In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Defending Gun Rights in a Liberal College Class
addpillz
Member Posts: 30 ✭✭
Hello Fellow Gun Right Enthusiasts,
I am currently a Political Science Major with a focus in Pre-law. I go to a very liberal college that is often very antagonizing to conservative views on gun legislation. We were given an assignment where we must choose a social issue in our society and defend or attack it. I chose "Firearms Legislation" of course do to my passion for guns. Three other students chose this topic as well. However, I am the only person in my group that is pro-gun. In about a month, there will be a very large debate that will count 75% of my grade. I am very worried because I will be the only one going up against 3 people attacking gun ownership and supporting gun bans. I will need a ton of solid information I can throw at them to skew their attacks. I am here on this forum to ask for any help possible. If anyone has any ideas or information I can use to support my case please feel free to post links or information.
My idea is to prove that gun banning only contributes to more crime.
I will use Cities and States such as California and DC whom have very harsh gun laws and compare their crime rate other states with nicer gun laws. Is this a good Idea?
Thank you very much,
Stevan (addpillz)
I am currently a Political Science Major with a focus in Pre-law. I go to a very liberal college that is often very antagonizing to conservative views on gun legislation. We were given an assignment where we must choose a social issue in our society and defend or attack it. I chose "Firearms Legislation" of course do to my passion for guns. Three other students chose this topic as well. However, I am the only person in my group that is pro-gun. In about a month, there will be a very large debate that will count 75% of my grade. I am very worried because I will be the only one going up against 3 people attacking gun ownership and supporting gun bans. I will need a ton of solid information I can throw at them to skew their attacks. I am here on this forum to ask for any help possible. If anyone has any ideas or information I can use to support my case please feel free to post links or information.
My idea is to prove that gun banning only contributes to more crime.
I will use Cities and States such as California and DC whom have very harsh gun laws and compare their crime rate other states with nicer gun laws. Is this a good Idea?
Thank you very much,
Stevan (addpillz)
Comments
Your approach will be buttressed by virtually every honest study of the subject. You can go on by pointing out that gun control laws disproportionately discriminate against minorities and the poor. You will find endless amounts of data that show that in a nominally free society, increased firearm restrictions go hand in hand with increased crime rates.
That is the emotional approach, the one that attempts to justify controls or freedoms by reasoning it out.
It is also the approach that suggests that these statistics matter.
The fact remains that virtually all of these laws are anti-Constitutional. Arguing based upon justification through statistics is a tacit acceptance that the 2nd Amendment can legally be ignored.
If it were me, my first point would be that each and every gun control law is an infringement upon that which Constitutionally cannot be infringed. All of these laws require an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to be legally enforceable, and are thus lawlessness by Government in and of themselves.
Perhaps relating the high crime rates with increased gun control can be presented as evidence that when the law of the land is ignored by governments, people are encouraged to act in a similar lawless fashion.
Brad Steele
Suggested to think about:
Gun bans = only the law abiding would follow it, hence making it easier for criminals to attack the law abiding.
Would everyone be willing to make every gun owner or potential gunowner go thru a mental stability background check? Would a liberal be willing to allow this?
Would everyone be willing for a police door-to-door, room-to-room search of each and every premesis and car searching for guns and ammunition? Would a liberal be willing to allow this? I doubt it for fear of all the illegal drugs and other "liberal liberties" that would be found.
Just remember this: When seconds count when you're under attack, the police are only minutes away if you can find your phone.
Good luck with this. You'll be walking thru a liberal minefield on this issue, so know your subject matter and prepare for alot of non-answers. True liberals won't answer a straight question directly and will tend to want to ignore individual rights, especially since the SCOTUS ruled that the second amendment does apply to the individual.
just a thought.
also most of the anti-gun view is emotion. ever notice how when the subject is debated there is a gun rights advocate from the nra or some other gun rights group on one side and on the other there is usually someone(most of the time a minority) that had a son or daughter that was killed by a gun in the streets. basically one side using logic vs. one side using emotion.
