1 / 13

STRINGENT GUN LAWS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE

STRINGENT GUN LAWS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Persuasive Speech (Draft) By Frankie Cruz. Main Points. Background info. Misunderstandings Two Radical Oppositions Australian Proposal Why This Option Is Best Statistical Analysis California’s proposal Reasoning Closing Statements.

iman
Télécharger la présentation

STRINGENT GUN LAWS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. STRINGENT GUN LAWS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE Persuasive Speech (Draft) By Frankie Cruz

  2. Main Points • Background info. • Misunderstandings • Two Radical Oppositions • Australian Proposal • Why This Option Is Best • Statistical Analysis • California’s proposal • Reasoning • Closing Statements

  3. Background Info • The 2nd Amendment • What does this mean? • Do our rights have limits?

  4. Misunderstandings • Repealing the 2nd amendment… • “Let the government try to come take my guns!”… this can only happen in the even that a public outrage occurs, and people are going around shooting each other. (Martial Law) • “I have the right to hunt.” Yes you do, this isn’t about taking that right away. • Fully automatic machine guns vs. hunting rifles • “Criminals don’t follow laws, why should we?” … a very irrational approach, why have laws at all then? Other people speed, get rid of speed limits. • The point of having laws

  5. Misunderstandings

  6. Misunderstandings • Some of the propositions that our “tyrannical” government is trying to impose: • * Require criminal background checks for all gun sales. • * Take four executive actions to ensure information on dangerous individuals is available to the background check system. • * Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines. • * Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets. • * Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime. • * End the freeze on gun violence research. • * Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans. • * Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need. • * Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits. http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

  7. Two Radical Oppositions • Compromising and meeting in the middle • Explaining the goals of each side thoroughly and clearly to the public Anti-Gun • Want the public to have no gun use at all. Pro-Gun • Want to own any gun they can afford.

  8. Australian Proposal • “Australia had 30 gun homicides in 2010, which amounted to 0.13 gun deaths for each 100,000 people. Australians hold 3-3.5 million guns, a rate of 15 guns for every 100 people.” • “650,000 weapons were voluntarily handed in and destroyed at a cost of roughly $359.6 million.” • “Australia doesn't have a full semi-automatic handgun ban and doesn't have any laws designed to keep guns away from the mentally ill. “ • Money talks $$$ http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

  9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465533/ http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1 Statistics • Every statistic should be taken with a grain of salt, they are just numbers which can be used for both sides of the debate • “According to 1990–98 Chicago Department of Public Health data, there were 4176 homicides reported among 169 neighborhoods (range =1–84, median =17), with 3053 (73%) of those committed with a firearm. The proportion of a neighborhoods homicides committed with a gun ranged from 0% to 100%, with a median of 73%.” (Shenassa) • “In 2011, the U.K. had 0.07 gun homicides for every 100,000 people; the U.S., by contrast, had 3 gun homicides for every 100,000. In 2009 there were 138 gun deaths in the U.K, where there are 6.7 firearms for every 100 people.” • “Japanese civilians hold a mere 710,000 guns, with 0.6 firearms for every person. In 2008, there were 11 gun homicides. For perspective, there are 122,800,000 people in Japan. That year is not an anomaly. In 2006 there were 2 gun homicides and in 2007 there were 22”

  10. California’s Proposal (Layman’s terms) • *Taken from an article written by someone who felt they were useless* • 1. Ban all Semi-Automatic Rifles That Accept Detachable Magazines (useless) • 2. Ban Possession of High-Capacity Magazines (useful) • 3. Require Yearly Safety Certificate (a bit extreme, but useful) • 4. Universal Registration of All Guns (useful) • 5. Require Background Checks on All Ammunition Purchases (again a bit extreme, but useful) • 6. Regulating Gun Loans (useful) • 7. Prevent Prohibited Individuals From Living in Homes With Guns (very useful) • 8. Crack Down on People Who Can't Own Guns Legally but do Anyway (very useful, if approached in the correct manor) • 9. Ban Shotgun-Rifle Combinations (useless) http://www.policymic.com/articles/25950/9-useless-and-unconstitutional-anti-gun-laws-california-will-pass-in-2013

  11. Why This Option Is Best (Reasoning) • Limiting WHO can own guns, will limit gun violence. The goal is to set stricter standards for those who wish to buy a gun. They also aim to set laws under gun keeping, which can make it harder for criminals to get guns, and make it easier for law enforcement to find the criminals. • Think about those around you who own guns. Would you not rather someone who has been allowed to own a gun that met the stricter standards? Or should anyone be allowed to go out and buy a gun? • Illegal arms dealers: Making fully automatic machine guns and submachine guns illegal for the general public to keep in their homes. will make catching these people easier. What need does anyone have to keep one of these guns in their homes? Protection can be had from other guns that do not pose as much of a threat to the public. • On the other hand, people do have their rights • Hunting and recreational shooting should not be impinged due to gun violence, however, they too should still abide by the rules of obtaining the weaponry in order to prevent any loopholes in the system in which a criminal can manage to acquire a gun.

  12. Recap • Provided background info • Cleared up some misunderstandings • The Two Extremes • The Australian Proposal • Statistical Analysis • California’s Proposal • Reasoning

  13. Sources • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465533/ • http://www.policymic.com/articles/23434/obama-gun-control-speech-historic-gun-control-efforts-are-about-to-be-put-in-place • http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1 • http://www.policymic.com/articles/25950/9-useless-and-unconstitutional-anti-gun-laws-california-will-pass-in-2013

More Related