This should be interesting.


Shadow Shock
September 24, 2007, 06:37 PM
For my sophmore English class in high school, we just started doing a research projects. We got to choose from a list of contraversial subjects. We are going to research those subjects and prepare a presentation for the class. I went in early and picked "Gun Control." We are supposed to show both sides of the argument, but obviosly, I am going to "lean" towards the pro-gun side. Especially seeing as that is the only side that actually has rational arguments. I want to prepare a presentation that will leave the tree huggers pissed off because they know they are wrong. Any tips?

P.S. I can't take facts from here, all information has to be taken from a verifiable book, magazine, newspaper, or website, but any help would be apreciated.

If you enjoyed reading about "This should be interesting." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
September 24, 2007, 06:43 PM
Don't piss them off. We can use a lot more converts, than enemies.

Charm them with your style, logic, and reason. Then they will find no valid argument to oppose you with. Most people would never admit that you changed their mind, and you probably will not with just one session.


You plant the reasoned seeds of logic and then down the way, when those seeds take root, logic will most often prevail. Plant now reap later.

Besides, most folks learn more about any subject when they are teaching it rather than as students. I have found that to be true.

Good luck, and report back.


PS This is a Civil Right, not a Gun issue. Don't ever forget that. Then you get into the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. That is a much better argument. In fact, if I was you, I would write out the 2nd Amendment on the front "Black Board" and leave it there during the whole discussion.

Don't fall into the trap of justifying guns. We don't have to, IT IS A CIVIL RIGHT, and the NRA is the oldest civil rights organization in America. Rights are not unconditional, but they cannot be impaired either. This is why the ideological makeup of the US Supreme Court is so important.

Press On


Shadow Shock
September 24, 2007, 06:55 PM
Ok, thanks. I'll focus more on that part, and I'll make sure to keep my tone right.

September 24, 2007, 08:59 PM
Ha, In my AP english class our teacher tried to convince us that the Chinese were religiously tolerant in comparrison to us. So death camps and banning religions and taking three year old children as political prisoners is religious toleration? I think not.

September 24, 2007, 09:04 PM
Present the gun control side of things first. Make it sound convincing. Then present the gun freedom side in such a way that it rebuts and devastates the arguments of the gun control side.

September 24, 2007, 09:17 PM
I've done a similar project in college. There's a gun control book in the Opposing Viewpoints series that has some pretty good arguments and statistics. It will also provide you with well-articulated anti- arguments which you can take and destroy. :evil: You should be able to find this and other good books on the subject at your school or public library. If I can find the paper I wrote, I'll send you my works cited page for reference, but I'm not sure if I have it any more.

September 24, 2007, 09:22 PM
The best website for both 2nd Amendment material and statistical studies, as well as essays and articles, is is another, and of course the NRA site.

Humor is always a good thing in a situation like this. Try to inject a little, WITHOUT ridiculing our opponents. Even if your information is flawless, if you come off as a solemn zealot, we lose points. Keep it as light as you can. Just my $0.02.

Shadow Shock
September 24, 2007, 10:00 PM
Thanks guys. 6 gunner, I checked out a book almost exactly like that. Verry usefull. cnorman18 sure I'll add humor, that's my style. A few days ago I saw here in a discussion over so called "assault weapons", some one had made the comment that if someone used a potatoe to assault someone, wouldnt that technically be considered an assault weapon? I dont remember who said it. I think i'll include that in there.

September 24, 2007, 10:09 PM
Suggestion... Try to come at it from a "guns are evil" standpoint, and then document the collapse of your position...

Shadow Shock
September 24, 2007, 10:29 PM
The whole school knows me as the gun loving redneck, so that would be kind of hard. I'll try to word it in a different way though.

September 24, 2007, 10:32 PM
I would recommend this thread if you haven't read it yet:

America's Great Gun Game

Present the gun control side of things first. Make it sound convincing. Then present the gun freedom side in such a way that it rebuts and devastates the arguments of the gun control side.
I was thinking the same thing. Try your best to take the other side seriously and present their best, most convincing case.

