Going to be a panelist at a "Gun Control Forum" tomorrow night - any talking points?

[WC145]

I've volunteered to be a panelist at a "Gun Control Forum" at the local state university tomorrow evening. The perspective I'm offering is that of a 2A advocate, LEO, and medical professional (respiratory therapist). The other panelists are the county Sheriff, the local school superintendent, a pastor/counselor/university instructor, and a clinical social worker/therapist. Except for the Sheriff, I have no idea where these other folks stand on the subject matter. The Sheriff has said in recent newspaper interviews that it should be harder to get concealed carry permits, only LE & military should have access to "assault weapons", and that he has always been in support of an AWB.

Anyway, I've been studying up for this for a few weeks (hoping I won't look foolish) but I'm sure that I've still missed plenty of great facts, talking points, statistics, quotes, etc. So, I'd love to hear some of the ideas and points that you feel really drive home the pro-gun, pro-2A position, that one thing over all others that you would present given an opportunity and an audience. Keep in mind that this event is being held at a college with a panel and audience that may not be all that sympathetic towards our positions.

Below is an email I rec'd from the moderator, it includes a link to the press release.

Thanks in advance. (and wish me luck!)

Hi Panel members-

The link is to our press release on the 2/12 forum.

Please try and get here by 6:15 to sign releases and get situated.

My colleague Tora Johnson will be co-moderating and handling a twitter feed.

After some short introductory remarks I will ask each of you to speak
for 1-2 minutes on what, if anything, you hope will emerge from this
national discussion.

I ask you to think about how we should balance freedom and security,
individual and community, and the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments in these
discussions.

After approximately 20-30 minutes of panel discussion, we will open the
floor to the audience, starting with any UMM students present.

I have asked that UMM security be present before and during the forum,
just as a precautionary measure. The campus, as you probably know, is a
gun free zone.



http://www.machias.edu/umm-to-host-f...d-culture.html

[kilimanjaro]

Good for you, enjoy the evening !

I would request a 'rational discussion about keeping crazies and criminals from obtaining firearms', that is the reason we are all here this evening. I've heard a lot of folks talking about the RKBA as if it didn't exist, or was up for a vote, or raising red herrings about nuclear weapons and bazookas, and in general the folks doing that are merely proving themselves to be irrational phobics who cannot have a rational discussion, and I am pleased to be here with this group, where such things will not be an issue."

Or something like that.

[RickB]

One of my shooting buddies, a former cop and now owner/operator of a shooting school, is big on the "resisting tyranny" aspect of 2A, with no other justification required. We NEED "high capacity, high-powered, military-style assault weapons" precisely because they are the type that the government has, and so necessary for our defending the Republic.
Another shooting buddy is a liberal high school teacher. He said that the above argument holds no water with liberals, as they think of the government as a benevolent nanny, so who'd possibly want to stand against them? He takes the tack of, "The government has no compelling interest in limiting the widespread ownership of high capacity, etc., etc., because they are used so rarely in crime, that trying to further reduce their misuse would be almost impossible." Essentially, the time/money/energy could be spent on just about anything else, with better results.
I find it hard to believe that a gun control advocate could think logically enough to grasp the latter argument - not emotional, not political, but practical - but something to consider.

[Spats McGee]

For the LE folks on the panel: If you can (you may bnot be allowed), ask them what their response times are from the time a 911 call comes in to police on-scene. Then ask them how much damage a determined attacker can do in that same time frame. Something like: ("So, 4.5 minutes, on the average? And that's from the time that the caller actually gets 911 on the line? How much damage can a determined attacker do in 4.5 minutes? Could someone die in that time? Have you ever had any violent attacks in which the victim never had a chance to call 911? . . . ") If you cannot ask those questions, that's OK. Give the crowd a hypothetical, say, 2-minute response time. Tell them to imagine that someone has kicked in their door, and is coming in, crowbar in hand. Imagine how much damage a grown man with a crowbar can do in 2 minutes.

As for "only LE should have assault weapons:" Why? Is it because the .223 is a low-recoil, accurate round? Isn't that what would make it ideal for a 100-lb woman? Talk about the fact that these "assault weapons" are actually just one-pull-one-bullet machines, not full auto. Revolvers are one-pull-one-bullet, too.

Concealed carry: Why should it be harder to get a CC permit? Has there been a rash of crimes committed by CCL holders? Are they not being screened properly?

