Help with a speech. Please.

[Big_E]

I have to give a persuasive speech for one of my classes. Not sure what subject I will pick yet, but so far I have narrowed it down to:

Waiting periods on firearms do not lower crime or suicide rates.
or
Bans on assault weapons do not lower crime.

If any of you could help me out with suggestions and give me some links to get started, that would be very much appreciated. So far from looking at statistics it appears that states with less suicides are the waiting period states, but looking at overall suicides by type, firearms are the highest for males and highest overall but that does not state whether or not the person had already owned a firearm or purchased it. I am a little confused on all this info and don't want it to turn my speech against me.

I know many of you are more well versed in this sort of thing, so if you could point me in the right direction, thanks again.

 

[Tim the student]

I'd ask your professor. They are there to help you, including choosing topics. You may also learn that they may be completely anti, and that it may be a good idea to stay away from guns, just in case they would be low enough to let it effect your grade.

 

[BikerNut]

Be careful when using statistics and representative samplings to support your speech. They can always be used against you unless you've done meticulous data sampling. See if any of your fellow students are enrolled in a statistics class, because they will tell you how easy it is for data to be incredibly misleading.

The anti-gun lobby has taken selective data sampling to the furthest extreme, but even pro-gun groups will sometimes have a tendency to pick the data that best supports their arguments.

Like everybody's granny used to say, "Figures lie and liars figure".

If you choose the assault weapons ban issue, make sure to get the FBI's national crime report. That's the one that basically revealed that so-called assault weapons were used in something like .01% of crimes, and that the AWB actually had no affect on lowering crime at all.

 

[Big_E]

I already talked to my prof. and he helped me narrow it down to these two topics. I am in a statistics class and I know that figures can me misleading and just because two things seem to be in conjunction with one another doesn't mean one affects the other.

The teacher doesn't seem to be anti, I need to email him a little more about my subject, but we are on break right now. The class is pretty much full of, how do I say this, less than smart people. Anyway if you guys can help me out more, I sure could use it.

I also can use the stories of several women who were killed while waiting to pick up their handgun.

 

[Big_E]

Hmm, I looked into it and I think I will focus on how stupid the CA Assault Weapons Ban is. I have a lot of examples but I also don't want to get most of my info from the ILA website, I will look into the Brady website to look into what they have to say and maybe make them look stupid (or more stupid than they already appear).

 

[oneounceload]

Are you going to be doing this as a nation-wide or state-wide thing?

Have a basic outline developed? (Do they still teach doing outlines anymore? )

What is your premise and outcome? Working backwards from my conclusion always helped me mke sure I had things in proper order with all data necessary

 

[Big_E]

I will be focusing on statewide since the national ban has passed, but I will touch on the subject of the national a little bit.

Yes, oneounce, they still teach outlines, this teacher really has a strong focus on them too so that is what I am working on at the time being. I know a few firearms examiners who know quite a bit about how the CA DoJ lied and made stuff up in order for these politics to pass.

I found some interesting things about shooting a watermelon with an AK variant, and because it "exploded on impact" made the rifle dangerous, amazing how an "high powered" intermediate round can make a watermelon blow up the same way as a shot from a .300 Win mag. This law is insensible and I have a lot of ammo to attack it with (pun intended).

 

[happygeek]

You might also want to check out http://www.vpc.org/assaultweapons.htm. One of the things I like about the VPC is that they don't seem to be as PR oriented as the Brady Bunch. Much of what's on their website seems to be more along the lines of talking points for other gun control groups than something meant to persuade the general public. Included in their "study" Assault Weapons and Accessories in America (http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm) are these gems

Assault firearms are semi-automatic (firing one bullet per trigger pull) and fully automatic (the weapon will keep on firing as long as the trigger is depressed) anti-personnel rifles, shotguns, and handguns that are designed primarily for military and law enforcement use.

umm, so my Sig M1911 clone and my M1 Garand are assault weapons!? (they're semi autos designed for the military, after all).

Assault weapons, just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms, are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons, anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun, can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

The bolding was added by me to emphasize that sentence. That gem of a quote right on the VPC's website to this day sums up the whole thing.