Also remember that at the root of the antis cause (optimistically speaking) is the desire to lower crime. Sometimes by arguing with them, we may give the impression that we don't want to lower crime as much as they do, because even though we want to reduce crime, that is not at the root of our cause. Our cause is to preserve civil rights. But it so happens that protecting the right to bear arms is also a better way of reducing crime. I think it is important to make that clear.

I also like to point out that Paul Revere did not shout "The British are coming!" He shouted "The regulars are coming!" And why were they coming to Lexington and Concord? To take away the arms from the local people, the militia. That is what sparked the Revolutionary War.

You should also look up the laws for your state and see how it defines the militia. A good portion of the class may be surprised to learn that they will become a part of the state militia when they turn 18. It isn't just the National Guard, as many antis like to suggest.

431.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Reserve militia" means the persons liable to
serve, but not serving, in the state military forces.
(2) "State militia" means the state military forces
and the reserve militia.

(a) A person is subject to military duty if the
person is:
(1) able-bodied;
(2) a citizen or a person of foreign birth who has
declared an intent to become a citizen;
(3) a resident of the state;
(4) at least 18 and not more than 60 years of age; and
(5) not exempt under Subsection (b) or (c) or United
States law.

September 24, 2007, 10:42 PM
I'll make you unhappy, but I'll offer my opinion. The point of the exercise for you, as a student, might be better served if you select a topic about which you are less passionate and knowledgeable. If it's too late to change, forget I mentioned it.

In any event, all the best of luck.

Shadow Shock
September 24, 2007, 10:49 PM
It's too late to change. Not that I would want to. I think I can lie my ass off, I mean present the Anti's side.

XD-40 Shooter
September 24, 2007, 10:54 PM! This is THE website to read pertaining to fully referenced and cited pro-gun facts, mostly from govt sources. Guy Smith did one hell of a job with this one.

The site also has an abreviated fact brochure, print that out and give it to your classmates as a "primer" for the discussion. This should work like a charm.:D

September 24, 2007, 10:54 PM
Might I suggest that you not "lean" one way or another. Simply present the empirical evidence (criminology research, objective crime statistics from the FBI/USDOJ/etc, the recent paper in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (;_ylu=X3oDMTFiZ2F0dXM0BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01BUDAxOV8xMDMEbANXUzE-/SIG=131shkjve/EXP=1190774974/**http%3a//, etc.) and historical information (the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, what a 'militia' was at the time, what the 'state' was at the time, etc.).

If you truly and objectively present both sides, all of the objective statistics, all of the empirical research, and all of the historical facts fall on the side of the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, you need not "lean" either way and make your paper seem biased. Let the reader come to his own conclusion via preponderance of legitimate, objective, and empirical research. That will carry the most weight.

September 24, 2007, 10:55 PM
In that case, blue skies and green lights!


September 25, 2007, 12:17 AM
The most sophisticated pro-gun ideas I can think of right off (from a junior level college class I teach) are from: Sieberg, Katri K. Criminal Dilemmas. New York: Springer, 2005.

I have also found this very balanced book very thorough and fascinating: Lee Nisbet. The Gun control debate : you decide. New York: Prometheus Books, 1990.

Both would be excellent sources I expect. The first would be a great primary source, and the second is great for collecting together lots of arguments and finding primary sources. Many primary source articles are reprinted right in the book; very convenient.

September 25, 2007, 12:31 AM
Oh yeah... Flog the bejeezus outta the "columns" feature of Mickeysoft word...

September 25, 2007, 12:59 AM
Try to find Jacobs, J. J. (2004). Can Gun Control Work?. New York: Oxford University Press.
Amazon link (

The 2002 version is also OK.

The answer, BTW, is "no".

If you enjoyed reading about "This should be interesting." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!