People break laws and always will, unless they are caught right after birth, indoctrinated and made subjects to an authority figure with 24/7 control.This invalidates personal freedom and is ridiculous to contemplate. Therefore freedom comes with a cost as well as complete tyranny. Freedom= the dynamicism of life complete with its ups and downs. Tyranny= the control of the dynamicism of life with an appointed ruler who is not themselves subject to criticism.
Further arguments abound so I'll get to the juice. Unitarian philosophy circa 1840 a.d.in America suggested that the majority of people, especially the children of the poor required the guidance of the enlightened minority. There really was not a vengeful God like the Calvinists said with all its talk of hell. In reality, God was a non-interactive deity who really had no control over people and it really was up to people to abandon the "fear"of God, and realize mans power was in his own hands. Man also had a duty to fashion himself in his own image and be responsible to recreate the world anew. If perchance the less enlightened could not see the way, his more enlightened brother could open the door for the ultimate good of all. Remember the old adage "I am from the government, I am here to help"? Beware of those who say they are just looking to do you good, but * your own ability to do so.
In essence the creators of the US constitution ,after much debate, inserted the Bill of Rights which was the fruit of 4000+ yrs of observation; that tyrannical govts will come and a measure to check tyranny is to have an armed populace which can physically overrule its leaders. As George Washington said, "firearms are libertys teeth". Unfortunately today with millions spent on national defense on a strong gov't/standing army; this 2A idea may be defunct because an unorganized, warm and full populace used to luxury would probably sacrifice liberty for security.
Luckily today we can all consider ourselves more civilized and due to the organized state/structure we currently enjoy, we have the convenience of easily accessible food, shelter, and warmth. Take those away and I guarentee you will have anarchy, especially for an extended period without rectification by an outside source. Who will wish they were proficient and well armed then? Who will wish they had taken advantage of a heritage left by people who cared a long time ago and were smart and caring enough to give provision for a free people? We live vicariously everyday and fail to see in our modern zeitgeist that we are three days away from disorder because of our reliance on the unreliable. As a free and responsible American, it is our duty I believe to love peace and freedom, but never forget life is primal and uncertain. I love all the conveniences of society today and the privilege of talking to smart strangers about the causes and issues which bind gun owners here together. But let not one of us ever forget life is brutal and would take you in a minute!! None of us will ever escape it alive. Besides I kinda distrust someone that would'nt admire a Sharps rifle with color-casehardening, lyman sight and an octagonal 32" barrel. Also consider I'm just a workin man w/ a library card and read a lot. I invite anyone to do the same and refute the logic I have in brief touched on with an objective mind.
His number one attack to my logic was against the 2nd Amendment itself.
I told him that virtually all gun bans are unconstitutional do to the 2nd amendment. However, he countered and said that the first clause of the 2nd amendment states all gun rights are only given to a "militia" and not civilians. He stated that our militia is our Sate/National Guard and police.
I then stated that a militia consists of armed civilians and not soldiers.
Is there any better counter to this argument?
Also, I got tipped off from one of my fellow students that one girl is going to use school shootings and gang warfare as her prime reason for gun bans.
I know this is another liberal tactic by using emotion to sway people's minds. What if I use stories of Civilians using guns to save their lives and loved ones from death or rape for a counter argument?
I know this is emotion vs. emotion so it might be risky. Should I go with this or aim for something better? (No pun intended)
Thank you very much Llama girl for your suggestion on the Federalist Papers. I'm going to try to find them in my library ASAP.
If anybody else has any suggestions don't be afraid to send them.
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY ? 22 JUNE 2005 05:02 PM
RKV suggested a reference to the original militia statute adopted by the First Congress might be interesting, with regard to showing what "militia" meant to the framing generation. Here's the Militia Act of 1792, and the Calling Forth Act. The former's relevant portion is:
"An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside....
