Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Going to be a panelist at a "Gun Contol Forum" tomorrow night - any talking points?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by WC145, Feb 11, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WC145

    WC145 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,255
    Location:
    Maine
    I've volunteered to be a panelist at a "Gun Control Forum" at the local state university tomorrow evening. The perspective I'm offering is that of a 2A advocate, LEO, and medical professional (respiratory therapist). The other panelists are the county Sheriff, the local school superintendent, a pastor/counselor/university instructor, and a clinical social worker/therapist. Except for the Sheriff, I have no idea where these other folks stand on the subject matter. The Sheriff has said in recent newspaper interviews that it should be harder to get concealed carry permits, only LE & military should have access to "assault weapons", and that he has always been in support of an AWB.

    Anyway, I've been studying up for this for a few weeks (hoping I won't look foolish) but I'm sure that I've still missed plenty of great facts, talking points, statistics, quotes, etc. So, I'd love to hear some of the ideas and points that you feel really drive home the pro-gun, pro-2A position, that one thing over all others that you would present given an opportunity and an audience. Keep in mind that this event is being held at a college with a panel and audience that may not be all that sympathetic towards our positions.

    Below is an email I rec'd from the moderator, it includes a link to the press release.

    Thanks in advance. (and wish me luck!)


     
  2. SuperNaut

    SuperNaut Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,732
    Location:
    SLC, Utah
    This is what I cover in almost every debate I have on this subject:

    1. I am horrified at the shameless opportunism of the anti-gun people
    a. Doing something is not the same as doing the right thing
    b. Failure to address root causes is a waste of time, energy, money, resources, and good will.

    2. The 2A has been codified as an individual right.

    3. Gun control only punishes the law-abiding

    4. Localized crime problems do not require a Federal response, the only way to fix community problems is within the community.
     
  3. browneu

    browneu Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2004
    Messages:
    739
    Location:
    ohio
    Don't let them frame the argument about needs. The bill of rights isn't about needs.

    Don't let them get away with assault weapon nomenclature. Assault rifles are already regulated. Assault weapon is a made up term and cannot be defined.

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
     
  4. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,542
    Location:
    Central PA
    In direct response to the Moderator's question I think at some point you simply must get in Ben Franklin's quote:

    The "liberty is not SAFE" angle doesn't immediately (or at all) appeal to some folks. And you'll have to accept that people will say, "EVEN IF SCHOOLCHILDREN DIE???"

    But it is a very deeply, viscerally true and resonant concept: "Safety" is a false promise that can only ever be grasped fleetingly, and the freedoms which define and preserve who we are as a nation are worth more than even the fulfillment of that promise, if somehow it could be realized.
     
  5. bainter1212

    bainter1212 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,175
    Remind folks that most everyone agrees, we have a personal responsibility problem in this country. People stay on unemployment because it pays more than the jobs they could be doing right now.......parents don't hold their kids accountable to learn and do all of their schoolwork......if some folks want to make the choice to rely totally on the government for their own personal protection, and that of their families, then that is their choice in this free society. However if some responsible citizens, desire to take on the RESPONSIBILITY for their own and their families' protection, that should be a choice that they should be allowed to make.
    As a society we need to empower responsible citizens. Gun control merely forces all citizens to conform to the lowest common denominator, namely those who are either unwilling or unable to protect themselves from harm.
    History tells us that humans hurt each other. This history extends to the very beginnings of civilization, indeed we can extrapolate that evil behavior in this form occured down to the very roots of our evolution. This behavior predates guns, and if guns were totally eliminated from society, evil behavior would no doubt continue, only the means having changed.
    You can't make a perfect society. What can be done, however, is to allow people to make the kind of choices that are defined by the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Life and the pursuit of happiness cannot occur without Liberty. True Liberty comes with inherent risks, not all of which can be 100% mitigated.
    "Those who would surrender liberty, for security, deserve neither".

    Good luck.
     
  6. browneu

    browneu Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2004
    Messages:
    739
    Location:
    ohio
    Don't let them differentiate crime committed using a gun from other crime.

    For example, gun crime being lower in the UK than the US.

    Crime is crime regardless of the instrument used.

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
     
  7. Telekinesis

    Telekinesis Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,412
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    I'm not as up on it as I used to be, but quite a few of the studies that anti's lean on for their talking points are based on pretty poor methodology - studies that would be laughed at if a student tried to cite them in a term paper.