Although the opportunity to restrict assault weapons exists, a question remains for the handgun restriction movement: How? Defining an assault weapon, in legal terms, is not easy. It's not merely a matter of going after guns that are "black and wicked looking." Although those involved in the debate know the weapons being discussed, it's extremely difficult to develop a legal definition that restricts the availability of assault weapons without affecting legitimate semi-automatic guns. Most likely, any definition would focus on magazine capacity, weapon configuration, muzzle velocity, the initial purpose for which the weapon (or its full-auto progenitor) was developed, convertibility, and possible sporting applications. Any law based on this definition would, however, need to have a clause to excuse legitimate semi-automatic weapons that would inadvertently fall under it. And although legislation could be passed that would ban specific weapons, the world's arms manufacturers are expert at producing weapons that follow the letter, but not the intent, of the law. This often results in products that are virtually identical to the restricted weapon, yet different enough to remain on the market.

Again, the bolding was done by me to emphasize that particular line from the VPC. Even they say that they can't nail down a definition of exactly what an "assault weapon" is.

However, the term assault weapon isn't new and it does define a certain class of weapons: those used in assaulting bunkers and other fortified positions, i.e. flames throwers, Bangalore torpedoes, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons

In United States military parlance assault weapon is often found as part of a system name of weapons designed for and used in assault operations. Current examples include the SMAW and SRAW used to breach obstacles or destroy structures. Historical examples include the Bangalore torpedo, the APOBS, and even the flame thrower.[2] Assault rifles and shotguns capable of fully automatic fire, such as the Heckler & Koch CAWS, the XM8, and the Russian 7.62mm/40mm Assault Weapon System are also classified as assault weapon systems.

Then there's the inconvenient fact of the FBI homicide stats by murder weapon used:
1998 - 2002
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html#t211

2004 - 2008
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

You could find all the years going back to the early 90s at least on Google pretty quick, this is just a sample. What stands out is that more people were murdered by being beaten to death using no weapon at all than were murdered with a rifle of any type. More people were murdered with blunt objects than with a rifle of any type. Just over 5 times as many people were murdered with a knife than with a rifle of any type. Note: that's rifles of any type, meaning bolt action, pump action, lever action, semi-auto, scary evil black, etc.

Of course, you can also get into the technical aspects of rifles, how semis work, selector switches, the difference between AR15s and real M4A1s, how my NM M1A with wood stock looks like a "hunting rifle" to the uninitiated but if you swapped out the stock for a Mk14 stock those same people would call it an "assault rifle", and so on. I expect most people's eyes in the class would be glossing over at this point though. The key there is really to know how to paraphrase the technical aspects and dumb it down for non gun people. Personally, I suck at that, and not just with firearms. I suck at explaining computer stuff too.

You could always sum up by explaining that even if we banned "assault weapons" to save even one life from a potential mass shooter, it would still change nothing. Even assuming that the would be mass killer couldn't get ahold of a firearm they would just use bombs.

The deadliest school massacre ever in U.S. history was caused by one lunatic with explosives. Not a shot was fired. I don't think many people know this, I've never heard the mainstream media mention it in any of their massive around the clock coverage of tragedies such as Columbine.

It was the Bath School Massacre of 1927 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_school_massacre).

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Check out this site:

http://www.guncite.com/

And although it's tempting, never give Wikipedia as a source for a college level class.

 

[happygeek]

Honestly, the whole "assault weapons" bans are stupid thing is probably the easiest topic to cover. The technical aspects alone invalidate the VPC/Brady Campaign/CSGV/etc. arguments, since there's no such thing as an assault weapon. It's a made up term. Even the VPC struggles to justify their use of the term (http://www.vpc.org/studies/hosesix.htm).

Assault rifle is a real term, of course, but those things are covered by the NFA. I would suggest you quickly sum up the amount of money and paperwork involved in legally acquiring such a weapon to the class.

 

[pty101]

here's an interesting article on the recent Heller case. It also discuss some of the firearm regulations. I dont know how much you could use it in your speech but it has some interesting information

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/30/lott-john-gun-controll-dc-handgun-ban/

 

[JoeSlomo]

How about a "Demonization of firearms" speech?