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."
The Act remained on the books until 1903, when the Dick Act replaced it with the language now found in 10 U.S. Code sec. 311:"Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/06/militia_act_of.php
Militia Act of 1792
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY ? 22 JUNE 2005 05:02 PM
RKV suggested a reference to the original militia statute adopted by the First Congress might be interesting, with regard to showing what "militia" meant to the framing generation. Here's the Militia Act of 1792, and the Calling Forth Act. The former's relevant portion is:
"An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside....
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."
The Act remained on the books until 1903, when the Dick Act replaced it with the language now found in 10 U.S. Code sec. 311:"Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/06/militia_act_of.php
Highball, Correct me if I am wrong.. the Dick act removed the unorganized militia, right. What were the grounds? Can that be researched? Who were the individuals behind that legislation?
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html
I say CAN/COULD/MIGHT, because, so far, not ONE of these self-appointed "Regulators" has been able to provide me with a guarantee beyond reasonable doubt that similar result(s) CAN'T/WON'T occur here.
Hope that helps. Either way, G'luck, Stevan.
http://www.guncite.com/
Have fun.
It never ceases to amaze me that bonafide Liberals want to ignore the actual verbage of the US Constitution and its Amendments in favor of what they WANT it to say. The militia (i.e., made up of armed citizenry) is still constitutional as cited in the 2nd Amendment, though many states have abolished their militia. If an argument is to be made that there is no need for militias, then the Constitution should be amended indicating such. If we are a nation of laws and everyone is to abide by them, then the argument of "it says this, but I want it to say that" doesn't hold if the Nation is to remain intact and under the law.
Is the Constitution actually a meaningful document, or is it just an old piece of parchment with meaningless words and dead men's signatures on it? If we ignore it's verbage for what we want it to say, then it is a meaningless document and we are not under the law, or the Constitution upon which the laws are supposed to be based.
You next argument will be regarding all of the gang shootings and the cops killed lately in different states.
IMHO that argument can be combated with the fact that the vast majority of gang killing and assaults are committed by people that can not legally own guns.
The cops in Oakland were killed by a convicted felon on parole with two different guns.
Most of the gang violence is committed by registered gang members that are also not allowed to possess a gun.
You have a lot of research to do but the typical antigun person is not interested in facts.
quote:Dick Act replaced it with the language now found in 10 U.S. Code sec. 311:"Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/06/militia_act_of.php
As it was pointed out before, your opponents are most likely going to use emotion to argue that gun bans are necessary. You have get them on your side emotionally before they will start to listen to reason.
I would relate it to something else that is banned (or a rule that is regularly broken) that happens everyday on campus. For example, if cell phones are not allowed in the classrooms, find out how many people have theirs. Or if they have to be turned off, find out how many people turn theirs to silent/vibrate. Bring up the point that criminals have no regard for the law, therefore are not going to willingly participate in a gun ban. Then I would do a demonstration with a super soaker and a timer. Find out the average response time for the police force and swat team in the area. Tell them that you will be playing the part of the criminal. Pull out the super soaker and then start the timer. Find out how many people you can "kill" before police even have the chance to get their. If you can find somebody in your class willing to help you, repeat the experiment with one of the students pulling a super soaker from his bag and thus ending your "killing spree."
As it was pointed out before, your opponents are most likely going to use emotion to argue that gun bans are necessary. You have get them on your side emotionally before they will start to listen to reason.
Forget the super-soaker. Go by Rummel's "Death By Government" and you will find the true reason the 2nd exists and why it must never be repealed.
I am planning on using SHTF moments to remind my class that America isn't as stable and safe as most people assume it to always be. I was going to use the anarchism shown in Katrina to back this up. Does anybody know any good true stories where someone had to use a gun to defend themselves do to the lack of governmental protection?
