro guns? The other 22 is anti guns. Perhaps learning to write proper English would help. Try this. Only two of my fellow classmates, and myself, support the second amendment. The remaining members of my class have been brainwashed by the left leaning public school system to believe that the government ............ BTW I got a D- in English. It has haunted me my entire adult life. Please stay in school and do better than I did. Good luck with your paper.
    Hey now!

  6. #5
    Senior Member

    Member #
    6808
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    4,760
    Liked
    1 times

    Re: Please help me to debate my anti-guns classmates

    Quote Originally Posted by travinh
    In my English writing class, there are 24 students. Only 3 of us is the pro-guns. The other 22 is anti-guns. Yes, my math is right. The teacher is also an anti-guns.

    I am the leader of the pro-gun group in my class. Even though, I have 2 classmates on my side, but they don't own firearms, so I am up against 21 students + 1 teacher.

    Please help me with the facts and data to support:
    1) Guns save lives
    2) Guns prevent criminal activities

    I understood that I may get the low grade for this course, but I rather voice my opinion with some actual facts and data to support my pro-guns agenda than going along with the teacher.

    Thank you for all your help.
    Cal
    Man that surprises me! I hope you can change a few minds! Don't forget to tell them we have the 2nd to protect the 1st!

    Good Luck,
    T
    WTB - 2004 Mercedes Benz G-500 W/ low Miles

    Member 6981

  7. #6
    Senior Member

    Member #
    10924
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Freeland, MI
    Posts
    2,898
    Liked
    210 times
    Quote Originally Posted by yavlar
    Only three of us is the pro guns? The other 22 is anti guns. Perhaps learning to write proper English would help. Try this. Only two of my fellow classmates, and myself, support the second amendment. The remaining members of my class have been brainwashed by the left leaning public school system to believe that the government ............ BTW I got a D- in English. It has haunted me my entire adult life. Please stay in school and do better than I did. Good luck with your paper.
    That was real nice. You don't even have any idea where he is from...... Maybe English isn't his first language. Think dude....
    "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.”

  8. #7
    Senior Member

    Member #
    10924
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Freeland, MI
    Posts
    2,898
    Liked
    210 times
    Quote Originally Posted by yavlar
    Only three of us is the pro guns? The other 22 is anti guns. Perhaps learning to write proper English would help. Try this. Only two of my fellow classmates, and myself, support the second amendment. The remaining members of my class have been brainwashed by the left leaning public school system to believe that the government ............ BTW I got a D- in English. It has haunted me my entire adult life. Please stay in school and do better than I did. Good luck with your paper.
    That was real nice. You don't even have any idea where he is from...... Maybe English isn't his first language. Think dude....
    "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.”

  9. #8
    Senior Member

    Member #
    6915
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    BFE, PA
    Posts
    408
    Liked
    0 times
    I just read a post of rdm's about a op-ed by Don Kates in the San Fransisco paper. Good read and it might give you some ideas.


    Gun control restricts those least likely to commit violent crimes

    By Don Kates
    Special to the Examiner 4/6/09
    The March 21 murder of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon, a convicted felon wanted for a recent parole violation, epitomizes the futility of “gun control,” or the banning and restricting of gun ownership for law-abiding adults. Using the officers’ tragic deaths to further an unrelated agenda — stripping away the Second Amendment rights of honorable citizens — is both harmful and distracting.

    Mixon was not an anomaly. Felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced. The United States already has laws forbidding all three groups from owning guns, which, by definition, are ineffective against the lawless. “Gun control,” therefore, only “controls” those who have done nothing to merit such regulations.

    Arguments for gun control rest on deceptive claims such as National Coalition to Ban Handguns’ allegation that “most murders are committed by previously law-abiding citizens.” Americans are deluged by literally dozens of supposedly scholarly articles asserting such falsehoods — but with no supporting references. For there are none.

    Notably, only 15 percent of all Americans have criminal records, yet more than 90 percent of murder suspects have a history of crime. Their criminal careers average six or more years’ length, including four major adult felonies, in addition to their often extensive juvenile records.

    A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders in that city between 2003 and 2005 found that “more than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.” Baltimore police records show similar statistics for its murder suspects in 2006. In Milwaukee, police reported that most murder suspects in 2007 had criminal records, while “a quarter of them [killed while] on probation or parole.” The great majority of Illinois murderers from the years 1991-2000 had prior felony records. Eighty percent of Atlanta murder arrestees had previously been arrested at least once for a drug offense; 70 percent had three or more prior drug arrests — in addition to their arrests for other crimes.