You could highlight how firearms are a tool subject to use by the intentions of man.
-Auto's are a tool of transportation and kill far more people than firearms.
-Knives are a tool that are used to take human life....AND cut vegetables.
-Firearms are used as a tool FAR more often in the pursuit of legal activities than criminal. (harvesting game for food, self defense, and competition pursuits)

You could highlight how firearms are a vital part of the existence of a free nation as they give citizens the ability to defend against evil regimes.
-compare firearms ownership laws for Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany, communist Russia, Kmher roughe cambodia

Conclude with individual responsibility and its significance in a free society
-freedom is not free and must be defended

 

[Skillet]

I think you should do the assault weapons topic. Many others here have already put up many facts and figures, but I can help with your writing. Remember to use the elements of rhetoric in your speech to make it more appealing. Logos, pathos, and ethos (logic, emotion, and credibility) are all key essentials to any writing or speech. I would use logos and ethos (logic and credibility) more heavily than pathos. Make sure to avoid any fallacies of logic and also make sure you point out your opposition's fallacies (of everything) Just look at the many facts that have been posted on here before my post and you should be set. also, ask us more questions! Get into specifics! But in your speech, I think you should use about three max key topics. Pick the most common assault weapons related myths and go for it! And remember, present it well. Sometimes unfortunately in the messed up society we have today people only look at how something is presented instead of the hard facts. So you need to be at the top of your game on both! Present it well and have a rock solid fact based foundation of logos, and ethos to back your logos up. I would look into the NRA website and see if they have any helpful facts.

 

[Big_E]

Thank you happygeek, Drew and pty. This will definitely help out.

 

[Skillet]

Big E, I live in the Boise area if you want to go shooting anytime, message me!

 

[otblue]

You might want to look at the Australian Institute of Criminology website and read some papers by Jenny Mouzos.

As you all probably know, in 1996 Australia banned and confiscated semiautomatic long arms of all types as well as pump action shotguns.

(As an aside, this was a consequence of Australia signing a UN Economic and Social Policy Treaty on small arms, the Port Arthur massacre was just an excuse. Remember that registration is merely a prelude to confiscation).

Mouzos collates Australia wide data on homicides and what is clear is that the guns bans have had no effect on firearm related crime. There has been a downward trend in firearm related homicides in Australia for decades and the gun ban has had no discernible influence on that trend.

What has become obvious though is that the vast majority of firearms used in these homicides are illegally owned and individuals involved in these homicides don't have licences and have previous violent histories and are already known to the police.

This is exactly what the law abiding have been saying for years; it's really obvious; Gun laws only impact the law abiding. Criminals don't obey the law so why would you even expect them to obey gun control measures.

Given that the whole mechanism of the state cannot control the borders and keep drugs out, then getting "illegal" firearms is no problem if a person is so inclined.

 

[swagner89]

5 paragraph persuasive essay

Dont get lost in too many details. the professor isnt really interested in the point you are making; only that you can write in the standard 5 paragraph format

Intro: Tell the reader "what you are going to tell them"
Body: Tell them
Conclusion: Tell the reader what you just told them

here's an example:


Cats make better pets than alligators because they are friendlier, care is easier, and they are safer.

Cats are friendlier because they have been domesticated with humans for thousands of years. While many cat owners find them to be aloof, alligators are not inclined to curl up in your lap on a cold winter's night.

Taking care of cats is a lot easier because they eat pre-packaged food. Going to the supermarket once a month for cat food may be inconvenient, but requires much less effort than keeping a tribe of feeder goats in your backyard.

Cats are much safer because they are smaller and weaker than humans. Getting scratched by a cat is unpleasant, however, their claws can be clipped. An alligator has powerful teeth and jaws that can rip limbs from your body.

Because they are friendlier, care for them is easier, and they are safer, cats make much better pets than alligators.


believe me i learned this the hard way in ENG101. stick to this format and you'll be ok. check out this link for more detail:
http://homeworktips.about.com/od/essaywriting/a/fiveparagraph.htm

 

[wishin]

^^Excellent advice. Picking a subject you're passionate about makes it a bit easier, but it's the writing, not the subject matter, once you've eliminated any bias on the part of the professor.

 

[Lee Roder]

Try running the following query against PubMed:

(guns AND (suicide OR crime) AND "waiting period")

You'll be taken to one article which you should at least be familiar with (so as not to reinvent the wheel as it were)

Homicide and suicide rates associated with implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
JAMA. 2000 Aug 2;284(5):585-91.

CONCLUSIONS: Based on the assumption that the greatest reductions in fatal violence would be within states that were required to institute waiting periods and background checks, implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates. However, the pattern of implementation of the Brady Act does not permit a reliable analysis of a potential effect of reductions in the flow of guns from treatment-state gun dealers into secondary markets.

PubMed has lots of other stuff too which I'm sure you will find

 

[Big_E]

Thanks again for the help.

