Planning a persuasive speech

[Crow1108]

Mods: If this is the wrong area, please feel free to move.

Greetings everyone,

I am doing a persuasive speech for a college class in favor of the second amendment and against any further gun control measures. I've found some great sources, like the department of justice statistics, and I was hoping you guys might know of some other resources. While NRA and other associated organizations might work, I am trying to find as many non-biased sources as possible. News stories about lawfully armed citizens defending themselves would be ideal.

I am also looking to talk a little bit against so called "assault weapon" bans. I am looking for stories/pictures concerning the use of semi-automatic rifles in times of civil unrest to defend their property, or even in self-defense situations. I found a few pictures of the shop keepers during the LA riots with mini-14's and shotguns on the roofs of their shops, but they are using handguns in the majority of the pictures I've found.

Thanks in advance!

 

[EnglishmanInArizona]

I don't have resources to offer at the moment, but I do have advice (hey, it's the internet - you get opinions not facts ). Depending upon what you are being graded on in your class it may or may not be good - that's up to you to judge. It is good advice on persuasion though.

My ex is a very good speech writer, so it's her advice really.

- Statistics don't persuade, but they do quash argument. If you want to persuade people you have to change their emotional state. Too many statistics changes their state to boredom, so break them up and focus on emotional state control.

- The old classic advice of finding common ground to begin with is very true. One of the best ways to do this is to make statements that are open to interpretation in the way that best suits the listener. Done well this will have everyone thinking you are saying exactly what is in their minds, which puts them in a highly receptive state. Ease them from that into your real message. Obviously, however, make sure you are saying something and not being too vague.

- Speaking pro-RKBA in a college environment means you are probably facing a tough crowd. Being too blunt about your purpose in the beginning is likely to be alienating. If you're able to present your talk as being about "Guns and Violent Crime", and open up by talking about violent crime, you should be able to hook them in.

- "Mom and Apple Pie". There are things that are important to everyone. Personal safety and the safety of family are two big ones relevant to guns. I have been frequently surprised by rampantly liberal girls coming to me to ask about keeping a gun because they don't feel safe in their home. I haven't had a flood of liberals coming to me saying they want to be prepared in the event of government tyranny, and they tend to be less concerned about private property, too.

- Even talking about guns and violent crime can provoke fear responses. People who are afraid are not receptive unless being receptive will make them feel immediately safer. Fear is a powerful tool in persuasion (just look at Hitler's successes), but to work you must offer safety. Leave people afraid for too long without offering them safety by agreeing with you, and they will shut down. It's all about controlling their state.

- It's a common thing that people will say they would have a hard time shooting in order to protect themselves, but they wouldn't think twice in order to protect their little sister. If you want to create a situation where a liberal will want the biggest, blackest, highest capacity weapon you can get, threaten (rhetorically) to rape their little sister at knifepoint. This creates fear, righteous indignation and a desperate desire to do something quickly. Create those emotions and immediately harness them.

- Oh, and before you get the wrong idea - you are ALWAYS the Good Guy. Don't ever say "Imagine I am coming toward you with a knife" or some such. If you want them to imagine a Bad Guy, point to the door, or somewhere away from you (this not only dissociates it from you, it also helps them to create a mental picture). Do not let them associate you with bad things.

The basics of public speaking I won't patronize you with, but the above points are powerful.

 

[hso]

I'll assume you looked through all the links we provide on the Activism Resources page

There are a number of threads running triggered by the Aurora shooting and backlash that have very good arguments that might provide inspiration.

 

[Skribs]

Two very simple concepts make sense to me. You need logic to understand them, which is why I don't understand why it is so hard for certain people to understand them.

1) If we make guns illegal, criminals (who do not follow the law anyway) will still have guns.
This can be shown by nearly every mass shooting taking place in "gun free zones." Even the DC sniper was shooting people in Washington DC - a gun-free metropolis.
2) If #1 is somehow wrong, and a complete ban on guns really removes guns from the equation, all a criminal has to do is be bigger than the victim in order to have easy prey.
This means that a 5'8, 170 pound man (which seems fairly average) will have an obvious advantage mugging old ladies, petite 5'2 college students, etc.

The biggest fallacy, however, is that guns are evil, or that guns cause crime. The biggest myth that needs to be dispelled is that "gun violence" or "gun crime" is the problem. Crimes and violence are both committed with and stopped by/with guns. Guns are more often used for fun at the range. If you can put a dichotomy between "gun" and "criminal", you've done a good job.