    In the study that "a gun at home is xx more times likely to kill you, a family member, or an acquaintance than protect you" they list "acquaintance" as anyone you have even seen before. Some guy in the corner of the coffee shop you see one day? yep, he qualifies as an acquaintance. I believe the author (Kellerman?) has publicly retracted and changed the results several times. Another study that cites a number of children killed per year or per day (can't remember specifically) includes 21 year old gang members as "kids". The Brady Campaign website used to cite which studies they were quoting from, so I'd work backwards until I found the original. Almost every study that they cite was created like this, where they chose a result and then found data to support that result.

    This may also be a bit difficult for you to get on short notice, but I know that on my campus, there is a lot of animosity towards the "campus police" (really glorified security guards in a golf cart). They have a 50% hit rate against a vehicle in their one (poorly devised and executed) use of lethal force incident, a fact I always like to bring up when talking to people when they say police and security are highly trained and should be the only ones armed.

    Finally, don't let them try and make you justify the reason for keeping assault weapons. Make them justify taking away the lawfully owned property of millions of Americans who have done nothing wrong. They are the ones proposing legislation, they should provide a legitimate reason with a measurable result for taking this action (and the fact that according to the Clinton administration the last AWB didn't work should help there too)

    Good luck! And remember, there are quite a few college students who are interested in firearms, you're not necessarily going to have a completely hostile crowd.
     
  8. Captain33036

    Captain33036 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Messages:
    395
    Location:
    SE FL
    Remind them that the only two things that make the US unique in the world are the second amendment to the consitution and Possee Comitatus.

    If the govt limits a lawful citizens right to protect themselves, repeal of Possee Comitatus is simple. And then....Americans will be living under marshal law and military rule. Sounds extreme, but really, it is two short steps away.

    Hope this helps

    Best

    J
     
  9. USAF_Vet

    USAF_Vet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    5,773
    Location:
    Hastings, Michigan
    This.


    If they start getting on about gun crime this and gun crime that, ask them about other forms of violent crime that kill more people annually than guns. Knife crime is a much larger issue, as more people lose their live to knives than they do guns.

    Guns like the Glock and the AR-15 are used because they are popular and common. If you ban those guns, other styles will take their place and those will become the popular guns.

    Violent crime is not about the tool used. Taking away the tool does not solve the violence issue we are facing. In order to make any progress, we have to get at the root of the problem, a large part is mental health related.
     
  10. 19-3Ben

    19-3Ben Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,146
    Location:
    CT
    Ask to see sources for statistics. People make up all kinds of bogus stats. Call them out on it and don't let them get away with it. That's the only thing I can add to the excellent advice given above.

    Good luck and represent us well. Remember that the antis expect some toothless white trash "ignant" type. Dress nicely and appropriately. Clean shaven, fresh shower, pressed/ironed clothing, etc... and speak well. Avoid slang and poor language (ie. "ain't" is NOT a word).
    Just be someone who actually can sway the fence sitters rather that someone who tries to win this fight by taking the offensive tact and insulting those who disagree.
     
  11. hdbiker

    hdbiker Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    339
    there is over 20,000 gun related laws on the books already,hows that working out ?hdbiker
     
  12. GeneFrenkle

    GeneFrenkle Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    1
    Our Founding Fathers had an excellent command of the English language and were very adept at using it. Start with the Declaration of Independence and point out the phrase "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The key word being "unalienable" which is very different than inalienable. Study these two words. Our Founding Fathers then enumerated the minimum human Rights in the Constitution as the Bill of Rights. Thus, these rights, to include the second are, by definition, inherent in being and cannot be removed.
     
  13. G'dale Mike

    G'dale Mike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    98
    Location:
    Gardendale Al
    And please,

    Let us know how it goes!
     
  14. Rocketmedic

    Rocketmedic Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    El Paso, Texas
    Point out that firearms are equalizers between those who have force naturally (young, strong, numerous males) and everyone else.

    Cite the notable decrease in crime that comes with CCW.

    Think local- if possible, find a local criminal case and query the sheriff as to whether that crime could have been prevented with a legally-carried firearm.

    Make the crowd connect today's "assault weapons bans" and gun control measures to tomorrow's removal of their wives' rape-prevention pistols, home-defense shotguns and hunting rifles.

    Illustrate that there are plenty of legitimate sporting, home-defense and hunting uses for AR-type rifles, that there is no difference in function or capacity.

    Do NOT play up the "so we can REBEL!" aspect of the 2A as the core of your debate. Correct, yes, but an uncomfortable truth. It's better to ease them to our side and use rebellion as a strong, silent backup.

    Good luck!
     
