It probably would be helpful to find out exactly what issues you will be debating beforehand. Saturday night specials? Assualt weapons? Sporting guns? Handguns? Is he for more regulation or registration, or for banning certain guns? No matter what the issue, you'll probably want to go into detail about the Second.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Chance to educate highschool students
- Thread starter Poz
- Start date
These sites could help:
Australian Gun Control Increases Violent Crime: http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/australia.htm
Assault Weapons Ban Fact Sheet from the GOA http://www.gunowners.org/fs9403.htm
Australian Shooting Sports crime info http://www.ssaa.org.au/gunleg.html
Legal Gun Ownership V. Violent crime in the UK: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/8411/UKguns.gif
(This was at the Australian Shooting Sports page, but it's missing from their server now, I don't know why. Luckily, I snagged it.)
Arthur Kellerman- the Teflon Doc http://www.ssaa.org.au/SLICK.HTML
US Injury and Mortality Statistics- compare gun accidents to drowning, etc. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/osp/usmort.htm
DOJ data showing persons defending themselves with guns are less likely to be hurt: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
I'm can't find Title X of US Law on the web anymore (defining the unorganized militia as all able bodied males over the age of 17) but it's there, and it would be terrific if you could find it. It's shouldn't be too hard. I've posted it on this, or the general forum, some time ago.
It could help, in pointing out the use of the second, that tens of millions of people have been murdered by their own governments this century. Protection from an abusive government was one of the reasons for the Second. Of course, you'll have to be very careful to phrase this in a non-paranoid way!
Australian Gun Control Increases Violent Crime: http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/australia.htm
Assault Weapons Ban Fact Sheet from the GOA http://www.gunowners.org/fs9403.htm
Australian Shooting Sports crime info http://www.ssaa.org.au/gunleg.html
Legal Gun Ownership V. Violent crime in the UK: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/8411/UKguns.gif
(This was at the Australian Shooting Sports page, but it's missing from their server now, I don't know why. Luckily, I snagged it.)
Arthur Kellerman- the Teflon Doc http://www.ssaa.org.au/SLICK.HTML
US Injury and Mortality Statistics- compare gun accidents to drowning, etc. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/osp/usmort.htm
DOJ data showing persons defending themselves with guns are less likely to be hurt: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
I'm can't find Title X of US Law on the web anymore (defining the unorganized militia as all able bodied males over the age of 17) but it's there, and it would be terrific if you could find it. It's shouldn't be too hard. I've posted it on this, or the general forum, some time ago.
It could help, in pointing out the use of the second, that tens of millions of people have been murdered by their own governments this century. Protection from an abusive government was one of the reasons for the Second. Of course, you'll have to be very careful to phrase this in a non-paranoid way!
Wow, great links.
The topic we will be discussing will be... Gun Control in general. We had a psuedo-NRA representitive (head of security at my school....) give his side. And now it's the Anti-gunner's turn to respond.
I think that, more importantly than "beating" him, is getting my fellow students to see the massive and glaring illogic in their immediate condemnation of concealed carry.
As far as I know, none of the students in my class are "anti-gun" persay, but rather balk at the idea that a private citizen could carry a gun on them. Essentially, he will find any "ban the guns" speil to be falling on rather deaf ears, but his anti-ccw will go over gangbusters.
Of course I still have the advantage of being the 17 year old voice of a good lot of people.
We shall see..
-Patrick
The topic we will be discussing will be... Gun Control in general. We had a psuedo-NRA representitive (head of security at my school....) give his side. And now it's the Anti-gunner's turn to respond.
I think that, more importantly than "beating" him, is getting my fellow students to see the massive and glaring illogic in their immediate condemnation of concealed carry.
As far as I know, none of the students in my class are "anti-gun" persay, but rather balk at the idea that a private citizen could carry a gun on them. Essentially, he will find any "ban the guns" speil to be falling on rather deaf ears, but his anti-ccw will go over gangbusters.
Of course I still have the advantage of being the 17 year old voice of a good lot of people.