Don't believe this dichotomy exists? Just ask Obama. He makes the distinction that AK-47s need to be "In the hands of soldiers instead of criminals," essentially taking your average non-military law-abiding citizen out of the picture.

 

[tuj]

I have done a number of persuasive speeches. The most important thing IMHO is to understand the arguments AGAINST your POV and systematically and thoroughly debunk them. Don't make arguments you can't back-up with either a number of statistical sources, or very solid logic.

Secondly, try not to draw politics into your discussion. Its much easier to persuade someone when they believe you are politically neutral.

 

[JustinJ]

I have done a number of persuasive speeches. The most important thing IMHO is to understand the arguments AGAINST your POV and systematically and thoroughly debunk them. Don't make arguments you can't back-up with either a number of statistical sources, or very solid logic.

This is very true. Some of the more popular pro gun arguments actually have some holes in them. For example, its frequently said that if all guns were removed murders would still occur. Okay, but the easy reply is that just reducing murders is till a good thing. A better argument would that removing all guns would likely increase other crimes such as rape, robbery, etc by removing the ability of people to defend themselves.

Another common one is that "we could save many more lives" by getting rid of cars than. Many people see value in cars while finding none with guns so will consider cars worth the cost. If privately owned guns are not something with substantial benefit in their eyes they won't see a downside to getting rid of them if you can't demonstrate positives.

Also, stay away from ideological statements about liberty and the second amendment as they will not resonate with your audience and will likely make you appear impractical.

 

[Skribs]

This is very true. Some of the more popular pro gun arguments actually have some holes in them. For example, its frequently said that if all guns were removed murders would still occur. Okay, but the easy reply is that just reducing murders is till a good thing. A better argument would that removing all guns would likely increase other crimes such as rape, robbery, etc by removing the ability of people to defend themselves.

I've seen charts of pre-gun-ban and post-gun-ban in other countries, and the number of total murders remained the same. Gun murders went down, knife murders went up. So while it reduced the total number of murders commited by guns, it didn't reduce the total number of murders.

 

[ATBackPackin]

Gun Facts is an excellent place to find information.

The Armed Citizen is a place to find cases of people using guns for self defence.

Good luck.
Shawn

 

[Skribs]

I am of the opinion that statistics don't really help in the gun control debate. Reason being both sides create their own statistics. If you take a fencer and have both an anti and a pro give him stats for whether guns prevent or create crime, he's going to get overwhelmed with he-said-she-said. The big problem is most stats are taken out of context.

Logic not only appeals to the more personal level, but it also places the individual in the situation. You're not looking at 5000 suicides and 3000 self defense situations that are numbers without faces. You're looking at a 5'2 petite woman who is being followed by a 5'8 muscular man. What is she going to do? Comply? It might help her survive, or it might give him easier opportunity to kill her after she's done. Run? What if she's wearing heels and a skirt...even if she's in a jogging suit, he's going to have a longer stride. Use a tazer/pepper spray? Might stop him, might not. The gun is the only tool that will give this woman a significant chance of preventing an attack.

Everyone has a woman they care about. It could be their girlfriend, wife, sister, mother, daughter, or even just a friend, but its someone they wouldn't want to see hurt by someone. Make them think about this girl.

 

[wv109323]

I would include some quotations from the Founding Fathers as to what they intended for the Second Amendment to mean. We have a watered down version of the meaning today.
George Washington financed the biggest part of the American Revolutionary Army. I am sure he desired that his men have the most recent and technologically advanced weapons of the times.

 

[ATBackPackin]

Everyone has a woman they care about. It could be their girlfriend, wife, sister, mother, daughter, or even just a friend, but its someone they wouldn't want to see hurt by someone. Make them think about this girl.

The only problem with that is that a lot of people think that 911 and the police are going to save them. They do not realize that most of the time they will not get there until after the damage is done and at that point they are looking for a murderer, rapist, mugger, etc. I would even venture to say that more than half of the masses do not even know that SCOTUS ruled that the police have zero duty to protect the people.

Shawn

 

[Skribs]

Which is why you include that in the scenario ATBack.

 

[ATBackPackin]

Which is why you include that in the scenario ATBack.

I concur, and I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just pointing out that there are many, many people who think calling 911 is going to save them and therefore there is no need for civilians to own or carry guns.