  15. Skyshot

    Skyshot Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    936
    Location:
    Tn.
    Bring stats with you, ask them how many people get killed by cell phones when texting and driving. Yes it's different, but if you can't legislate stupidity you certainly can't legislate evil. So, lets say we ban Semi-auto's and large cap. magazines and Joe Evil decides he wants to kill a bunch of people. So, Joe Evil brings a pump shotgun loaded with #1 buckshot. Guess what, same result, So now we need to ban any firearm capable of holding more than one round. Now, that will stop Joe Evil. But you know what, Joe Evil is evil and Evil is hell bent on killing. Joe Evil WILL find a way no matter what. But why do you need a magazine that hold thirty rounds. Answer, sometimes Joe Evil has a gang with him.
     
  16. palmrose2

    palmrose2 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    61
    Location:
    Twixt Traverse and Mackinac
    I'll give you 10 to one odds that the clinical social worker is anti. The Sheriff is on record as being anti, and the professions of the others makes me believe that the odds are against them being with you, although the super might surprise me. Be prepared to be the ONLY pro gun panelist.
     
  17. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    7,005
    Location:
    Frozen North
    Point out that Police have NO DUTY TO PROTECT
    http://www.endtimesreport.com/NO_AFFIRMATIVE_DUTY.htm
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
    http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...on=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004

    Ask the Sheriff how is a police report from an individual who lawfully protects themselves by drawing a gun recorded?

    Question him on his response time to a school shooting, ask him to estimate HOW MANY CLASSROOMS OF CHILDREN will be killed while waiting for his response...
     
  18. Captain33036

    Captain33036 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Messages:
    395
    Location:
    SE FL
    Ask them how many rounds and what type of gun they want their wife or sister to have when some unknown number of thugs break into her home.
     
  19. mrvco

    mrvco Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    697
    Location:
    Colorado
    Whoops, meant this for the Colorado thread.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2013
  20. bergmen

    bergmen Member.

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,319
    Location:
    Ukiah, California
    Some great points so far! Here is a copy of a letter I sent to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat that was published in 2008:

    The United States Government need not fear a law abiding, armed society. This law abiding society, on the other hand, has every reason to fear a government that does not trust them to be armed.

    The possession of a firearm, like any inanimate object, is not a causal factor in the commission of a gun related crime, it is incidental and supplemental to it. Remove a weapon from the hands of a murderous individual and you still have a murderous individual on your hands. But no law will ever remove these weapons from these individuals for the simple reason that criminals, by their very nature, do not abide by laws (gun control or otherwise). Gun control laws are only aimed at the law abiding, not criminals.

    One thing is for sure, (and the available statistics confirm this) and that is if the potential victim of a lethal assault is known (or likely) to be armed, it serves as a great deterrent to the commission of these crimes. Criminals don’t like to get shot anymore than their potential victims do. But it is high time that the law abiding citizen be allowed to defend themselves appropriately. And it is also high time for all levels of government to trust us to do so.

    Feel free to use any or all.

    Dan
     
  21. locnload

    locnload Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Northern Colorado
    WC145, I admire your courage for stepping up to this task. Part of me envies you the other part feels sorry for the fact that you will probably be out numbered by outright leftist and people who just want to appear "reasonable" but have no idea what they are talking about. That said, here are a couple points I would bring up, mostly geared toward the Sherriff.

    1. Ask the good Sherriff if his department has the budget and is prepared to take on the addirional administrative duties, record keeping, and enforcement of all these new laws, and what will that do to their ability to deal with actuall criminals?

    2. In light of the fact that millions of citizens have been depleting the supply of rifles, semi-auto pistols, and ammo and are highly unlikely to voluntarily "turn them in", does he plan to enforce the law evenly or "selectively" against certain people he doesn't like?

    3. Ask the school Superintendant what his opinion of armed security in the schools is. If he says he is against it, ask him what he would do if they have an activer shooter. He will of course say call 911 and lock down the building. And you can reply, so you would call for the help of people with guns, and trap the students in the shooting gallery, is that correct?

    I could go on and on but I have to leave for work. :(

    I love your comment about Doing something is not the same as doing the right thing! Best of luck with the panel. :)
     
  22. Zardaia

    Zardaia Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    222
    If they try to downplay any slipery slope argument point out ny. Already had awb/mag ban, now even stricter and no grandfathering. Get rid of it or become a criminal. Also the fact that feinstien herslef has said she'd ban em all if she could. Show the difference between logic/reason and emotion, feeling vs being safe.
     
  23. denton

    denton Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,045
    Couple of thoughts, possibly useful...

    From the Heller decision:

    In other words, if you think an armed populace is a bad policy decision, you are little over two centuries late to the meeting where that decision was made. Our Founders knew the pros and cons of having an armed populace, and chose to have it. Since Heller, it is settled law. Debating it as a fundamental policy decision at this point is fruitless.

    Heller and McDonald also took an AWB off the table. The Supreme Court ruled that government cannot prohibit classes of arms that are commonly held for lawful purposes. A new AWB will likely not survive its first brush with reality.