Some folks will almost certainly argue for a world without guns. Here's an article entitled "A world without guns" on gunnut.org: http://gunnuts.net/2013/01/04/a-world-without-guns/ This author makes the point that nobody would really want a world without guns. What they want is a world without violence. That is perfectly understandable. A world without guns, though, is a world in which the weak are always at the mercy of the strong.

Finally, resisting tyranny: What any one individual shooter needs is a separate issue from what rights a society needs for the individual to have. I, for example, have never "needed" to assert my rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments (unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination, and cruel & unusual punishment, respectively). That does not in any way diminish the need that our society has in individuals retaining those rights.

[ScottRiqui]

Along the lines of "the Constitutional implications and difficulty aren't commensurate with the potential benefits", you could point out that for all the concern voiced for "the children", more children drown every year in residential swimming pools and hot tubs than as a result of rifles of any type, not just the types the antis are seeking to ban.

You could get a bigger return on your investment by banning residential pools and hot tubs - there are no pesky Constitutional protections, pools and hot tubs have extremely limited usefulness other than recreational, and it would be a lot easier for police to detect illegal pools than illegal guns.

[2ndsojourn]

One of the lawyers here will probably chip in with some good advice, but in the meantime, although it is part of a good argument, I'd lay off the tyranny thing. You're never going to unlearn the gungrabbers anyway, and some of the fence-sitters will probably think you're a doomsday prepper.

Counter their passion with logic.

[DaleA]

Okay. If they raise the ‘Nobody needs an assault rifle or nobody needs a 30 round magazine’ raise your hands and say okay! Nobody needs:
"a private pilot license, sailboats, jet ski’s, motorcycles, cars that go over 100 mph, professional sports, college sports! red meat!"

If they raise the 2nd amendment would only apply to flintlocks. “Does the 1st amendment apply to radio, TV and the internet?”

There are 300 million guns in America. I will give you if your ‘get rid of the guns you will get rid of the gun violence’ give me the fact you will never get rid of the guns.

“If your not going to take away the guns your not going to stop another Sandy Hook."

[MLeake]

2ndsojourn, are you going for irony?

You said:

One of the lawyers here will probably chip in with some good advice, but in the meantime, although it is part of a good argument, I'd lay off the tyranny thing.

I guess you didn't realize Spats McGee is one of the lawyers here...

[patriotic]

First of all get all to agree that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a modern sporting rifle and supported as such by the DHS. Agree that there is no use for an automatic weapon on the street or in the home for defense. Semi-automatic is perfectly acceptable as a self-defense weapon. Don’t fall into the trap of a gun being only used for hunting if so what does the Sheriff and his deputies hunt? If the Sheriff feels he needs a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine then that is an excellent choice for the law abiding citizen. You don’t have to use all 30 rounds in the magazine but if needed they are there just like you don’t fuel your car with gasoline only for the trip to the corner store and back, you fill the tank. If they come after you about Sandy Hook just say that had there been one other person with a gun at the school those children would be alive today; the AWB in Connecticut didn’t save those children. Good luck

[ScottRiqui]

Hopefully someone will bring up the fact that laws do nothing to proactively prevent violence.

If an anti counters with "well then, why have laws at all?", remind them that laws serve two purposes - to provide guidance for the law-abiding, and to provide a legal basis for prosecuting and punishing those who won't abide by community standards. (credit to lcpiper here on TFL for the particular wording of this concept)

Criminals are going to do what they want to do - the most we can hope for from laws is to allow us a means to punish them afterward. As such, additional laws won't prevent any violence, and virtually all acts of "gun violence" involve plenty of lawbreaking already, allowing us to prosecute the criminal, so we don't need the new laws for that either.

[SHE3PDOG]

The message said that the school's security is going to be there, but that it is a gun-free zone. Is the security armed? If so, I'd have to raise the question about why they feel so unsafe in a gun-free zone where all guns are supposedly banned from entering the premises.

Furthermore, if talking about the 10 round magazine limit, I would bring up that 10 rounds, nearly cuts your chances for a successful incapacitation of 2 or more assailants in half.

As for the assault weapons ban, I would ask why they think banning assault weapons would make people safer when the last ban brought inconclusive evidence to the table about the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban.

