Argumentative Speech

Draft 2

Central Idea: "Liberalized gun laws fail to have a positive effect on safety, as claimed by the
NRA-ILA and other gun proponents.
Proposition of Fact
Organizational pattern: Chain

I-

Introduction:

Attention catcher: Protect your home from a killer; keep a gun at home! This statement and many
like it litter countless articles posted on the NRA-ILAs webpage, the National Rifle Associations online
lobbying arm. But when a firearm kept at home is 22x more likely to kill than to protect the household,
we need to start asking questions.
Revealing the topic: You are gathered here today because you are undecided. You know not whether to
vote for or against gun liberalizations laws. The righteous path has become unclear to you. I am here
today to guide you back to that path.
Goodwill: Before we begin I want to commend you. I want to congratulate you all, everyone present
today, for your indecision. The mere fact that that you have not yet made up your mind shows that you
dont not take this matter lightly, are on a sincere quest for the truth, that you share a strong belief in
doing the right thing, and that you legitimately care about this nations wellbeing. That alone is worthy of
praise.
Establish Credibility and state CI: As the leader of Citizens Against Arms Project, and as a man who has
dedicated a great portion of his life to the cause of finding out the truth behind the effects of firearms, I
feel it is my duty to share my finding with you. It is my responsibility to inform you about the adverse
effects of liberalized gun ownership, both in decreasing gun deaths and in increasing safety, and reveal
the failure of this nations liberalized gun laws in providing the positive effects which they promised to
deliver.
Background: Compared to other industrialized nations, US gun laws are relatively liberal, according to
Gunpolicy.Org, an organization dedicated to the study of arms distribution and their effects around the
world. In this organizations database, US gun legislation is categorized as permissive, as compared to
most other industrialized nations, including all the G8 nations whose policies were listed as restrictive.
This can be proxied when we take the requirements, or numbers of procedures it takes to get a gun in
the United States, and compare it to those of Europe, East Asia, or Australia. This is because in the

United States, every citizen naturally qualifies for gun ownership, unless the individual is excluded by
law. This flips the script of restrictive law, where no individual is qualified for a gun, except for certain
designated individuals who are excluded from the restriction.
Our Nations liberal Gun laws are derived from the second amendment of the Constitution of the
United States, which took effect in 1791. The law might have long been changed, were it not for the
National Rifle Association. Their official mission statement is to defend and foster the Second
Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. The NRA wields tremendous political and financial
power, making it among the top three most influential lobby groups in Washington (Wilson et al. 2001).
As an association, they do not provide their grounds why they wish to protect these rights. Individual
gun proponents, however, make concrete claims why the US should continue to preserve the its gun
culture.

II-

Counter Argument 1: Certain gun proponents claim that an increased number of guns will
make criminals apprehensive. This will cause criminality to decrease and thereby increase public
safety.
a) This chain of thought was formalized by John R. Lott. In his book More Guns, Less Crime, Lott
claims that the liberalization of guns would make criminals hesitant, fearing that their would-be
victims could be armed. From his book: As criminals have more reason to fear the citizenry,
crime begins to drop as a result.
b) Another gun proponent is now putting this theory into action by handing out free shotguns to
those who he deemed to be law abiding, honest citizens (Stanton, 2013). In the name of peace.
Kyle Coplen, is the founder of the ACP (Armed Citizens Project), who believes so strongly in the
benefits of more citizens with guns that he hands them out for free to New York citizens.
c) Unfortunately, these individuals actions are safely within the bounds of the law thanks to the
NRAs continued lobbying efforts, secured by our nations second amendment rights: the right to
bear arms.

Argument 1: Guns may (or may not) discourage premeditated crime, but the overall
effect of more guns is a general increase in crime through increased gun violence, and thus a
decrease in public safety.
a) Now lets examine the gun proponents claim that increasing the number of guns leads to a
decrease in criminality. All the following data is from gunpolicy.org, a specialist organization in
the field.
b) The rate of gun ownership in the US is 101.05 to 100. What does this mean? It means that our
nation has more guns than people. Note that the US owns more guns per capita than any other
nation in the world. It also has the highest number of gun deaths in the world.

