Due to my current health status, I won't be able to do much....I have to meet with a surgeon Friday to see if I need to have my spleen removed. I promise you, I feel like Shit that I can't do more, and I'm ashamed of myself honestly.

 

So I'll do what I can.

 

For those who plan to speak, or write letters, I have a quick lesson on stuff to keep in mind, on the basic make-up of an argument, and how to effectively argue a point. You're basically getting a free College composition class, in half the time (and without the ultra-lib professor)

 

Parts of an argument- There are three

 

Logos- This is the appeal to logic. Things such as facts, studies, statistics, and all that good stuff. I believe that most 2A supporters tend to neglect this. Anti-groups make themselves appear more "astute" by rattling off statistics. Of course, who sponsers any study is important, and bias should be avoided. As such, avoid articles from the NRA or other groups who have a vested interest, use FBI statistics, things of that nature, or give examples that rely on common sense.

 

Pathos-This is the appeal to emotion. Antis use this one extensively, as we know. We could probably do the same thing, after all, if we can convey the fear one feels when they have no means of protecting themselves in our speeches, that may change minds, and make them more open to listen to the facts. Typically opening with an emotion-based argument, and making an emotional connection to the audience will make them more likely to take what you say seriously.

 

Ethos-Basically your credibility as a speaker, and as an expert on the topic at hand. This extends beyond your words, but also to your body language and how you dress (IE- Don't dress in Camo, or something like that, which will only serve to reinforce negative stereotypes of gun-owners). Practice effective body language, if you're a small business owner, or a doctor, or something like that, bring it up if it will strengthen your argument, work it in there. Ethos also relies on undermining your opposition's credibility (For example, we could point to the numerous examples in the past where gun-control failed to do anything.)

 

A good argument should contain all three. If you stand up there and just rattle-off data, you won't hold the audience's attention. Pathos is really good for establishing a bond with the audience, and getting their attention. Also, I think the best part of Ethos is the non-verbal aspect. Dressing well, not acting like a nut, being calm, collected, but with enough animation to keep the audience's attention, you will really drive your argument home.

 

Anyway, I'm trying to ease some of my guilt at not being able to attend... I suppose if I can't be there, the least I can do is try and help people with their speeches and letters.

 

If there's anything I can do to help anyone with this, let me know.

Thank you. I appreciate seeing a genuine effort to make our positions more palatable, which is quite possibly the greatest deficiency of modern gun owners.

Much appreciated, and I can say that I did hear some of this before in grad school. But it is good to get a refresher.

Thank you. I appreciate seeing a genuine effort to make our positions more palatable, which is quite possibly the greatest deficiency of modern gun owners.

 

I hope more people see this. If a 2A advocate walks in with camo, a NRA hat, and screams "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!" It will feed negative stereotypes, and THAT person is the one that the media will focus on, and they will undermine our argument. We need to detail our Second-Class treatment in NJ, and focus on the data which supports our position.

 

Much appreciated, and I can say that I did hear some of this before in grad school. But it is good to get a refresher.

 

Well, it's all stuff I learned in College Comp II, which is basically focused on presenting, and making arguments. Surprisingly even though my teacher was REALLY liberal, she wasn't anti-gun, because she was convinced by our data. I actually used this methodology and have converted several antis by simply structuring my argument with this.

 

Here's an analogy, Let's say you were debating the existence of God with an Atheist. You can't use the bible as the basis of your argument because you have to understand that your opponent doesn't believe in it, and thus, it holds no weight. Likewise, the argument, "You're infringing upon my Second Amendment Rights" isn't effective with Antis because they do not see the value in the Second Amendment. What IS effective is to use data, and to refute studies that are anti-gun (this can be done by pointing out they are older, or were conducted by anti-gun groups). Counter that with FBI statistics, and examples of decreased crime rates since the AWB expired, or in states that adopted concealed carry.

 

It is also good to point out that if bills such as the 5 round magazine limit pass, they instantly turn millions of NJ citizens into instant criminals without any true crime being committed. I'm pretty sure there are rulings against this in the courts, but I'm not sure how to phrase that phenomenon to research it.

 

You can also argue that by restricting online ammo sales, the state is putting us at risk of price gouging my decreasing competition. This runs contrary to the Federal example of the Sherman Anti-trust acts which sought to break up, and prevent cartels that kept prices artificially high.

 

I would also recommend offering other solutions, They are going to have to come up with SOME solutions and suggestions. Instead of restricting our rights, offer other ways to decrease crime. Tell them to increase funding to mental health facilities, and to come up with programs that prevent at-risk youth from joining gangs. Also encourage stiffer penalties from felonies committed with firearms (IE- Robbery, murder, etc.) and which increase prison terms for anyone caught with BOTH illegal Drugs, AND Firearms.

 

Make it clear the solution is not legislating guns themselves, but rather targeting guns that are used for illicit purposes. This undermines the all-too-common assumption that 2A-advocates defend criminals, something which couldn't be farther from the truth. Make the point that we want criminals punished, but we do not deserve to be punished for their actions, and that truly effective legislation will not be targeted at us, but rather at those who use firearms in crime.

Kaiser,

 

Your time at Rowan is well spent.