Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: High school speech

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Worthington, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Sometime within the next week or two I will be giving a speech to my speech class, trying to persuade them to increase gun rights in America. What are some points you think I should hit on? Keep in mind, I only have 8 minutes.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    wackjob wrote:
    Sometime within the next week or two I will be giving a speech to my speech class, trying to persuade them to increase gun rights in America. What are some points you think I should hit on? Keep in mind, I only have 8 minutes.
    You might be coming from the wrong angle -- all of our rights are there, they're eroded by gun control. The point you might want to hit upon is that laws are only obeyed by law-abiding citizens... Criminals will break those gun laws as surely as they are breaking the laws by breaking into a house and robbing a person.

    I liked the 20/20 YouTube thing -- when someone does break into your house, would you rather have a phone or a gun? Sure, you can call the police. And they'll come take a picture of your dead body -- the first line of defense is you.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Englewood, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    654

    Post imported post

    The main topics I like to point out when I talk to someone about our right to self defense is:

    1. Mankind has been making laws against killing people almost since the beginning of written time. They started making theses laws long before guns were even invented. None of the laws created has stoppedthe killings.

    2. There is an estimated 20,000 + laws on gun controlcurrently on the books across the country. The problem is not more laws, it's enforcing the ones we have and applying strict and harsh consequences for people who use guns illegally. Ourlegal system plea bargains alot of these crimes down. The criminals know that even if they go to jail it won't be for long.

    3.Under our current system of laws, the police have no legal obligation to come to your aid as an individual.

    4. Even though the police are under no obligation to come to your aid, I feel most will try. But the big problem here is their response time. How much damage can be done to you or your loved ones if the response time is 2, 3, 5 or 10 mintues or more.

    These are the main points I try to get people to think about.

    .

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Columbia Township (Cincinnati), Ohio, USA
    Posts
    47

    Post imported post

    Lthrnck wrote:
    2. There is an estimated 20,000 + laws on gun controlcurrently on the books across the country. The problem is not more laws, it's enforcing the ones we have and applying strict and harsh consequences for people who use guns illegally. Ourlegal system plea bargains alot of these crimes down. The criminals know that even if they go to jail it won't be for long.

    Please, please don't even mention point #2!


    Why should we promote the enforcement of already-unconstitutional restrictions?

    Punish criminals for their criminal acts - when someone is murdered, punish the murderer. When someone is raped, punish the rapist. Don't punish the man who carries an unregistered suppressed MP-5 who has caused no harm to anyone.

    Once we call for the enforcement of unconstitutional restrictions, we've reduced ourselves to haggling over which restrictions we'll find acceptable, and we have no position of strength to argue from. (If some restrictions are acceptable, why not all? If they're acceptable to me, why not to you?)

    On a personal note, Lthrnck, didn't you just conclude a lengthy fight against exactly this kind of "existing firearms law that wasn't routinely enforced?"

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,728

    Post imported post

    2. There is an estimated 20,000 + laws on gun controlcurrently on the books across the country. The problem is not more laws, it's enforcing the ones we have and applying strict and harsh consequences for people who use guns illegally. Ourlegal system plea bargains alot of these crimes down. The criminals know that even if they go to jail it won't be for long.

    Number 2 above should be looked at from a different angle. Out of the estimated 20,000 + laws on the books most of those laws restrict the law abiding citizen from protecting themselves and their familys. And when you restrict the law abiding citizen from protecting themselves you embolden the criminal. What message do we send to a child that you can bully someone and start fights in school knowing that if whoever you pick a fight with will be in more trouble for defending themselves than the trouble maker.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,728

    Post imported post

    Wackjob, Add your location to your profile. City and State. Different locations of the country require different answers. Do you live in a big city or country town?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Worthington, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Also, a part of the speach must be to give the audience information to become active towards reducing gun restrictions. What are some small things a high schooler who would rather play Halo 3 can do, apart from joining the NRA?

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    wackjob wrote:
    Also, a part of the speach must be to give the audience information to become active towards reducing gun restrictions. What are some small things a high schooler who would rather play Halo 3 can do, apart from joining the NRA?
    That's kind of a hard order to fill -- they can't vote and they're not legally able to carry a gun until their 18. So, some seniors may be able to help 'the cause' by open carrying, petitioning the school district to allow teachers who have their permits the option to carry on school property would probably be a big thing -- and have a lot of impact on the school in general.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Worthington, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Good point. But you are wrong in saying that they are minors. By and large it is a class of seniors who are adults, but getting them to vote may hurt us more than help us. It is rediculous how "liberal" my suburban school is. How/where should I encourage them to oc? Also most parents will not aprove of this. But I'll try!

