Help With Gun Control Speech

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zackmeister

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2003
Messages
218
Location
TX
I'm currently taking a intro COMM class at my university and we have been assigned a problem/solution speech.

I decided to use Gun Control as my problem. Specifically, how the Brady Bill and the AWB are a violation of our rights and ineffective in their stated goal of "safety".

My solution is kind of general. I think that getting the public informed of their rights and the true intentions of gun control would help. I've never seen any positive media images of firearms or the second amendment.

Maybe some TV spots on the foolishness of the AWB and how "Assault Weapons" are rarely used in crime and aren't really assault weapons in the first place. Appeal to the millions of gun owners who think that their hunting rifles are safe and are apathetic to handguns for self defense.

Same for the Brady Bill and how records are being kept of gun sales in violation of the law and efforts are being made to turn it into gun registration.

Of course I don't want y'all to write it for me, but I know you guys probably have some good links hidden away somewhere. :)
 
I imagine that if you did a search on THR, you'd find a fair amount of stuff--of course, there's the famous "More Guns, Less Crime" book by John Lott. Even a quick Google search on "second amendment" ought to give you plenty of ideas.

I do a fair amount of public speaking and the trick with any kind of persuasive presentation is to state a clear and limited purpose, and support it with facts.

In general, it's necessary to introduce some sort of emotional content in order to get the audience's attention, but in this case, it's such an emotionally-charged issue that you'll have to take the emotion out.

To that end, instead of talking about abolishing gun control, you can start by talking about results--reductions in crime and violence--and how those reductions were brought about by relaxing gun control (i.e., concealed-carry laws) rather than increasing it. It's going to be hard to counter with the argument that increased crime and violence is a good thing.

Be sure to avoid jargon; lots of shorthand gets used on a forum like this, and your audience not only won't understand you, they'll dismiss you as partisan. (Of course, they probably will anyway, but there's no point in making it any easier for them.)

Will you be able to use any kind of multimedia support, such as a laptop with a projector? Will you even be able to use printed handouts? They can carry a lot of the dry statistics, while you hold forth with your brilliant oratory.

Good luck, and remember to have fun!
 
You could work in that the ATF is being allowed to make law by regulation. All those forms required when you buy a firearm is defacto registration. Not your law. The 'Once an MG, always an MG' is one of their regulations that's not a law. Your elected Congress is being by-passed by the ATF, an unelected government agency.
Having said that, I'd avoid trying to convince anyone to change their minds. Present solid facts not rhetoric. From either side. A speech is nothing more than an essay you read or verbally present. Attacking the anti-gun bunch is not the way to show your audience that shooters are reasonable law abiding people who are being presecuted and otherwise blamed for the criminal activities of others.
 
Here are the foot notes from a letter I sent to my elected clowns regarding the AWB.

(1) Jeffrey A. Roth, Christopher S. Koper, William Adams, et al. “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994†Urban Institute - March 13, 1997 http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797

(2) Robert A Hahn, Oleg O. Bilukha, et al. “First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws†Center for Disease Control (CDC) – October 3rd, 2003
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr//PDF/rr/rr5214.pdf
 
If you argument is that the laws are unConstitutional, then whether thay are effective is irrelevant. That would presuppose that if they WERE effective, then the unConstitutional laws would/could be OK.
 
start off like diane feinstein and sweep the crowd with a drum equipped AK-47 with your finger on the trigger. :rolleyes:
 
I suggest narrowing down you subject matter as best you can . . . . then cut it in half. There is always a tendency to stuff more into a presentation than can be digested by the listeners.
I decided to use Gun Control as my problem. Specifically, how the Brady Bill and the AWB are a violation of our rights and ineffective in their stated goal of "safety".
Click to expand...
I'd cut it down to either one or the other but not both.

It is always good to use emotion in persuasive argumentation. If you are interested in an emotional story about the evils of trigger locks and mandated storage gun control gimmicks, take a gander at the Merced, California atrocity. A truly horrifyng story made worse by gun control laws.
http://www.grnc.org/mary_carpenter_letter.htm

Will you have time for a Q&A afterwards?

Keep us posted
 
Parents and caregivers kill many, many times more children under 12 every year than guns, but no one wants to ban them.
 
Zackmeister,

I agree with the earlier comment that you need to keep the focus or you could be perceived ad just ranting.

The first ten amendments of the constitution were ratified effective December 15, 1791.

AMENDMENT II.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If you are going to discuss constitutionality you need background on the constitution and background on the specific law(s) you wish to challenge. If you do your research, you can keep the emotion out of the argument and gain credibility.

A good source for case law research, US Code research, and Supreme Court rulings is:

Find Law

This site also has many legally based opinions documnted.

Both Bills that you are talking about deal with US Code Title 18 starting at Section 921. The background check criteria is defined in Title 18 Section 922. You can go to the US Code link on Find Law and type in the Title and section as a starting point.

The text of the Brady Bill can be found at: Brady Bill

The text of the AWB can be found at: URL=http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/h3355_en.htm]AWB [/URL]

Good luck with the speech.
 
I once gave a speech about abortion in a College Communications class. I opened it with a point of fact that in the USA every year (or the last 3 years or something - don't remember the numbers - it was a long time ago) more babies are killed than the number of jews that died in the holocaust. Believe me when I say that got their attention.