We shall see..
-Patrick
If you haven't already, check out this collection of information:
http://www.nraila.org/
and this one:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html
It has stuff about concealed carry, as well as most other topics. You will probably want to find Lott's "More Guns Less Crime" to back up the effectiveness of concealed carry. If you can convince the class the second means what it says, obviously "bear" is analagous to right-to-carry.
Since he's a policeman, he probably has some tragic, emotional stories he will want to share- ie, this little kid accidentally shot his brother, a wife beater shot his wife ect. You need to prepare to answer emotional arguments with facts. Since he's a "authority figure" the audience will probably take him at his word when he says something like "This will make police work even more difficult!" or "Citizen's aren't trained or capable to use these weapons properly." It might be helpful to point out that police gun down more innocent people accidentally, than do armed citizens. The second URL at the top has number of those killed by police & civilians.
If you are lucky, he will say something like "People with Concealed Carry licenses might shoot someone in a fit of "Road Rage" after a car accident!" If so, jump on him with the fact that, in the DECADES such licences have been issued NO holder has EVER murdered someone after a car accident. There was one killing- but the court ruled it self defense.
Remind your audience that license holders have to go through a background check, and, depending on the area, may have to show gun proficiency. Very few of them have been revoked for misdeeds- the NRAILA site above has the % of Florida liscenseholders who have had theirs revoked.
Since he's a cop, it might help to ask your audience hypothetical questions like: "My neighbor is threatening to kill me. Do the police have a duty to protect me?" or "If I dialed 911, and the police did not arrive for 30 minutes, and a family member was murdered, are the police liable?" The answer is, of course, NO. There are various court rulings stating the police have a duty to protect society at large, and enforce the law, but NO DUTY WHATSOEVER to protect individual citizens, even if they recieve death threats. One of the court's statements went something like this: "There is no constitional right to not be murdered." If you use that, you'll need to get the actual ruling. I'll look and see if I can find it.
It could be helpful to question your policeman about certain things: "What percentage of home burglars do police stop, by being at the right place and the right time?" "How often to police catch muggers in the act?" "What percentage of carjackings are caught in the act by police?" "When a store is robbed, how often do the police catch the robber in the act?" Of course, any time you ask an opponet such questions, you need to prepare to respond effectively if he does not answer like you expect.
It might be helpful to sound concilatory, maybe make some kind comments about police, say the liscenseholders are a supplement and a help to the police, ect.
Prepare for every eventuality, use stats if you can back them up well and provide references. Good luck!
[This message has been edited by BTR (edited October 06, 1999).]
http://www.nraila.org/
and this one:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html
It has stuff about concealed carry, as well as most other topics. You will probably want to find Lott's "More Guns Less Crime" to back up the effectiveness of concealed carry. If you can convince the class the second means what it says, obviously "bear" is analagous to right-to-carry.
Since he's a policeman, he probably has some tragic, emotional stories he will want to share- ie, this little kid accidentally shot his brother, a wife beater shot his wife ect. You need to prepare to answer emotional arguments with facts. Since he's a "authority figure" the audience will probably take him at his word when he says something like "This will make police work even more difficult!" or "Citizen's aren't trained or capable to use these weapons properly." It might be helpful to point out that police gun down more innocent people accidentally, than do armed citizens. The second URL at the top has number of those killed by police & civilians.
If you are lucky, he will say something like "People with Concealed Carry licenses might shoot someone in a fit of "Road Rage" after a car accident!" If so, jump on him with the fact that, in the DECADES such licences have been issued NO holder has EVER murdered someone after a car accident. There was one killing- but the court ruled it self defense.
Remind your audience that license holders have to go through a background check, and, depending on the area, may have to show gun proficiency. Very few of them have been revoked for misdeeds- the NRAILA site above has the % of Florida liscenseholders who have had theirs revoked.