 

[EnglishmanInArizona]

The only problem with that is that a lot of people think that 911 and the police are going to save them.

Find out how long the police say is the longest probable wait on your campus. The Chief of Police on mine said himself that parts of the campus could be six and a half minutes even in the case of an active shooter.

Six and a half minutes, timed, while you deliver your speech can seem like a very long time.

 

[ATBackPackin]

Find out how long the police say is the longest probable wait on your campus. The Chief of Police on mine said himself that parts of the campus could be six and a half minutes even in the case of an active shooter.

Six and a half minutes, timed, while you deliver your speech can seem like a very long time.

That is an excellent point that could be very persuasive if delivered right. Maybe ask a person in the class to hold a stop watch. Tell them to start it when your speech starts and tell you when six and a half minutes have elapsed. Then explain that is how long it will take for the first responder to get there.

 

[Skribs]

Six and a half minutes, timed, while you deliver your speech can seem like a very long time.

Most speeches I did in college for speech class were 6 minutes or less.

Unrelated to guns: my persuasive speech in college was that Bingo is the name of the farmer, not the name of the dog.

 

[JagerRanger]

I'm also of the opinion that facts don't persuade banners to change their views.

The only thing I'd suggest is to list all the state constitutions that have the Second Amendment clause. It kind of gives a better idea what people then, 250 years ago, thought about guns and right to bear one.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Alaska: 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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).

[Individual right explicitly protected; provision enacted in 1994, when the individual right to bear arms was generally understood as aimed at protecting self-defense.]

Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).

[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Art. II, § 5 (enacted 1868, art. I, § 5).

1836: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. II, § 21.

[Self-defense right protected, Arkansas Game and Fish Com'n v. Murders, 327 Ark. 426 (1997); Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557 (1878).]

[snip]

Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

[Self-defense right protected, State v. McAdams, 714 P.2d 1236, 1238 (Wyo. 1986).]

 

[tuj]

I would be hesitant to make my arguments around the 2nd amendment. If you follow this line, you need to explain the relevant SCOTUS cases that expanded the 2A to allow individuals to own guns outside the context of a militia and secondly, you will have to deal with US v. Miller which found that the government *can* impose 'reasonable' restrictions on firearms.

You probably don't want to get into a whole line of SCOTUS cases, thus IMHO its better to argue your issue in policy and societal terms, rather than a constructionalist context.

 

[Pete D.]

There is am impressive amount of good advice in this thread and not one piece of bad.
Remember this....the main idea of your speech should be phrased in a single, precise, clear sentence. In addition, as noted by other posters, you should have a comprehensive understanding of the arguments against your point of view....in fact, it is an old debate truism that you should be able to argue the opposite point of view as effectively as your own. If you cannot, you may only have half the facts.

 

[Texan Scott]

Most human beings are insufficiently rational to be persuaded by something as silly as demonstrable fact. Remember that most of you audience already has a solid OPINION one way or the other, and that's more important than fact. (it IS actually more important- fact is what people KNOW. Opinion is what they ACT ON).
Remember, this is not an INFORMATIVE speech... it's a PERSUASIVE speech. You're not supposed to EDUCATE them... you're supposed to SWAY them. Use fact only as it advances your argument, which should contain an element of emotional 'feel'. Pictures of attractive and/or distressed young women with guns (protecting themselves from bad people and the fate worse than death) may be the most effective visual you can use. Oleg Volk has some very tasteful, impactful, professional stuff in this regard... you can google, I assume, but PLEASE respect his copyrights (and if he doesn't have express fair use permissions already attached, ASK HIM).

 

[RBid]

Specific objections to overcome:

1. The primary motivation to ban or further restrict transfer of firearms is because those who know a little believe that removing all ability to legally purchase firearms will result in a dramatic or near total removal of access to firearms from the criminal element.

2. "Assault Rifles" are people killers, with 'no other purpose for ownership'. Slippery-slope extension: so are handguns.

3. Firearms are used in slightly more than 2/3 of murders in the US, on average (66%-68%).

4. Comparative stats: US vs UK

5. Firearms make it easier to kill people.
Counters:

vs comparative US/UK stats, and reduction of access to firearms, vs murder rate:
- violent crime is driven primarily by population density, and economic distress. For support, view:

murder rate by state
murder rate by city
10 highest and lowest murder rates among cities with population over 500,000
per capita income, by metro area

and apply filters: general knowledge of gun laws, geography. Example: Among the 10 cities with the lowest murder rate, and population over 500,000, only one (NYC) is an eastern state. Most are sprawling/less dense western or midwestern states. None are notably economically distressed. Among the ten cities with the highest murder rates and populations above 500,000, the trend is density and economic distress-- with Detroit being the prime example of what happens when both are strongly present.