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,728

    Post imported post

    wackjob wrote:
    Good point. But you are wrong in saying that they are minors. By and large it is a class of seniors who are adults, but getting them to vote may hurt us more than help us. It is rediculous how "liberal" my suburban school is. How/where should I encourage them to oc? Also most parents will not aprove of this. But I'll try!
    You will not convince them of anything. But at there age their minds are still open, even if they say they believe this or that. What you have to do is plant a seed in their minds. Don't tell them they are wrong, they don't want to hear that, but how to look at the issue from a different perspective.

    You say they are adults and then say most parents will not approve of this. Either they are adults or they are not. Woops. Children/adults between 18 and 21 are in no man's land. You can carry a firearm in war and kill all the non-citizens you want but you can't walk down your own street with a firearm. What gives?

    The logic of the liberal is that you have to accept being paralized and in a wheel chair the rest of your life because you are not allowed to defend yourself. That is the price you must pay because to allow you to defend yourself my violate the BG's right to assult you.


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    83

    Post imported post

    I would start with the idea that repealing all gun laws and start passing sensible laws that are in the scope of public safety, but not infringe on any constitutional rights. Bit of a loop there, but it can be done. And remember to explain why our right to bear arms is the most important right we have. Without it, we have no other rights.

  12. #12
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    A while back, someone posted a breakdown of how many people gun control has killed over the past century. It's buried in the "mountains" of posts on here, but maybe that person could post it again. I would include that in the speech if possible.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    As a general rule of thumb, severely limit the amount of material you present. Look at it this way: if you only had a quarter of the time you have to explain your point, could you do it? Don't oversimplify, but keep the scope limited. Repeat. And by saying "repeat", I don't mean using the same NRA-approved slogans... find new and different approaches to get across the same point. Also, try to come up with objections people would have to your point(s), and answer those objections in your speech.

    Too often on here, I see people trying to "convert" the anti's by throwing everything at them. Probably the best tactic is just to get them used to the idea of guns. Try to eliminate the debate of whether guns are good or bad. That's a debate for which they have deep convictions, and you'll only make them angry, or just cause them to ignore you. Instead, pick a topic that isolates from that debate. I did a presentation on open carry in Pennsylvania, basically what it is and why it is legal and not illegal. Perhaps you could do a speech about how "assault weapons" are useful... maybe mention that there is a proposed ban on them, but don't get into the debate about whether or not they should be banned. Go from an objective, intellectual standpoint. Or perhaps discuss the difficulties of unlicensed OC in Ohio. At the very least, you'll get them thinking, "Holy ****, guns are actually a legitimate topic for discussion."

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    As a general rule of thumb, severely limit the amount of material you present. Look at it this way: if you only had a quarter of the time you have to explain your point, could you do it? Don't oversimplify, but keep the scope limited. Repeat. And by saying "repeat", I don't mean using the same NRA-approved slogans... find new and different approaches to get across the same point. Also, try to come up with objections people would have to your point(s), and answer those objections in your speech.

    Too often on here, I see people trying to "convert" the anti's by throwing everything at them. Probably the best tactic is just to get them used to the idea of guns. Try to eliminate the debate of whether guns are good or bad. That's a debate for which they have deep convictions, and you'll only make them angry, or just cause them to ignore you. Instead, pick a topic that isolates from that debate. I did a presentation on open carry in Pennsylvania, basically what it is and why it is legal and not illegal. Perhaps you could do a speech about how "assault weapons" are useful... maybe mention that there is a proposed ban on them, but don't get into the debate about whether or not they should be banned. Go from an objective, intellectual standpoint. Or perhaps discuss the difficulties of unlicensed OC in Ohio. At the very least, you'll get them thinking, "Holy ****, guns are actually a legitimate topic for discussion."
    imperialism is totally right: greatly limit the amount of material you present.

    I did speech and debate competitions for a few years and was a state champion in two categories of public policy oriented speaking. I say this to vaidate the advice I give you.

    Heres some free advice:

    ITS NOT WHAT YOU SAY BUT WHAT THEY THINK OF YOU WHEN YOU SAY IT
    you need to be as reasonable as possible, as logical as possible, as clear as possible and discuss the opinions your uninformed class will be most likely to agree with.

    Your goal is to establish yourself and your ideas as reasonable, logical, and a good idea generally. To a lesser extent you seek to paint your opponents (pro-gun people generally) and their ideas as unreasonable, illogical, and a bad idea generally.