One thing that seems difficult for me to approach is the "Normal capacity magazines" vs 10 round or less. I love having more ammo and not having to reload, but for some people on the fence about shooting more and reloading less it seems like 10 rounds is sensible. If you guys could give me advice about persuading someone that 30 rounds isn't as dangerous as 10 that would be nice too.

 

[happygeek]

The only real argument against standard mags that I can find even from the VPC has to do with mass shootings. But honestly, if we made our bans based on what mass killers do we'd have to ban diesel fuel, fertilizer, and airplanes, for starters. I'd have to look up the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure the kamikaze terrorists took out more innocents than all the mass shooters combined in one single attack.

There's so many existing laws that the mass killers broke before committing their murders. Off the top of my head, the Columbine murderers were guilty of an illegal straw purchase, illegal possession of firearms, illegal possession of explosives (that's at least 10 years in jail right there), and illegal possession of short barrel shotguns (another ten years at least). Oh, and they committed their murders during the 94 to 04 Federal AWB.

The most infamous recent mass shooting was the Fort Hood MAJ who, again off the top of my head, was in illegal possession, i.e. he possessed a loaded, concealed pistol on post. I also highly doubt his pistols were registered with the Provost Marshall, so that's another violation right there. I'd assume he drove to Fort Hood while locked and loaded and concealed, so unless he had a TX CCP he was breaking TX law as well as the UCMJ once he came on post.

Looking at all the gun control laws they were already breaking, what difference would it have made? Oh yeah, and both (as well as almost every mass shooting in recent U.S. history) happened in a "gun free" zone. It's not a coincidence that the MAJ picked the SRP center and not, say, one of Fort Hood's ranges as his crime zone. Most mass shooters are depressed males (the only similarity found when a profile was done) and [this is my take] cowards, since they pick places where they can expect to not take return fire.

All this assumes that it be physically possible to prevent anyone from getting their hands on a 10 round plus mag. Considering the abundance of drugs, illegal immigrants, pirated software/music/movies/etc., not to mention alcohol during Prohibition, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

Again, even assuming that would be mass killers could somehow be prevented from getting their hands on firearms, the worst school massacre in U.S. history was committed using explosives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_school_massacre). The worst massacre on U.S. soil was committed using human piloted cruise missiles, i.e. explosives. The 2nd worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil was also committed using explosives.

 

[happygeek]

All the gun control proposals really come down to restricting everyone's rights over the assumption that doing so will prevent violent crime. But if you're going to restrict everyone's Constitutional rights in the hope of stopping violent crime, the 2nd Amendment is not the place to start, not even close. You'd start with the 4th Amendment. In some countries the cops already come through and randomly search people's homes while they're at work looking for anything suspicious. If you really want to take away rights to put a dent in crime, "home visits" are arguably a much more effective means of doing so. Just imagine, the cops could have caught McVeigh while he was still constructing his bomb. They could have caught the Columbine murderers with their pipe bombs and short barrel shotguns. These horrible crimes could have been prevented if only the ACLU would accept some common sense compromise!

 

[rfwobbly]

Cats make better pets than alligators because they are friendlier, care is easier, and they are safer.

Cats are friendlier because they have been domesticated with humans for thousands of years. While many cat owners find them to be aloof, alligators are not inclined to curl up in your lap on a cold winter's night.

Taking care of cats is a lot easier because they eat pre-packaged food. Going to the supermarket once a month for cat food may be inconvenient, but requires much less effort than keeping a tribe of feeder goats in your backyard.

Cats are much safer because they are smaller and weaker than humans. Getting scratched by a cat is unpleasant, however, their claws can be clipped. An alligator has powerful teeth and jaws that can rip limbs from your body.

Because they are friendlier, care for them is easier, and they are safer, cats make much better pets than alligators.

A+

Great 5 paragraph paper. You could probably sell that online!

 

[Webbj0219]

If I were in your shoes Id want to make this as professional as possible. Really do your homework. Just in case your Prof is anti- then it would be obviouse why you failed the speech.

As for waiting periods and suicides. Guns arent the only way to do this. I know 4 people that have attempted suicide only one of them used a gun. The others took pills. Granted the one that used a gun was the only successful one of the lot. So a gun is probable the most effective means of killing yourself, its not the only way. So if someone is at the end of their rope, not having access to a gun probable wont have an effect on what they do. Im assuming that nobody reading this has problems with suicide, dont mean to sound cold or give any ideas.

 

[happygeek]

I'm mildly curious what you end up writing about and how it ends up. Mind posting it when you're done?