Along the same lines I'd open your speech up with a graphic narrative of a woman accosted on the street, dragged into an alley, raped and then murdered. Then point out that gun control advocates consider her morally superior to a woman who would blow her attacker away with a gun thus preventing at least one rape and probably a whole bunch of others and at the same time ridding society of one more predator.

Grab 'em by the balls and their hearts and minds won't have any choice but to follow...
 
Hey, thanks everyone for the links and suggestions. I think I will probably concentrate on the Assault Weapons Ban to focus like y'all suggested.
My professor sent me an email about my topic which I think will make my job a little more interesting...

Zachary,

It sounds like your topic is good. To help you to focus, I encourage you to think about how receptive your audience is to your argument so that you use the appropriate approach. Also, the solution is not clear and focused. You should be able to state it in a single sentence, and it should be something that your audience can do to affect the problem that you have presented and proven.

In all fairness, I want to revel a bias I have towards what you have proposed so that you can use it to strengthen your argument. You mentioned the Assault Weapons Ban and how it is an attack on rights. I support the right to bear arms and by no means want to impinge on that right. At the same time, I am not clear how a ban on weapons designed for the rapid and indiscriminate disposal of human life impinges on the rights of Americans. In other words, I don't see what you present to be a problem and am skeptical about part of your argument. I'm giving you that information so that you can use it to appropriately adapt your message. You're going to need to prove to me that it is a problem. I hope that helps you.

I look forward to hearing your speech. Let me know if I can be of assistance in the meantime.

Yours,
Rick
 
Zackmiester,

Your professor did a good job of laying it out from the liberal perspective. In essence, he said it may be a right, but he doesn't like it so you need to prove it to him. It is human nature to hate what we do not understand.

Werewolf gave some good advice. Lead your audience to your conclusion so they cannot back up on your logic. Werewolf's example had nothing to do with the Constitution however. If you want to lead them down the path of believing it is an individual right (not a collective right) you can make the case that the use of the word "people" is used ## times in the constitution and refers to individuals ## times therefor the common use of the word "people" refers to an individual. If you want to dispell the National Guard argument you can cite the date of ratification of the bill of riughts and then find out when (much later) the national guard was formed. If you want to dispell the myth that the militia is governmental controlled, you need to find the definition of the miliotia at the time the BOR was ratified. There was actually a law (?) that defined the militia as (parphrasing here... best find exact references) All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years. By this definition females would not have the RKBA. Was that the founders intent? Your teacher noted that radpid fire weapons were not included as part of 2nd Amendment. In U.S. v. Miller (1939) the Supreme Court said that because the weapon Miller transported across state lines was not a military weapon, it was not protected by the 2nd Amendment. This can be translated to mean that the 2nd Amendment was intended for citizens like Miller to have military weapons (not hunting rifles).

Another way to draw you audience in is to engae them immediately. Take a poll of the audience. Ask for a show of hands on each of your major points (individual vs. collective right; national guard only has right; Militia is a government run organization; only hunting rifles...) then you can hit the points one by one and make your case (knowing you audience a little better).

Another reference for your research is a book by David Kopel "Supreme Court Gun Cases" There is a synopsis of the book in the January 2004 issue of America's 1st Frreedom (NRA magazine).

Good luck.
 
Does anyone have information on the average number of shots fired in gun crimes? I'm trying to negate the argument that the high cap magazines make "Assault Weapons" more lethal.
 
Read over
this thread

Don't innundate them with boring (albeit true) facts. Make it an emotional issue, where the anti's are the badguys, then back up your stance with the facts.
 
I am not clear how a ban on weapons designed for the rapid and indiscriminate disposal of human life impinges on the rights of Americans.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could mention the thousands of competition shooters who would no doubt be shocked to discover that their tricked-out target ARs are actually only a bayonet lug away from being "...weapons designed for the rapid and indiscriminate disposal of human life...". If he thinks(or pretends to think) that repealing the AWB will mean that the streets will be flooded with incredibly dangerous weapons, you could point out that the AWB affects semiauto-only military-style guns that are not capable of "the rapid and indiscriminate disposal of human life" any faster than a semiauto rifle or shotgun that he can buy at Wal-Mart.

Without being rude or confrontational, perhaps you could point out how easy it is to be fooled by anti-gun propaganda that demonizes something that the intended victim knows little about.

http://reason.com/9511/GUNSfeat.shtml
 
BTW, during the American revolution the most dangerous weapon on the field of battle was the Kentucky long rifle in the hands of a back-woods, ignorant hick.

I think the second amendment was written knowing highly dangerous weapons would be in the hands of the peasants BY DESIGN.
 
Well, I'm giving the speech on Monday. I will be glad to get it over and done with. I attached a copy of the outline. It's kind of long. Any last minute suggestions?
 

Attachments

  • gunspeech.txt
    9 KB · Views: 16
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
ICANN and Pres. Obama re: Free Speech and Gun Control
Replies
1
Views
388
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
F
  • Locked
Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss
Replies
10
Views
864
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
JTHunter
  • Locked
Dear Left, No More Gun Control
Replies
17
Views
1K
Walkalong
Walkalong
B
  • Locked
Pro-Gun Speech
Replies
4
Views
899
Dr. Dickie
D
Justin
  • Locked
Interested in the History of 1990s Gun Control? Go to the Clinton Library Website
Replies
5
Views
1K
savanahsdad
savanahsdad
Back
Top