    This point seems obvious but I cannot tell you how many people I have seen stray from it because they fail to think what they say out. This means that you do not talk about rights, natural rights, assult weapons usefulness, .50BMG, machine guns, virginia tech, school shootings, arming college students. Your classmates will be totally unresponsive to this because you do not have an hour to carefully explain things, and it will make you appear extreme.

    EDIT: do not discuss gun rights. do not discuss gun rights. do not discuss gun rights. Your classmates live in a modern era where they have no concept of personal responsibility or any kind of iminent threat to their lives. They do not understand the idea of the revolution or the rights that were protected by the constitution. They will likely think gun rights are an outdated idea. Move away from this and discuss the PRACTICAL and the PERSONAL. Make them feel what you are saying.

    Many will disagree here, but moving on. I have started a pro gun speech with this line:

    "Everybody in this room should ask themself the question 'if there were a gun in my hand right now would I be any more likely to try to kill someone than if I did not have it?" The answer, of course, is no. You are not going to try to hurt someone whether or not you have a gun. This is because you are a law abiding citizen, as are the vast majority of Americans. Why then do we have so many in America trying to prevent well intentioned and law abiding people from obtaining firearms? It is the people who are trying to commit crimes we should focus on. The gun itself contains no magic or evil. The people who use it for evil, violent crimminals, are those our society should target with the same energy and passion that many focus on the inanimate object.

    move on to a careful explaination about how there are literally millions of gun owners owning millions of guns in the united states. Say: "contrary to what you have heard many times, these numbers should not alarm you, as more than 99% of guns (find a citation briefly say it) will never be used in a crime". On the contrary, the vast majority of guns will be used for sporting purposes, hunting, self defense and to prevent crime. Briefly mention that guns are used far more often in self defense than they are in crimes, back it with a brief statistic.

    Move on to the folly of American gun control. Most gun control laws are superficial and in no way reduce crime by people using guns. Mention the assault weapons ban here (not explaining why assult weapons are good): say that it simply banned guns being named things that resembled military weapon names and prohibited several COSMETIC FEATURES from appearing on guns. It did not limit the operation of any guns whatsoever. This is typical of American gun control: prohibitions that do abolutely nothing to limit the availibility of guns, but impede the law abiding citizen mention from buying one. California's process for approving guns for market is a great example. Crimminals simply buy illegal and stolen guns on the street any time they want to. But the law abiding individual has to wait 10 days? The nationwide gun control system is set up to punish those who are buying guns for legitimate purposes and reward those who work around the laws to purchase and use guns illegally.

    Move on to a final and emotional appeal. State that you believe that you have a duty and right to defend yourself if you are attacked by a crimminal. Should not a small older woman, or man for that matter, be allowed to carry a gun with her on the bus at night in a dangerous area when she is comming home from work? in what way does it help society that she, a normal law abiding individual, is disarmed and vunerable to being hurt? It doesnt help society at all. It tells the crimminal that they may prey on the weak without fear of the weak fighting back. Research has shown that the thing violent crimminals fear most is their victims being armed, they fear this more than the police.

    Obviously, if a person is attacked in their home or in public the best course of action is to get to a safe place and call 911. Sometimes this is not possible because your phone is dead or you are under attack and cannot get away. Defending yourself might be the only option. this is not a call for vigilante justice or anything stupid like that, this is a call to allow our laws to be made to allow people to be able to defend themselves with an effective tool when all other options have been exhausted. It happens all the time, and people defend themselves all the time.

    END>>>>>>

    of course you may have a pet topic you want to use. sorry for typos i typed my thoughts really quickly. pm me if you want some help with your speech, it would delight me.

    Couple quick things:
    1) ITS NOT WHAT YOU SAY BUT WHAT THEY THINK OF YOU WHEN YOU SAY IT
    you need to be as reasonable as possible, as logical as possible, as clear as possible and discuss the opinions your uninformed class will be most likely to agree with.
    2) you are trying to change their attitudes from unknown or unfavorable to guns to somewhat favorable to guns and skeptical of gun control. You should not strive for a radical transformation, just a minor attitude shift
    3) Write your speech out and practice, practice, practice, in front a mirror. If this is for a grade it will help. For converting people you will not regret it.


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    83

    Post imported post

    bbvk05 wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote: "Everybody in this room should ask themself the question 'if there were a gun in my hand right now would I be any more likely to try to kill someone than if I did not have it?" The answer, of course, is no. You are not going to try to hurt someone whether or not you have a gun. This is because you are a law abiding citizen, as are the vast majority of Americans. Why then do we have so many in America trying to prevent well intentioned and law abiding people from obtaining firearms? It is the people who are trying to commit crimes we should focus on. The gun itself contains no magic or evil. The people who use it for evil, violent crimminals, are those our society should target with the same energy and passion that many focus on the inanimate object."


