Pro-Gun Speech

[brufener]

I am in a sort of speech class in law school, and have to give a speech to the class this week. The speech must be on a public policy issue, so I decided to do mine on gun control. Here it is:

The Second Amendment has been described as embarrassing. Some have asked if the amendment is necessary in today’s society. Many claim that a ban on guns will make our society safer, and will lead to a decrease in crime. However, a look at the facts reveals that gun control does not stop crime.

One example of whether gun control laws reduce violence can be seen in the many states that allow citizens to carry a hidden gun. The number of states that allow any citizen, who meets certain requirements such as a background check, to carry a gun have increased to 35 from only 8 twenty years ago. In this same time period, we have seen violent crime in our country decrease by 32%.
Florida passed their concealed carry law in 1987. Prior to the governor’s signing of the bill, many anti-gun groups cried out that blood would run in the streets of Florida. Nothing has been farther from the truth. Florida’s murder by firearm rate has dropped 50%. In fact, all violent crime in Florida has dropped. Allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons has not resulted in blood running in the streets. Instead, the streets have become safer.

Gun control advocates compare firearm-related death rates in the United States to other countries and claim that there are more homicides here due to the large number of firearms. However, an analysis of gun ownership and homicide rates in other countries proves otherwise. For example, Switzerland has more relaxed gun control laws than the United States. In fact, it is estimated that between 15% and 20% of all Swiss homes have a fully automatic weapon in them. Even with all these guns, Switzerland’s homicide rate is almost 4 times lower than ours. In contrast, Brazil prohibits the sale of all new firearms to private citizens. Yet Brazil’s homicide rate is almost 4 times as high as ours. These comparisons make it clear that gun laws do not stop crime.

In addition to not reducing homicides, a ban on guns will not work. A ban on guns will only keep guns out of the hands of good, law-abiding citizens. In 1919 the 18th amendment was passed, outlawing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of all alcohol. Today many narcotics, such as marijuana and cocaine, are illegal. Even with these bans, alcohol was readily available during prohibition and illegal drugs can be found on the streets of any U.S. city. If a total ban on alcohol and illegal drugs has not worked, why would a ban on guns be any different?

Gun control laws do nothing to stop crime. This simple fact has been recognized for centuries. Even Thomas Jefferson recognized this simple truth when he said “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides.” Let’s make America safer by supporting the right to keep and bear arms.

Any suggestions for improvment?

I feel that my last sentence is weak, and I would like to make it catchier. Any ideas?

One thing - I am limited to 4 minutes and I am right at 4 minutes. Hence I cannot add anything in unless I take something out.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I don't know about "embarrassing" in the first sentence. Maybe "outdated".
I would replace "hidden" with "concealed" in the beginning of the second paragraph.
It might be nice to mention concealed carry laws make everyone safer because criminals don't know if their next target is armed or not.
Last sentence suggestion: "As you can see, although the dates have changed, the Second Amendment is as important today as the day it was written."

 

[Kim]

I think he said embaressing because of the Law Article written by the left law professor called "The Embaressing Second Amendment". I believe it was Lawrence Tribe. He came to the conclusion that the 2nd was an individual right but it was embaressing and an Amendment should be passed to get rid of it. There was fire throwing by the lefty Democrats and law professors and lefty Newspapers. He was a traitor to their cause.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

In speech courses, I was taught that using a Rogerian style argument (finding common ground, building bridges, etc) you can sway people more by first using a point commonly heard on their side, such as restating a commonly used statistic, then dissect it in your rebuttal. It's more effective with highly emotional subjects rather than going into a courtroom-like offensive. That just shuts people out completely. If you draw them in with something they're familiar with or feign empathy, its easier to work with them.

For example, something like:

"We've all heard many times that XX children die a day from firearm deaths", then segway into a rebuttal with sources "but did you know XX was comprised in this manner, as stated by XX nonbiased source? In actuality, X children died via suicide, crime activity,etc".

Just introduce what they're familiar with, break it down, and form your rebuttal against it and build from there until you've finished a point. Rinse, repeat. From their position, its much better than getting beat in the face with cold facts because they will tune out.

 

[Dr. Dickie]

Looks pretty good, just remember (from someone who spent 15 years on the radio), 4 minutes during practice, translates into 3 minutes in front of an audience unless you really practice pacing yourself.
Good luck