Additionally, relative gun control shows no correlation with relative violence, state to state. Among the highest and lowest murder rates are states represented by those with the most and least restrictive gun laws.

All of this is to say that we can't base success of gun laws on what we see in the UK, any more than we can base those conclusions on what we see in Mexico, or in countries whose gun laws are even less restrictive than our own.


on "Assault Weapons":

According to the FBI, rifles are used in less than 3% of murders, as compared to nearly 6% of murders being committed with *no* weapon (hands, feet, etc). For support, Google: "murder by weapon type".

In other words, you are approximately twice as likely to be killed by bare hands than you are to be killed with a rifle of ANY kind-- this gap increases if we exclude hunting rifles.

Further: You are more than four times as likely to be murdered with an edged weapon than you are to be murdered with a rifle.


Since we now see that "assault rifles", which are owned by hundreds of thousands of US citizens, are not being used for their "only purpose", then we have to acknowledge that more than 99% of owners are actually using them for other purposes.

People buy them for: Recreation, collection, home defense, hunting, and emergency use. 'Emergency use' refers to defense during periods where emergency services are not available-- such as during riots, or disaster.

It is important to note that we MUST protect 'recreation' as a valid reason for ownership, because hunting is recreation in the modern age. The argument will be made that nobody will starve without a hunting rifle.


Also valid: ownership of these tools for preservation of freedom, per the 2nd Amendment. This idea may meet resistance from those who won't acknowledge the possibility of the unforseen-- here, referring to the possibility that US citizens may some day need to take up arms to preserve our liberties. While I am among those who don't see this as an imminent issue, it begs to be pointed out that the "it can't/won't happen to me/us" mentality has allowed a lot of suffering over history. I am certain that there were a lot of very surprised French citizens, when they saw German tanks on their streets. There are many, many more examples.


Regarding: "Guns make it easier to kill people"--

Nope. The general belief is that guns are more efficient killing tools than they are, so they are a go-to, when they are an option.

Handguns constitute the bulk of firearms used in the comission of murder. Firearms cause death in two ways: separate the brain from the central nervous system, or cause a significant loss of blood. As THR members are generally aware, handguns aren't especially efficient at accomplishing either of these-- even in the hands of someone with training. Training, of course, is something that the vast majority of those who murder with a handgun do not have.

To be blunt, many people who intend to murder another person would be better served by using something OTHER than a handgun.

Going back slightly... "they are a go-to, when they are an option". When handguns are NOT an option, some criminals will turn toward methods that are actually more efficient.

In the case of the Aurora, CO shooter, explosives were certainly an option. Had he not been able to acquire firearms, we would probably have been reading about a bombing. In that space, with people so close to each other, a bombing would likely have been far worse than the shooting.

How about relative availability of firearms vs bombs?

You can get everything you need to make a bomb from the internet, and WalMart.



End note:

The FBI estimates that more than 75,000,000 US citizens own firearms.

In a typical year, we will have 13,000-15,000 murders, of which about 67% are committed with firearms.

Assuming 67% of the worst case (15,000), we have 10,050 murders committed with firearms.

10,050 divided by 75 million (the actual estimate is closer to 80 million-- I'm intentionally skewing it in favor of antis) shows us that...

0.000134% of gun owners use their guns to commit murder.

In other words, even with intentionally skewed numbers, the percentage of gun owners who do NOT use their guns to kill people is...

99.999866%...

...even with math weighed AGAINST gun owners.



If people are REALLY that concerned with each others' well being, they should focus their efforts on economic solutions, and health care.

 

[Tim the student]

There are a number of threads on this very subject. Were I in your shoes, I would look through those threads. Between all of them, I think you will come up with better info than you will with this thread alone.

Hint: use Google to search THR.

 

[JagerRanger]

There are a number of threads on this very subject. Were I in your shoes, I would look through those threads. Between all of them, I think you will come up with better info than you will with this thread alone.

Hint: use Google to search THR.

There is a limit how many characters one can use in any single post. I'm sorry if my sincere offer of assistance was lacking.