Also, I was going to prove that disarming the public is the first step to communism which can lead to a "domino affect" where even more drastic civil liberties will be taken away.
Any thoughts?
P.S.
Thank you guys so much for helping me out. This is one of the first projects that I have been truly passionate in and you guys are the fuel to my fire. Every time I read this thread I cannot wait to bring the heat to all the gun rights activists in my class that think they can beat me by numbers and intimidation.
Sincerely,
Stevan (addpillz)
Does anybody know any good true stories where someone had to use a gun to defend themselves do to the lack of governmental protection?
You might want to do a search regarding.....
The 1992, Rodney King riots, where there was widespread looting occurred in Los Angeles, California. It has been reported, that some Korean grocery store owners guarded their stores with personal firearms.
Did a fine job of it from what I hear.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart
This is a record of gun control laws...and the aftermath across the world.
Look into the JPFO website for information.
Also, I was going to prove that disarming the public is the first step to communism which can lead to a "domino affect" where even more drastic civil liberties will be taken away.
Don't use the term communism. Use the term police state. They are one in the same.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304
I did some researching and I found the perfect Article on what happened to Australia when they banned most guns. Nobody can dispute these stats. This Article is an anti-gun nightmare!
I am so stoked!
CHECK THIS ARTICLE OUT!!!!!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304
I did some researching and I found the perfect Article on what happened to Australia when they banned most guns. Nobody can dispute these stats. This Article is an anti-gun nightmare!
I am so stoked!
You're being emotional. Recommend you get out of that frame of mind to remain subjective.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away - if you can find the phone and get thru to 9-1-1.
Remember "liberals are often wrong and never in doubt"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts
I know it has been used a lot by the guys that advocate individual gun ownership, but the numbers (crime stats) do not lie.
Good luck on your presentation.
It is very thorough but also interesting and engaging to read (for those of us interested in 2nd amendment issues)
An old grandpa once said, "Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' knee caps. Usually it's when he becomes too old to take an * whoopin'."
He goes on to say the following:
"I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed. I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for to be prepared.
I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs I am inadequate.
I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
Police protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves. Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an * whoopin'.
Did you ever notice that the ones who want to have us lose our guns have armed body guards? Wonder why that is?"
~ Grandpa Unknown
Also it is your civil duty to be ready willing and able to defend this country against all enemys foreign and domestic.
http://www.lizmichael.com/ninemyth.htm
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.gunmyths.com/
http://fathersforlife.org/health/guncontrol.htm
http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/International/CanadaFailure.htm
Intelligence is the ability to get though life without an education."
To learn one only needs to look for what you need to know or want to learn.
This becomes more apparent as the years go by.
A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
[red]"An education is the ability to get though life without intelligence.
Intelligence is the ability to get though life without an education."
To learn one only needs to look for what you need to know or want to learn.
So does this mean you'd seek medical treatment from a faith healer than a physician?
I went into the debate last week and did extremely well. All of the people that attacked my stance did not have the information to back it up. Thanks to you guys, I had all the information in the world to reinforce every claim I made.
They mentioned murder and crime. I had FBI stats to prove them wrong. One guy did try to use "the militia" clause to state that guns are meant for the "armed forces" only. I took care of that with the DICK Act.
One girl mentioned that Virginia Tech would have been avoided if guns were banned. I stated that banning guns will not deter someone whom is dead set on murder. Yet, if we had concealed and carry on campus...that lunatic would not have gotten as far as he did.
One person did give me a hard time. He had a newspaper article stating that most murders and violence that is occurring at the Texas/ Mexican border right now are from Americans and Mexicans using guns that are traced back to Mom and Pop gun shops. I was a little stumped on that one. I tried to push that on a problem with our Border Security
My professor who tried to remain as neutral as possible asked me about bullet stamping and if permanent gun registration was a good compromise.