After all this, I would bring out the big guns. The United States DOJ in a study conducted in 2006 stated that 57% of felons arrested for violent crime had a prior arrest for a felony. 70% of violent felons had a previous arrest record. 67% of murderers had a previous arrest for robbery or assault. The crime problem we have with violent crime is not one of gun culture, but one of a broken justice system.

Source for Stats: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

Source for previous assault weapons ban:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

Good luck, bud.

[GregA]

You will have to have quick comebacks for a variety of reasons. If someone poses rhetorical question "Why does anyone need a clip or magazine with more than 10 rounds?" You can tell them "Ask Reginald Denny"

[Crankgrinder]

As a LEO and medical professional i dont think you need any talking points from me but i would like to offer some. "why does anyone need more than ten rounds"1. because gang violence does exist, and is becoming more prevalent and widespread. Multiple assailant attacks are becoming increasingly common and are often well coordinated. 2. The supreme court has ruled that the 2A protects firearms in common use. both in 08 and now in 13, sales of ar15 rifles and their ammunition have shot through the roof. Orders for them and their accessories and/or magazines have literally swamped the entire industry so heavily that it may well take a full year for production to catch up and that is running at full capacity. Manufacturers are finding it hard to keep up with raw materials like gun grade steel.If that is not common use i dont know what is. Citizens model the handguns they choose after what is popular with police and the rifles they use after what the military uses and always have. Almost all rifles owned by citizens originated from a military design ( M1A, 30-40 krag, Ar 15. and others) what we are seeing with those made today is the same trend as always. 3.Slippery slope argument. If its ten rounds today it will be seven tomorrow (new york proved this) and then what will it be? where will it stop? will there be any stop to it? i doubt it highly and will not buy it when they say there will be. Firearms are made from their factorys to operate with a certain number of rounds and we feel that this capacity set at the factory is what is reasonable when we spend our money to purchase these. "sporting use, hunting and fishing" we all know what to say to that."how do we stop the massacre?" 1.you fix the broken justice system,2.you fix the broken mental health system. (easier access to mental health care, does this mean the dumping of more drugs? all suspects involved in mass shootings have been on such drugs do you think that will help?) Im sure in your weeks of studying you have come up with more but this is some of what i would have to say, also there was another thread in this forum about 2A arguments and such. We colaborated some very good points there.

[dfsixstring]

One of the six purposes of law is to protect. I argue that laws actually don't protect, rather, they merely point out the wrong doing. In that sense, a law doesn't prohibit a criminal from bad activity, it just gives a vehicle for that criminal to be punished for what has been done.

These "laws" they are proposing will do nothing to stop crazies from killing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[2damnold4this]

Read chapters 4 and 5. The National Academies of Science dispel a lot of gun control myths:

link

[Metal god]

I always like showing a high caliber rifle round like the 338 lapua , a medium round like the 308 and the lower powered 223 . That way when they say something like ( these high powered rifles ) you can show them the 223 is one of the smallest least powerful rifle rounds out there . Right now it's about debunking the myths .

Another one is all the add ons you can put on a AR15 that has nothing to do with how the gun operates . show that they just want to ban a look .

I here alot about the US having more gun deaths a year then any other country or what ever that argument is . The anti's always leave out the Sudan , Somalia , and others . what do you think the out come would have been if all those killed were armed in those third world country's . I perpose we are not like those country's because we have had The right to bare arms from the get go .

Last but not least . For those who say if everybody was armed in the theater there would have been more killed in a mass shoot out . Try this hypothetical, you have 100 people trapped in a room with a gunman that has 100 rounds . How many people get shot ? Now arm all those trapped people and see how many get shot .

Well thats my .02 good luck and take notes while your there and stay on point .

[Falcon642]

Oh boy, just some ideas.

Everyone wants to point to the low number of gun homicides in European countries, some quick counters.

The US has over 3 times the population of Germany, and over 5 times the population of the UK.

European countries have a much lower poverty rate than the US, and studies show that increased poverty = increased violent crime. This explains why the UK and Mexico have the same gun laws, the UK has 50ish gun homicides a year and Mexico has over 20,000.

Violent crime of all types has increased since the UK instituted their gun ban, including gun crimes.

Finally, if they talk about "who needs an assault rifle" ask "who needs a sports car?" Studies show that accident rate increases with engine size, and more young people (26 and under) are killed in accidents involving sports cars than any other type of car, 36% of fatalities.