    Wow don't think I have heard it said better. Good job.



  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    bbvk05 wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    As a general rule of thumb, severely limit the amount of material you present. Look at it this way: if you only had a quarter of the time you have to explain your point, could you do it? Don't oversimplify, but keep the scope limited. Repeat. And by saying "repeat", I don't mean using the same NRA-approved slogans... find new and different approaches to get across the same point. Also, try to come up with objections people would have to your point(s), and answer those objections in your speech.

    Too often on here, I see people trying to "convert" the anti's by throwing everything at them. Probably the best tactic is just to get them used to the idea of guns. Try to eliminate the debate of whether guns are good or bad. That's a debate for which they have deep convictions, and you'll only make them angry, or just cause them to ignore you. Instead, pick a topic that isolates from that debate. I did a presentation on open carry in Pennsylvania, basically what it is and why it is legal and not illegal. Perhaps you could do a speech about how "assault weapons" are useful... maybe mention that there is a proposed ban on them, but don't get into the debate about whether or not they should be banned. Go from an objective, intellectual standpoint. Or perhaps discuss the difficulties of unlicensed OC in Ohio. At the very least, you'll get them thinking, "Holy ****, guns are actually a legitimate topic for discussion."
    imperialism is totally right: greatly limit the amount of material you present.

    I did speech and debate competitions for a few years and was a state champion in two categories of public policy oriented speaking. I say this to vaidate the advice I give you.

    Heres some free advice:

    ITS NOT WHAT YOU SAY BUT WHAT THEY THINK OF YOU WHEN YOU SAY IT
    you need to be as reasonable as possible, as logical as possible, as clear as possible and discuss the opinions your uninformed class will be most likely to agree with.

    Your goal is to establish yourself and your ideas as reasonable, logical, and a good idea generally. To a lesser extent you seek to paint your opponents (pro-gun people generally) and their ideas as unreasonable, illogical, and a bad idea generally.

    This point seems obvious but I cannot tell you how many people I have seen stray from it because they fail to think what they say out. This means that you do not talk about rights, natural rights, assult weapons usefulness, .50BMG, machine guns, virginia tech, school shootings, arming college students. Your classmates will be totally unresponsive to this because you do not have an hour to carefully explain things, and it will make you appear extreme.

    EDIT: do not discuss gun rights. do not discuss gun rights. do not discuss gun rights. Your classmates live in a modern era where they have no concept of personal responsibility or any kind of iminent threat to their lives. They do not understand the idea of the revolution or the rights that were protected by the constitution. They will likely think gun rights are an outdated idea. Move away from this and discuss the PRACTICAL and the PERSONAL. Make them feel what you are saying.

    Many will disagree here, but moving on. I have started a pro gun speech with this line:

    "Everybody in this room should ask themself the question 'if there were a gun in my hand right now would I be any more likely to try to kill someone than if I did not have it?" The answer, of course, is no. You are not going to try to hurt someone whether or not you have a gun. This is because you are a law abiding citizen, as are the vast majority of Americans. Why then do we have so many in America trying to prevent well intentioned and law abiding people from obtaining firearms? It is the people who are trying to commit crimes we should focus on. The gun itself contains no magic or evil. The people who use it for evil, violent crimminals, are those our society should target with the same energy and passion that many focus on the inanimate object.

    move on to a careful explaination about how there are literally millions of gun owners owning millions of guns in the united states. Say: "contrary to what you have heard many times, these numbers should not alarm you, as more than 99% of guns (find a citation briefly say it) will never be used in a crime". On the contrary, the vast majority of guns will be used for sporting purposes, hunting, self defense and to prevent crime. Briefly mention that guns are used far more often in self defense than they are in crimes, back it with a brief statistic.

    Move on to the folly of American gun control. Most gun control laws are superficial and in no way reduce crime by people using guns. Mention the assault weapons ban here (not explaining why assult weapons are good): say that it simply banned guns being named things that resembled military weapon names and prohibited several COSMETIC FEATURES from appearing on guns. It did not limit the operation of any guns whatsoever. This is typical of American gun control: prohibitions that do abolutely nothing to limit the availibility of guns, but impede the law abiding citizen mention from buying one. California's process for approving guns for market is a great example. Crimminals simply buy illegal and stolen guns on the street any time they want to. But the law abiding individual has to wait 10 days? The nationwide gun control system is set up to punish those who are buying guns for legitimate purposes and reward those who work around the laws to purchase and use guns illegally.