I stated that bullet stamping is unfair to ammunition companies because it would be another federal unfunded mandate they would have to endure. However, I did not see anything wrong with permanent gun registration. All my guns were registered.I thought. He told me that my registration only lasts for 30 days until it is deleted.
Any thoughts?
Right now I am in the middle of my paper
Here is my thesis:
Besides violating the 2nd amendment of the United State's constitution, to ban guns for the purpose of keeping our society safe from criminals is extremely foolish due to the fact that gun bans increase crime while endangering law abiding citizens whom are left vulnerable to anarchism and genocide during times of civil unrest.
If anyone has any ideas or comments let me know!
Ya'll guys have been a major help. Thank you so much for all the links, sources, and ideas. I will keep you guys posted once my paper has been graded!
Thanks again you guys for all the help!
ADDpillz
quote:Originally posted by addpillz
However, I did not see anything wrong with permanent gun registration.
Historically, registration lead to confiscation. [V]
Registration is PERMANENT, despite what your professor said.
A "background check" SUPPOSEDLY only stays on record for 30 days.
I would relate it to something else that is banned (or a rule that is regularly broken) that happens everyday on campus. For example, if cell phones are not allowed in the classrooms, find out how many people have theirs. Or if they have to be turned off, find out how many people turn theirs to silent/vibrate. Bring up the point that criminals have no regard for the law, therefore are not going to willingly participate in a gun ban.
The idea of highlighting lawlessness is a very good start. I am also in college, and recently debated gun control in a negotiations class.
I would first off state, that while the cellphone was a good start, address drinking or smoking of weed. both are far more prevalent and in both cases far more illegal and punishable under law than having a cellphone in class. Its a true case study in how the willing will find a way, and how the only way to control the outcome is to control the criminal, any determined person will find a route to their outcome.
As far as some of the people saying that statistics have no bearing, I'd argue differently, while they may not sway a purely emotional falling off a cliff leftist, they will work with any analytically minded person, which I have found, is a very large portion of collegiate scholars. being either moderate to either side, or a fundamentally conservative will never hurt.
If I had the same laptop I had when I presented, I could send you a whole bunch of data, and while I had no need for sources, I could also have helped you relocate some.
Basically, I'd give Wikipedia a whirl, and see what you can find on there, and remember that if you are using them as a source, to check its parenthetical citation, as well as any syllabus for your course to allow-disallow Wiki's
______________________________________________________________________
EDIT: Finally finished the thread, sorry I didn't get this in before the debate.
Hows the paper going?
quote:Originally posted by shootstright
"An education is the ability to get though life without intelligence.
Intelligence is the ability to get though life without an education."
To learn one only needs to look for what you need to know or want to learn.
So does this mean you'd seek medical treatment from a faith healer than a physician?
[red]
addpillz
check this on out.
Subject: Mexican Guns
Go here and read about US Guns in Mexico! It may surprise you.
http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/rw807.html
[url][/url]
If not for institutions of higher learning we would not have a problem with this anti-gun crap.
A lot less liberals at the polls on election day.
Many more people with common sense.
In the last 8 or 10 years of dealing with doctors and having one for a brother there is do doubt the witch doctor might be the better choice.
My massage therapist in two visits fix what 5 years of going to the pill pushers couldn't do and for a lot lest money.
Doctors:
(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000
(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%
Statistics courtesy of the U.S.Dept of Health &Human Services
***************************
Guns:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S is 80,000,000 (yes that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.001875%
Statistics courtesy of the FBI
***************************
So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than guns. Remember, guns don't kill people, doctors do.
***************************
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
***************************
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!
***************************
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.
A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
Sunrise At Coffin Rock
Sundown At Coffin Rock
Just Google either title it's ok to print them as long as the author is given credit. Print out some copies and spread them around.
The lad lost the debate right here.
He agreed that the government has the power to circumvent the Constitution, and he offered no defense for that document at all.
He also did not do his homework concerning the mexican gun situtation..a perfect chance to point out the blatent lies of those in authority..both in mexico and america.