    At one point in the recent debate, one lawmaker scoffed, "Why do you need 30 bullets to kill a deer?" This is so wrong on so many levels. The speaker obviously does not understand that 2A is not about hunting, or much about the practicalities of pest animal control, stomping around in the bushes looking for jackrabbits and coyotes, and is probably too ignorant to be writing laws about firearms.... not that that has ever stopped anyone. But, worse, it is a fundamentally wrong question. It is not up to the right holder to justify exercise of the right. (Magazines, being an essential working part of most firearms are as protected as firearms are.)

    The appropriate question is not one directed to the right holder. It is one directed to the legislator: What is there about an 11 round magazine that requires regulation, when a 10 round magazine does not? If a legislative body cannot answer that question, then they cannot make and enforce a law limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds. There must be some meaningful functional difference that makes that 11 round magazine more dangerous to the public than a 10 round magazine. I don't think that difference exists.

    I'd tell the story of the 12 year old girl in OK who was home alone. She heard an intruder trying to break into the house, and called her mother. Her mother instructed her to retrieve the family's 40 caliber and hide in a closet, with instructions to shoot the intruder if she was discovered. She did exactly as she was instructed. She hid, she was discovered, and she shot the intruder.

    Make no mistake about it: When you are talking about restricting firearms, you are talking about restricting that girl's access to the tool that probably prevented her rape and murder. If more permissive gun laws saved only her life, wouldn't it be worth it?

    Look at the balance sheet. Every year in this country, there are between 800,000 and 2,500,000 defensive gun uses. There are about 30,000 people who are killed every year by gun mis-use. Most of those are suicides. The critical error in the thinking of many gun banners is that they think that if these people did not have access to firearms, those homicides and suicides would be avoided. The best evidence is that they would not. Malaysia provides the death penalty for simple possession of a firearm and one round of ammunition, and they have a homicide rate that exceeds Europe's. There is practically no private firearm ownership in Japan, and they manage to commit suicide about twice as often as we do. In any event, the net result of firearm ownership is less crime.

    Last thought: Average number of people killed at attempted mass shootings in the US, when nobody intervenes = 14.3. Average number of people killed when someone on the scene intervenes = 2.3.

    Yes, guns do cost lives. But they save vastly more.
     
  24. longknife12

    longknife12 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    colorado
    You might keep in mind that even Joe Biden admits that existing laws are not being enforced/prosecuted....the ones proposed will only harm the rest of us, not the bad guy!
    Dan
     
  25. JayBird

    JayBird Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    121
    I recently wrote this up to someone arguing the whole 'need' thing with me.

    ----------------------

    Well, first off. I have hunted with semi automatic rifles with what you would call 'high capacity magazines'. It is perfectly legal in my state on private land. And even encouraged when hunting feral hog. They are a non native nuisance creature which do a lot of damage to peoples property and crops...as well as can be dangerous to people. So, no. I wont admit that these guns 'arent really for hunting' ...millions of semi automatic rifles are used for hunting and pest control in this country every year.

    An AR15 is just one type of semi automatic rifle. Mechanically, it really is no different than a ruger mini 14 ranch rifle or even a ruger 10/22. I dont know if that means anything to you, but to someone that understands firearms...it should.

    As far as 'needs'. First, let me say. Be leery with changing the 'Bill of Rights' to the 'Bill of Needs'.

    But, from a self defense standpoint? Particularly an AR15 with a standard magazine(to me, a 20 or 30 round magazine is standard) is lightweight, easy to maneuver in tight places, easy to maintain on target for follow up shots, reliable and accurate. What else would someone want in a self defense firearm?

    If I was the victim of a home invasion, there is no other firearm I would rather have in my hands. Can you guarantee that I will always be faced with one attacker? What about someone living out in a rural location, where the police maybe 20 minutes or more to get there(not to mention that even in an urban area, the police wont typically get there in time except to put you in a body bag and write up a report).

    If you think home invasions never happen, you simply need to look them up. I wish this father of two had an AR15 in his hands when 4 armed thugs broke into his home.
    http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories...rg-Police-arrest-murder-suspect-Charles-Stone

    Or how about this fairly famous story. At least it was in Florida. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Byrd_and_Melanie_Billings 7 armed men invaded the home. SEVEN. How many bullets in a gun is enough in your opinion in such a situation?

    Ill ask you a question. Say you were at my house, and I had a revolver and an AR15 with a 30 round magazine in my bedroom. And we were sitting there watching a movie when say 4-7 armed men broke in. Which gun would you rather me run to...to protect you in such a situation? My revolver holding 6 shots, or my ar15 holding 30?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page