    Move on to a final and emotional appeal. State that you believe that you have a duty and right to defend yourself if you are attacked by a crimminal. Should not a small older woman, or man for that matter, be allowed to carry a gun with her on the bus at night in a dangerous area when she is comming home from work? in what way does it help society that she, a normal law abiding individual, is disarmed and vunerable to being hurt? It doesnt help society at all. It tells the crimminal that they may prey on the weak without fear of the weak fighting back. Research has shown that the thing violent crimminals fear most is their victims being armed, they fear this more than the police.

    Obviously, if a person is attacked in their home or in public the best course of action is to get to a safe place and call 911. Sometimes this is not possible because your phone is dead or you are under attack and cannot get away. Defending yourself might be the only option. this is not a call for vigilante justice or anything stupid like that, this is a call to allow our laws to be made to allow people to be able to defend themselves with an effective tool when all other options have been exhausted. It happens all the time, and people defend themselves all the time.

    END>>>>>>

    of course you may have a pet topic you want to use. sorry for typos i typed my thoughts really quickly. pm me if you want some help with your speech, it would delight me.

    Couple quick things:
    1) ITS NOT WHAT YOU SAY BUT WHAT THEY THINK OF YOU WHEN YOU SAY IT
    you need to be as reasonable as possible, as logical as possible, as clear as possible and discuss the opinions your uninformed class will be most likely to agree with.
    2) you are trying to change their attitudes from unknown or unfavorable to guns to somewhat favorable to guns and skeptical of gun control. You should not strive for a radical transformation, just a minor attitude shift
    3) Write your speech out and practice, practice, practice, in front a mirror. If this is for a grade it will help. For converting people you will not regret it.
    I'll leave it up to stylistic differences, but I think it would be more effective to begin the speech in an "innocent" fashion before hitting the audience with the real point of your speech. Start out with what seems like an "approved" Democrat topic, and after immersing your audience in your viewpoint of how obviously wrong it is, by both appealing to their emotion and their previous ideals. Then tell them how it proves that guns are good, or something of the like. Here's an intro into a paper I wrote for a class last semester about how gun control disproportionately harms minorities:

    In the summer of 2006, federal agents in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Richmond, Virginia followed law-abiding citizens as they shopped. They attempted to dissuade them from making purchases, and in at least 50 cases, confiscated legally purchased merchandise and threatened the buyers with arrest if they refused to cooperate. What did almost all of these buyers have in common? They were all young, black women... who were legally purchasing guns
    The reader/audience thinks, "Oh my, what is the government doing to these poor black women. Stopping them from buying guns? Wait, that's a bad thing... No! Guns are evil! It's a good thing! But discrimination is bad... So is this a bad thing then?"

    If you want to discuss the necessity of guns for self-defense, maybe you could start by talking about the systematic disarmament of certain groups of "protected" peoples before genocides, or cases where guns are used to stop "hate" crimes.

    Cognitive dissonance is a great thing.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    I'll leave it up to stylistic differences, but I think it would be more effective to begin the speech in an "innocent" fashion before hitting the audience with the real point of your speech. Start out with what seems like an "approved" Democrat topic, and after immersing your audience in your viewpoint of how obviously wrong it is, by both appealing to their emotion and their previous ideals. Then tell them how it proves that guns are good, or something of the like. Here's an intro into a paper I wrote for a class last semester about how gun control disproportionately harms minorities:

    In the summer of 2006, federal agents in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Richmond, Virginia followed law-abiding citizens as they shopped. They attempted to dissuade them from making purchases, and in at least 50 cases, confiscated legally purchased merchandise and threatened the buyers with arrest if they refused to cooperate. What did almost all of these buyers have in common? They were all young, black women... who were legally purchasing guns
    The reader/audience thinks, "Oh my, what is the government doing to these poor black women. Stopping them from buying guns? Wait, that's a bad thing... No! Guns are evil! It's a good thing! But discrimination is bad... So is this a bad thing then?"

    If you want to discuss the necessity of guns for self-defense, maybe you could start by talking about the systematic disarmament of certain groups of "protected" peoples before genocides, or cases where guns are used to stop "hate" crimes.

    Cognitive dissonance is a great thing.
    if you had 30 minutes a bait and switch might work. I like the bleeding heart disarming blacks appeal. its just out of place with the 8 minute speech and is more of a gotcha than a good point.