If they ask why do you need to carry more than 10 rounds, ask why do we need to have cars that do 100mph+? Every argument for banning assault weapons can be turned around to ban sports cars (which kill more people annually than assault weapons do.)

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...SUV-report.pdf

[Falcon642]

Oh, and if they mock at the defense against tyranny aspect of the 2nd Amendment, bring up this tidbit:

According to one estimate, just since last spring DHS has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm. That's sufficient firepower to shoot every American about five times. Including illegal immigrants.

To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, DHS is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/politics-a...#ixzz2KfMabMEE
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

http://news.investors.com/politics-a...-purchases.htm

[Crazy88Fingers]

Here's an article titled "9 Things You Didn't Know About the Second Amendment". With quotes from Supreme Court rulings. It goes beyond the sporting purpose argument and gets to the core of the right. Don't let them reframe the debate.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24...cond-amendment

The nine bullet points are:
1. The Second Amendment codifies a pre-existing right

2. The Second Amendment protects individual, not collective rights

3. Every citizen is the militia

4. Personal self-defense is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment

5. There is no interest-balancing approach to the Second Amendment

6. The Second Amendment exists to prevent tyranny

7. The Second Amendment was also meant as a provision to repel a foreign army invasion

8. The Second Amendment protects weapons "in common use at the time"

9. The Second Amendment might require full-blown military arms to fulfill the original intent

[JimmyR]

The essence of this question is to make the pro-2a person establish why they should be able to exercise a right. This question should be defused immediately, with some semblance of the following: "Why do I need a reason? Why do you "need" to come share your opinion on the availability of firearms for self defense?"

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by JimmyR

. . . .This question should be defused immediately, with some semblance of the following: "Why do I need a reason? Why do you "need" to come share your opinion on the availability of firearms for self defense?"

An excellent point. Where possible, we should be asking the 2As to demonstrate why their want should trump our right.

[Rainbow Demon]

The resistence to a tyranical government argument won't sit well with Obamites. The hardcore of his base are all for a bit of tyranical rule as long as they can delude themselves that it will benefit them while punishing those they see as the enemies to progress.

One might point out that Liberals and Libertarians often push for repealing laws against drugs, though drug addled brains are a major cause of violent crime and suicides.
One of the liberal talking heads made a remark about the second amendment being due for repeal just like the 18th amendment . The rather weak and illogical reasoning being that anything can be repealed, but he failed to catch on that the 18th amendment was a bann that the American people ignored or violated at every opportunity because it was unjust to the people, unconstitutional, and its only purpose was to dictate what the citizen could consume on his own dime.

Its been proven beyond doubt that prohibitions or draconian regulations placed on firearms ownership have had no noticable effect on criminals obtaining firearms.
Its impossible to eradicate clandestine manufacture of firearms and ammunition in any industrialized nation, and even the most backwards third world pestholes have a thriving black market in modern weaponry from pocket pistols to shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles.

PS
As for repelling a foreign invader, remind them of Admiral Yamamoto's words. In short he said that invading the USA would be a disaster because there would be "a rifle behind each blade of grass".

[Skans]

Every argument for banning assault weapons can be turned around to ban sports cars (which kill more people annually than assault weapons do.)

All cars are registered, taxed yearly and tagged. And, you must take a test and be licensed to drive a car. The antis will quickly point this out if you use the car analogy.

Owning guns is a right in the United States. It is a check and balance on tyranny and take-over of our country by those who would seek to enslave the masses and empower a small elite group. It is also recognized by the founders that individuals were responsible for protecting themselves, their families and their property in times of civil unrest.

[steve666]

If under the Second Amendment we are going to limit magazines to 10 rounds, then under the First Amendment are we going to limit free speech to 10 words, or are we going to limit church services to once per week?

[Robk]

Check your local/state Constitution. The wording relating to RKBA may be different than the US Constituition. In my state,my State Constituion reads as such:

Article 1,Section 22. Right to bear arms. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I am pretty sure that this can not be misread to mean anything other than what it says. Use local laws as much as you can. And notice how it is in the beginning of or Constitution. We have 15 articles. The framers of or Constitution felt it important enough to place it within the first Article. Just as the framers of the US Constituion decided to place this right right in the beginning of the Amendments.

Good luck.