Since he's a cop, it might help to ask your audience hypothetical questions like: "My neighbor is threatening to kill me. Do the police have a duty to protect me?" or "If I dialed 911, and the police did not arrive for 30 minutes, and a family member was murdered, are the police liable?" The answer is, of course, NO. There are various court rulings stating the police have a duty to protect society at large, and enforce the law, but NO DUTY WHATSOEVER to protect individual citizens, even if they recieve death threats. One of the court's statements went something like this: "There is no constitional right to not be murdered." If you use that, you'll need to get the actual ruling. I'll look and see if I can find it.
It could be helpful to question your policeman about certain things: "What percentage of home burglars do police stop, by being at the right place and the right time?" "How often to police catch muggers in the act?" "What percentage of carjackings are caught in the act by police?" "When a store is robbed, how often do the police catch the robber in the act?" Of course, any time you ask an opponet such questions, you need to prepare to respond effectively if he does not answer like you expect.
It might be helpful to sound concilatory, maybe make some kind comments about police, say the liscenseholders are a supplement and a help to the police, ect.
Prepare for every eventuality, use stats if you can back them up well and provide references. Good luck!
[This message has been edited by BTR (edited October 06, 1999).]
I think that my approach will be that of the innocent curious child. And start out with some questions like "how many people are in Lincoln".. "how many cops are there in Lincoln.." and basically get him to come out and say that there is no way for a police force to be anything more than a reactionary element in crime control. The students in my class are amazingly in favor for home defense, so I think that approach should work well.
But, as BTR pointed out, I'm sure he'll have some tragic tale to tell (illeteration at it's finest).
-Patrick
But, as BTR pointed out, I'm sure he'll have some tragic tale to tell (illeteration at it's finest).
-Patrick
Ask your opponents if they are familiar with the United States Code Title 10, Chapter 13, sections 311, 312, 313. Title 10 concerns the Armed Forces. Chapter 13 narrows this down to the militia. The sections mentioned tell what the militia is comprised of, and who is a member. Most people do not know they are in the militia. Chapter 13 doesn't say you CAN be in the Militia, it says the militia IS COMPRISED of certain groups of people. Age requirements are given. Any honorably discharged veteran is a member of the militia until age 65.
There is an organized and an unorganized militia. The national guard units are the organized militia. Most all of us fall into the unorganized militia. The point is, we are the militia. How can the Second Amendment be taken out of context?
The founding fathers considered an organized militia to be no more than a standing army. Countless quotes by the Founders concerning their INTENT of the Second Amendment can be found in the Federalist Papers. George Mason put it most succinctly: "Who are the militia? With the exception of a few public officers, it consists of the entire citizenry."
The police are not obligated to protect you. Consider this case: Warren v. District of Columbia (D.C. App. 1981) The court found "...a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."
California's Government Code states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service." Nearly all states have a similar statute on their books.
By the way, nearly all states also have in their statutes a law similar to USCode Title 10, Chapter 13.
Another book to read is "Firing Back" by Clayton E. Cramer.
There is an organized and an unorganized militia. The national guard units are the organized militia. Most all of us fall into the unorganized militia. The point is, we are the militia. How can the Second Amendment be taken out of context?
The founding fathers considered an organized militia to be no more than a standing army. Countless quotes by the Founders concerning their INTENT of the Second Amendment can be found in the Federalist Papers. George Mason put it most succinctly: "Who are the militia? With the exception of a few public officers, it consists of the entire citizenry."
The police are not obligated to protect you. Consider this case: Warren v. District of Columbia (D.C. App. 1981) The court found "...a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."
California's Government Code states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service." Nearly all states have a similar statute on their books.
By the way, nearly all states also have in their statutes a law similar to USCode Title 10, Chapter 13.
Another book to read is "Firing Back" by Clayton E. Cramer.
May be too late, but a great summary of RKBA and the prudential arguments in support thereof is contained on the NRA's wallet "Fact Sheet", if you have one handy. Doesn't sound like a fair fight though, so if you can score just one good point, you will have done your job. Pick one or maybe two main points on stay focused on them.