    You should always start a speech with the primary point of what you are talking about.

    step one: tell them what you are going to say
    step two: say it
    step three: tell them what you told them

    ancedotes at the beginning must be short short short and not be important in themselves. I am a big believer in saying your point first then backing it up. People's attention span is so short, they are going to have no idea what you are talking about if you dont say it up front.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    bbvk05 wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    I'll leave it up to stylistic differences, but I think it would be more effective to begin the speech in an "innocent" fashion before hitting the audience with the real point of your speech. Start out with what seems like an "approved" Democrat topic, and after immersing your audience in your viewpoint of how obviously wrong it is, by both appealing to their emotion and their previous ideals. Then tell them how it proves that guns are good, or something of the like. Here's an intro into a paper I wrote for a class last semester about how gun control disproportionately harms minorities:

    In the summer of 2006, federal agents in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Richmond, Virginia followed law-abiding citizens as they shopped. They attempted to dissuade them from making purchases, and in at least 50 cases, confiscated legally purchased merchandise and threatened the buyers with arrest if they refused to cooperate. What did almost all of these buyers have in common? They were all young, black women... who were legally purchasing guns
    The reader/audience thinks, "Oh my, what is the government doing to these poor black women. Stopping them from buying guns? Wait, that's a bad thing... No! Guns are evil! It's a good thing! But discrimination is bad... So is this a bad thing then?"

    If you want to discuss the necessity of guns for self-defense, maybe you could start by talking about the systematic disarmament of certain groups of "protected" peoples before genocides, or cases where guns are used to stop "hate" crimes.

    Cognitive dissonance is a great thing.
    if you had 30 minutes a bait and switch might work. I like the bleeding heart disarming blacks appeal. its just out of place with the 8 minute speech and is more of a gotcha than a good point.

    You should always start a speech with the primary point of what you are talking about.

    step one: tell them what you are going to say
    step two: say it
    step three: tell them what you told them

    ancedotes at the beginning must be short short short and not be important in themselves. I am a big believer in saying your point first then backing it up. People's attention span is so short, they are going to have no idea what you are talking about if you dont say it up front.
    Fair enough. I'll admit that it is difficult to pull an effective bait-and-switch in 8 minutes, but my suggestion is to use it as more of an introduction to crack open the minds of the audience. In addressing the part I bolded, it is absolutely essential to follow the format you outlined.

    But
    , I feel that beginning one's speech with immediate mention of guns is going to be a signal to the anti's in the audience to ignore the rest of the speech, or to be on the offensive. To begin with a line of, "Everybody in this room should ask themself the question 'if there were a gun in my hand right now would I be any more likely to try to kill someone than if I did not have it?", will effectively end any productive absorption of your arguments after the bolded words. It triggers the "AHHHH GUNS ARE EVIL" reflex. And that's why I feel bait-and-switch in some capacity is more useful. Shock them to a point where they cannot think of a retort due to how conflicted they are feeling.

    Nonetheless, since the OP's speech is for a speech class, he should probably go with whatever the instructor has instructed as a proper method of beginning a persuasive speech. Once again, I think it may just come down to style. I've done speeches both with a direct, to-the-point introduction, and with a bait-and-switch introduction, with fairly equal success with either. I just feel that for topics related to gun rights, presented to a "liberal" audience (being anti-gun isn't truly liberal, hence the quotes), the latter will be more effective. But to each his own, really.

    While writing that last paragraph, I thought of what may be a very good speech topic: how the positions of the major political parties on "gun control" are not really in line with their positions on other issues. Though it is probably too big of a topic for 8 minutes....

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    I disagree about the guns in hand line possibly triggering an ewww complex. I have found liberals to be receptive to it, it peaks their interest and focuses the debate on individual contuct, not on guns. this is our best argument.

    the eww guns reaction is sometimes unavoidable. The question i used really does work. it has for me many times over. its thought provoking for sometime trying to be objective, even if they disagree.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Worthington, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    This is pretty much what my speach will be. I will give it tomorrow morning, so if anyone has a comment make it now.



    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.



    That is the second amendment to our constitution. What it means, as the framers wrote it is: Because an armed populous is the best safeguard from both foreign invasion and domestic tyranny, there will be no limits or regulations on the possession and use of any weapon by peaceable persons. It is a right secured for us by our forefathers, but like all other rights, it is not without limit. It’s even expressly written in our constitution that we may create laws through our government that we deem as necessary and proper. We indeed live in a great nation, which combines safety and rights in such a way that few other nations have been able to match. I, however, think that we can do better. Currently there are many thousands of restrictions on our second amendment rights, some more justified than others. Justified or not, though, the maze of gun laws makes it impossible to know what is legal and what is not even within a state. People who have done nothing wrong are being prosecuted for crimes they didn’t know they were committing. Even police officers don’t know the law in many cases and inadvertently hassle and arrest innocent people and let criminals go. It is almost universally agreed that there needs to be dramatic simplification to the gun laws of this country, although that is still met with resistance because the most practical method of simplification is to do away with local ordinances.