I beat all of my peers that argued against me, which was my objective after all. The only person that gave me a run for my money was my professor. He is a Judge, so he knew our law better then any of us. He already knew about the Dick Act when I used it. After I took out all of my peer's arguments (they were centered around crime, pretty easy to refute with the stats yall gave me), he stepped in to keep the debate alive. I did refute many of his arguments including the bullet-stamping argument. However, I thought that my State already had permanent gun-registration; because when I bought my AK I had to get it registered at the Police Dep. I didn't know that it was only temporary because the Cop that took my information told me it was permanent. So when my professor mentioned it I didn't see the need to argue against it because my argument was pushing for enforcing the laws we already have instead of making new ones.
As well as for the immigrant gun violence that is happening on the border. I DID refute that by stating that guns cannot be blamed for our administrations incompetence to secure our border. I stated even if it is true, banning guns would not stop the violence.
Plus that article came out in our paper the same day as my debate, so I did not hear about this until the day of my debate.
Anyway,
I am now double screwed because for my FINAL exam, my professor wants me to write an essay against private ownership of guns. He stated that I would be graded on how persuasive I am.
This is going to be really hard because I just wrote a 12 page paper on how pointless and wrong gun-control is....
This weekends going to suck...
I do really appreciate all the help I have received on this site. I have learned more about this issue then I ever learned sitting in a library.
This position is flawed.
'Shall Not Be Infringed' precludes 'laws we already have'.
Had you spent a bit more time studying the REASON for the Second Amendment, you would have realized that it was intended to keep government in check..and that is difficult when government keeps records of and decides who WILL and WILL NOT get a weapon.
Doctors:
(A) The number of doctors in the U.S. is 700,000
(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%
Statistics courtesy of the U.S.Dept of Health &Human Services
***************************
Guns:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S is 80,000,000 (yes that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.001875%
Statistics courtesy of the FBI
***************************
So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than guns. Remember, guns don't kill people, doctors do.
***************************
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
***************************
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!
***************************
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.
A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
Interesting thought, Guns are designed to kill people, and their practitioners are responsible enough to keep them from doing so.
Doctors are only there to heal and help people, but accidentally kill more than an instrument that's designed to do so, accidentally.
Don't get me wrong, I am by no means flaming against doctors, I'm in a family with numerous doctors, I'm just saying, there's some stigma against guns that most rational people don't see, and somehow it's always the irrationals that influence the legislature to make unconstitutional laws, based on pure empathy, and no statistical proof.
Why do automakers continue to make cars that will travel faster than the maximum safe speed allowed by law? (Rebuttal to why do you need assualt weapons?) The technology exists today to make cars only able to travel at the posted speed limit. Would you want your car's speed dictated by someone else, especially in an emergency?
There have been a number of highly publicized incidents where a "crazy" individual drove his car into a group of innocent bystanders. Should we do background checks on everyone who wants to buy a car or get a driver's license? Should there be a waiting period? How else do we prevent crazies from driving into crowds?
I get an NRA mag every month. In the front it has a section highlighting all the times across the country that a citizen has defended themselves or loved ones from vilolent attack. Ask your opponents to show you one recent example where the police, through research and investigation (as opposed to dumb luck), stopped an armed attacker during the commission of a home attack. In experiencing 17 robberies during my banking career, the police always showed up afterwards, never before, we were robbed.
Women are frequent victims of domestic violence. They can get restraining orders but, because the aggressor also has rights, the police can't do anything until she gets attacked again. Ask them if they think women have a right to defend themselves or should they just hope that the police will get there before their ex is done beating the crap out of them.
These are logic games that have simple, obvious, logical answers that run contrary to their anti-gun argument. These do work. Remember when Michael Dukakis (ran against Bush 41) couldn't answer the question about what he would do if his wife, Kitty, was raped and murdered? His poll numbers dropped 9% that night.[:D]