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 shit, 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.