    The main argument for gun control is that guns cause crime. Countries with tighter gun control laws have significantly lower crime rates than the US. However, when examined more closely, outside the US, the countries with the tightest gun laws have the most violent crime, and the country with the least gun control of all first world countries, Switzerland, has dramatically lower rates of violent crime. The explanation, as some would have you believe, is that Americans are more violent than people of other countries, and therefore arming Americans is like pouring gasoline on fire. That explanation is flawed. It is an irrefutable fact that the majority of violent crime in America occurs among minorities. In fact, if you look only at the whites of the country, there is almost as little violence as there is in Switzerland. The next argument is that minorities are somehow affected with a lack of self-control. This however, can be debunked by a study of minorities in other countries, who do not commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes. This leads to only one logical conclusion: The high rate of violence in America is caused by minorities due to social factors other than the availability of arms.



    An instance of a set of these laws is the minimum ages on the purchase of firearms. These are in many cases just, although not always. In every state in the union an 18 year old may purchase a rifle or a shotgun. This is good because children should not be allowed access to firearms without the consent of their parents. In many states, however, the minimum age to buy a handgun is 21. I believe that this is without sufficient reason. The point behind this restrictions is to make handguns less available to people between 18 and 21, an age group with statistically high crime rates. These laws, however, are futile, because handguns, like alcohol, will always be available to those who seek them, including 18 to 21 year olds who are involved in criminal activity. And so the law serves only to restrict the rights of citizens.



    Another gun control that I can get behind is minimum safety requirements in regards to quality. Guns are the same as any other product in that they must pass certain safety requirements on both federal and state levels. There are, however, cheaply made handguns commonly referred to as Saturday Night Specials that are perhaps less safe than other guns. However, they must pass the same requirements as all other guns, albeit they are less durable and reliable due to the manufacturing process. They cost as low s $50, and are intended to be sold to people of modest means, especially in high crime areas. There is a movement right now to raise the safety standards of all handguns. This sounds like a noble effort, but in reality most people behind the increased standards are really trying to jack up the price in order to keep them out of impoverished and high crime areas. It is a fact that has been proven again and again that an armed civilian populous, regardless of income, reduces crime. It is therefore imperative that we keep a close eye on such proposed safety standards to be sure they do not have the effect of reducing the arms available to the people who need them the most. England’s monarchs as late as the American Revolution used economic status requirements on the keeping of arms in order to better control the population. It is interesting that the first gun control laws, which appeared after the civil war, were race restrictions on weapon ownership, and Saturday night specials are primarily owned by minorities.



    It is necessary that we have some regulation on the mass killing power of the weapons available to civilians. Without such regulation, regardless of how many good guys there are, a single rouge could do catastrophic damage. Bombs, for instance should be made as hard as possible for civilians to make and impossible for civilians to buy. Machine guns to a lesser extent have the capacity to do excessive damage. Unfortunately, we have in the past gone too far with these regulations and inadvertently violated our own rights, and to no ends. The 1994 assault weapons ban was mislabeled, and gained wide support from ignorant masses. Of coarse an assault weapon ban is a good thing, like the one we’ve had since 1934. The 1994 ban did not, as it’s title would suggest, ban civilian purchase of weapons made for the purpose of creating catastrophic damage. It was a ban on the purchase of a list of 19 specific semi automatic weapons. The ban was officially based on the weapon having “assault weapon features”, which included threaded barrels, bayonet mounts, barrel shrouds, which even the Brady campaign says protects the shooter from serious burns, certain grips and certain stocks. None of these features give the gun catastrophic killing capacity. They were still semi automatic rifles, meaning one bullet fired for every one pull of the trigger. The only difference was that they looked like some of the machine guns seen in the movies and in video games. Nothing more.



    Also on the topic of guns being perhaps too powerful is the question over the .50 BMG. These are the most powerful guns available to civilians, and have enough impact to pierce through most vehicles. Special regulations on these weapons have been proposed, although nothing too serious as of yet. It has been said of these guns that they are too powerful, and that they are useless to anyone except a terrorist. Although on the surface this seems logical, when you look into the realities behind the issue they are no more dangerous than any other gun. It is very true that they can pierce a vehicle as well as body armor, but criminals and terrorists target ordinary people who are not trying to hide in an armored vehicle or behind a bulletproof vest. It is a fact that since 1992 these have only been fired in crime twice. For the number of these guns there are that is significantly lower than the average. They have no more range than any other high power rifle, and armor piercing, exploding, and incendiary ammunition is federally banned for civilian use. The lightest ones weigh over 20 lbs, and the cheapest ones cost over $2000. They simply give criminals and terrorists no advantage over smaller caliber rifles. Specific regulations on these guns do nothing more than hinder law abiding citizens’ ability to enjoy what it is they like to do. It is my position that we can trust ourselves, and that therefore we should not vote away our rights.