c) As comparison, Japan has the lowest rate of private gun ownership in the world, followed
closely by Singapore. Incidentally, these two nations also yield the lowest rate of gun homicides.
Now, this might be partially due to cultural differences, so let us look at an example a little
closer to home. Within the US, the state with the highest gun ownership, Louisiana, also yielded
the highest firearm homicide rate. This is shown by a study by the American Journal of Public
Health, a 30-year study covering all 50 states. Similarly, Hawaii, the state with the least guns per
capita, you guessed it, enjoyed the lowest gun homicide rates.
d) Thus, even if the Lottian Effect does exist, these statistics suggest that its effect is outweighed
by the increased gun crime that comes with increased gun ownership. In other words, while
non-violent crime rates, mainly premeditated thievery, may see a slight decrease, there is a
substantially larger increase in gun homicide.
e) One possible interpretation is that carrying a firearm facilitates the escalation of minor disputes,
which would have otherwise ended non-lethally, to fatal crimes of passion.

III-

Counter Argument 2: Arguably the most common argument for gun liberalization is safety
benefits through its active use in self-defense.
a) The NRA-ILA lists this as one of their primary goals in their mission statement, stating that their
efforts include enacting laws that recognize the right of honest citizens to carry firearms for
self-protection.

d) At this point we need to make some form of concession. In some cases, a gun can help in a selfdefense scenario. This is assuming the aggressor isnt equally armed and better trained. This is
assuming the victim is qualified, or at least more qualified to use a firearm than the aggressor.
This is assuming the gun isnt used against the victim. This is assuming the firearm is at hand,
loaded and ready, when the situation arises. A firearm absent has no effect in terms of selfdefense, while a gun used against the victim is clearly counterproductive for safety.
e) Herein lie the fundamental problems.
f) Situations in which self-defense is needed are unanticipated by nature. For a gun to be of use in
such a scenario, such as, say, a break-in, it needs to be readily available, easily reachable, and
loaded. Readily available, easily reachable, and loaded. These are the same characteristics that
make it prone to accidents, mainly involving children. Earlier this year, single mother of two and
owner of a .22 rifle stepped outside, leaving her children unattended for a few minutes.
Tragically, this was all it took for her five-year-old son to shoot and kill his infant sister, 2 year old
Caroline Sparks (Remizowski, 2013). It is of no consolation that little Caroline shares the fate of
500 similar cases in the US annually (MomLogic, 2008).
g) To eliminate the threat of such accidents, various gun safety guidelines dictate that guns should
be kept in armory safes, unloaded, and out of reach of children. In some states, this rule is even
enforced by law. Even the NRA agree: Rule number three in the NRAs official gun safety rules is

to always keep gun unloaded. While they then pose little threat to accidents, they are rendered
useless in an unanticipated event.
h) So how much does keeping a gun in the household really improve safety? The following
information is provided by FBI archives, as well as from the CDC, an organization specialized on
health related issues. While there have been cases of successful self-defense using a firearm, a
gun kept at home is 22x more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accident than for selfdefense. The probability of a homicide involving a gun triples; the probability of suicide is
multiplied by 5.

IV-

Conclusion:

We have seen that, while guns may (or may not) discourage premeditated criminality, the overall
trend of gun distribution shows that areas with more guns have a clear tendency towards increased gun
violence. We have also seen that, by far more times than not, a gun is counterproductive as a means of
self-defense, since statistically it poses more of a threat than the opposite, endangering the household
rather than protecting it. Thus, gun liberalization fails to promote public safety, often even reducing it.
And yet the NRA holds on to the second amendment, stressing its sanctity as part of the US
constitution. However, Thomas Jefferson himself noted: every constitution "naturally expires at the end
of 19 years" because "the earth belongs always to the living generation." In other words, different times
require different laws. And after all, it wouldnt be the first time an amendment is updated. We canceled
the eighteenth amendment of alcohol prohibition in order to enjoy a glass of wine, so why not adjust
the second, in order to save lives.

Sources and references :

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses.html
Duggan, M. (2001). More Guns, More Crime. University of Chicago and National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Gunpolicy.org. (2011). United States Gun Facts, Figures and the Law. Retrieved from
Gunpolicy.org: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

MomLogic. (2008, August 1). Gun Accidents Kill 500 Kids A Year. Retrieved from momlogic.com:
http://www.momlogic.com/2008/08/protect_your_kids_from_guns.php
NYT. (2013). Guns and Gun Control. New York Times.
Remizowski, L. (2013). 5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister. CNN.
Severson, K., & Brown, R. (2013). Suspect in Botched Shooting Bought Gun Legally Despite Mental Illness.
New York Times.
Stanton, R. (2013, February 22). Houston student wants to arm local residents. Houston Chronicle.