Adding to Rick's comment, the articles also provide the source of the report, usually a local newspaper and if your aor the student is not a NRA member, I'd join today.
If it were me I'd try and break down the other sides argument. Gun control comes at us from many directions/issues. For example;
1. Rights (ANGLE). The (individual, (is there any other kind?)) right to own a firearm. Doesn't matter what its for (hunting, target shooting, self-defense, recreational or a some scientific to experiment to watch an oxide layer grow). Also, a good question to ask is; "even though "so-and-so" deplores firearms, do they want to permanently give up their rights to own them?" I ask this question all the time when I get into these discussions and truthfully, I haven't meet one yet who is willing to "give-up THEIR right" to gun ownership. Naturally, they’re willing to take mine (and yours away).
While you’re here, do a search for the ideas in this subject from our founding fathers on this subject. As I mentioned in the previous thread, gun ownership was a pre-existing right. Google search the Supreme Court Heller Decision last year. Its long but there’s good stuff in there.
2. The failures of gun control (ANGLE). Often the conversation spews off target because not all the facts are presented.
3. Personal protection (ANGLE). Do a Google search for; "Required Police Protection". In short there isn't any unless they have you in custody.
4. Human Predators (ANGLE). Along the lines of (3.) do a Google search called; On Sheep, Wolfs and Sheep Dogs. Basically, it points out the predatory nature of the human species, and make no mistake about it, humans are predators.
5. The assault weapons (ANGLE). IMO, assault is an act and whether its an assault weapon or a defensive weapon depends on which end of the muzzle I'm on. If I'm on the breech end, it's a defensive weapon, if I'm on the muzzle end; it's an offensive/assault weapon.
6. Common Sense Gun Control Legislation (ANGLE). Who needs an assault weapon? Don't ever let someone decide, on a permanent basis, what you, I or anyone else needs, Ever! The other side will come across from their angles (who needs them cost of insurance, innocent lives and so on, which are real). What most politicians mean by the term “common sense gun laws†is an outright
gun-ban.
There are many quotes out there but these two sum it up the best:
[Stockton, California] Mayor [Barbara] Fass: I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step.
ABC News Special, Peter Jennings Reporting: Guns, April 11, 1991, available on LEXIS, NEWS database, SCRIPT file. [/color]
We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.
Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.) (boldface added, italics in original).
This link will tell you about Senator Feinstein’s goal of banning gun ownership. It’s from 60 minutes on Feb 5, 1995. This is when she made her infamous comment;
"If it were up to me," she told Stahl, "I would tell Mr. and Mrs. America to turn them in -- turn them all in." http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/hindsight/hs950224.txt
7. Current gun laws (ANGLE). There is a mess of gun laws out there and more often than not they are plea bargained down to go after the larger crime. Guns are heavily regulated at the local (city/county), state and national levels. Not to mention, there is some 250,000,000 firearms out there. IMO, they will never get them all?
8. Training (ANGLE). IMO, one area the anti crowd does make a point is no training is required (in some cases) to own a firearm. Good. The US Constitution doesn't say its required. However, when packing one needs to know how and when to use it. There are good courses out there and true, they're not cheap but in the long run when one looks at what’s at stake, the money and time are well spent and besides, you have fun along the way.
My personal block with this subject is "who" gets to say your training is adequate. If its the mayor of a city (Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Trenton, Washington DC) just to mention a few, they would use a requirement such as this to prevent firearm ownership. I'd dare say that John Q Citizen wouldn't get a carry permit in these cities right now.
I think if you can express these angles, logically, the chance for success is good (as long as the audience is reasonable). Otherwise, some will be turned off. Also, it “must†be pointed out,
politicians are the ones making the laws. They are
elitist and are
driven by
opinions and polls (the one sided media) and the
only thing they really care about is;
who’s taking their place at the head of the hog-trough (the next election).
I tried to be short, sorry about the length.
Jim