    In sum, guns or no guns, neither most murderers nor many murderers — nor virtually any murderers — are ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults. This conclusion is so invariably reached by homicide studies that the 1998 study by David Kennedy and Anthony Braga describes the fact that murderers are almost invariably veteran criminals as a standard “criminological axiom.”

    Naïve, well-meaning people often respond to such facts with, “Still, wouldn’t this be a better world without guns?” After many years of studying guns as a highly effective method of self-defense, I reply, no, the world would be immeasurably worse off without the only weaponry that gives the weak a real chance against predators. After all, there was a time, hundreds of years ago, when there were no guns. Without guns for self-defense, survival was measured by the strength of men’s arms, as women, children and the elderly huddled in terror, escaping only by abject submission to their predators. Yes, Mixon used a gun to kill four Oakland police officers. But had he not been shot and killed by another member of the SWAT team, the death toll would have been undoubtedly higher. In the hands of sworn officers and moral citizens, guns are a powerful, swift means of protection. When the government passes laws that only peaceable people obey, they are simply leaving the same people at the mercy of violent predators.

    Don B. Kates is a research fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland and a criminologist and former professor of criminal and constitutional law.

  10. #9
    Senior Member

    Member #
    6915
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    BFE, PA
    Posts
    408
    Liked
    0 times
    Double tap.

  11. #10
    Member

    Member #
    3913
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    60
    Liked
    0 times
    This book has been invaluable to my essays on gun control over the years.

    http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less.../dp/0226493636

  12. #11
    Senior Member

    Member #
    11849
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Northern Nevada
    Posts
    1,995
    Liked
    54 times
    The US is a society built on individuals. Each is supposed to respect our freedom and earn, support and protect ourselves.

    Today, as I am out enjoying my two girls 8 and 10, I carry a concealed handgun legally. I harm no man. I am respectful of others as I am when I was not carrying a gun. That is they way I was raised. I also understand that if each of us was to treat each other with respect, the flow of freedom would continue as designed.

    If we were placed in danger, I can have the opportunity if need be to protect my children which is the most basic right a person, a parent can have. I can also rely on 30 years of firearms experience to overcome.

    I do not have so much as a speeding conviction on my record in nearing 38 years of life. Self protection is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT, the most basic. papa
    "This is the first generation, where one describes their "Occupation", as the city park where they went camping." D.Petri 2011

  13. #12
    Senior Member

    Member #
    10077
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    2,644
    Liked
    171 times
    Contact JPFO and GOA, they both have pamphlets on debating the anti-gun crowd with proven facts that they can't dismiss very easily. Good Luck with your paper.
    " Oh yeah, they're ready for somebody....They're not ready for us" - Snakedoc

  14. #13
    Senior Member

    Member #
    14477
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,372
    Liked
    64 times
    Kudos to you, Travin. Keep up the good work and don't let them push you around with their BS.

    Just don't rock the boat too much, it's better to live to fight another day with an A than to fail a class, due to you voicing your opinion and them winning by screwing up your GPA.

  15. #14
    Senior Member

    Member #
    11490
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    170
    Liked
    1 times
    try this link, http://www.gunfacts.info/ lots of good info in there. I recently gave a persuasive speech to my classmates about the merits of allowing concealed carry on campus and to my surprise, I was extremely successful.
    It's FN Awesome!

  16. #15
    Senior Member

    Member #
    8800
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    3,882
    Liked
    4 times
    What are their arguments against guns? Is it simply that guns are evil and that they kill people? In that case then it's pretty simple. Guns are tools and cannot be evil. It depends on who is using them. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. You can say the same for just about every object that has ever been used in a murder. And it's a good thing that guns can be used as a tool to kill. If you're attacked, you might have to kill to save your own life.

    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. And it's not just about needing a gun, it's one of our rights. If they don't want to own guns, that's their choice and right, but they have no say what rights others may use.

 

 
Page 1 of 3 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, 08:24 PM
  2. Anti gun Pro Gun debate on CNN
    By JBI Armory in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-23-2009, 06:16 PM
  3. Anti-freedom Commie guns keeping the USA free
    By AK_builder in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-02-2007, 07:34 PM
  4. Debate over the M-64
    By pylefmj in forum Yugoslavian
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-05-2007, 09:31 AM

Search tags for this page

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