    There are currently many laws prohibiting and regulating the carrying of weapons, especially when concealed. On the surface this seems like a good gesture. Unless you have passed a class and an extensive background check, you are not allowed to hide your guns. You are still allowed to carry them, but they must not be covered by any piece of clothing. However, the unintended consequences can be severe. Apart from police officers and law-abiding citizens, criminals know that unless you happen to be one of the few people who have permits, that you are unarmed. That therefore puts everyone in danger, regardless of permit status. By the nature of these laws they are impossible to enforce. The only people who obey them are those who choose to obey them, the same people who would be very unlikely to commit a violent crime. In addition, these laws put innocent people behind bars if their shirt is too long or they wear a jacket over an openly carried gun.



    Many people have raised concern regarding what has become known as the “gun show loophole”, and these concerns are justified. The fact that gun shows are exempt from almost all regulations is horrifying. Even if you do not believe in gun control, it is hardly disputable that this should be fixed if for no other reason than to uphold the law. Fortunately for us, no such loophole exists. All licensed dealers must comply with the same regulations regardless of whether the transactions take place at a show or a storefront. The same is also true for private citizens selling their personal guns. Gun shows have nothing to do with what regulations must be followed. It is universal that private citizens may sell or give their guns to anyone they do not know or have reason to believe is disqualified from owning a firearm. The issue at hand is whether private citizens should be regulated further in their transactions in firearms. Gun shows have nothing to do with it.



    Gun free zones were not drawn up without reason. In Ohio, mandated gun free zones include courthouses, police stations, jails, airports, business serving alcohol, churches, day cares, state owned buildings, and schools, both public and private. The idea behind the creation of these zones is that people inside should not have to worry at all about violence of any kind. Unfortunately they have one major flaw- criminals don’t follow the law. In their implantation they have the unintended effect of disarming the good and decent people and leaving them exposed to some of the worst acts of violence imaginable. Mass shootings always occur on gun free zones, or as I like to call them, criminal protection zones. Before there were criminal protection zones, school shootings never occurred. Ever. And although these shootings represent the vast minority of deaths due to violence, we should do whatever we can to reduce their apparent abundance.



    It is our responsibility as members of a democracy t base our personal political beliefs on a combination of unbiased information and ethics. That being said, it is imperative that you do not base your opinions regarding the distribution of arms on what I have said alone. It is impossible to obtain unbiased information from only one source or even one group of sources. I hope only that today I have convinced you of the importance and worthiness of this issue, and you will give the gun control debate the attention that I believe it deserves. I have complete confidence that such careful attention will lead only to a reduction in arms control, and even if it does not I will be content that the public has made an educated decision rather than one based on impulse. This education, though, should not come from an academic understanding alone, but must be accompanied with first hand experience in the use of firearms. It is easy to support a law because it will not affect you. That is a very poor reason to support it, though. Instead base your opinions on information and experience.



  21. #21
    Regular Member reefteach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    If you have room, adding something about how every individual is responsible for their own safety would be nice. Gonzales v Castle Rock is a good supreme court case which stated that even if the police issue a restraining order, the responsibility of safety still lies with the individual. Cops can't, and shouldn't be everywhere all the time. They are only for maintaining general order in society. When seconds count, help is minutes away.

    Firearms level the playing field against predators.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    Many people have raised concern regarding what has become known as the “gun show loophole”, and these concerns are justified. The fact that gun shows are exempt from almost all regulations is horrifying. Even if you do not believe in gun control, it is hardly disputable that this should be fixed if for no other reason than to uphold the law. Fortunately for us, no such loophole exists.

    I'd change 'fact' to 'belief', as it is more in line with your statement immediately afterwards about how no loophole actually exists.

    Also, mass public shoottings still happened before gun free zones, they just weren't covered nearly as extensively, and they *may* have been less common (although I'm not sure about that), same with shootings in schools (also, the nationalmedia usually ignores it when shoottings happen in minortiy schools, they usually only report on the suburban white crazies; although admittly most minority school shootings are gang related, while the crazy whities usually don't have any previous record of violence before they go shoot up the place). So before careful with what you say about free kill zones, otherwise it makes people doubt your whole speech if you make just a few errors (especially large ones).


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •