Outrageous school assignment - please help this child

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LWGN

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
173
There is a question up on Yahoo! Answers by a kid who says he needs to write a persuasive essay on why guns should be illegal, and he is asking for help.

Anyone interested in helping him see this assignment in a different light should visit

http://tinyurl.com/p4en9p

I did what I could, but I'm sure there are more persuasive folks here who could do a better job.
 
ok ok I got this:just try to think like hitler, stalin mo cho? and such there point of view,they loved gun control... (why guns should be illegal,so those with guns can march others off to death camps ,with out resistance )...
 
I am a 'level 7 top contributor there' so I threw in my voice, hopefully that stamp will carry a little bit of weight.

I'd suggest not posting answers to this if you aren't highly rated, all the kid will do is see too much stuff to read.

What you CAN do is register and then give my answer and other answers that support gun freedom a thumbs up.

Seeing 5-10 pro gun answers with 20 thumbs up will hopefully make a big impression, and it would be better than 20-30 pro gun answers with a handful of thumbs up and a handful of thumbs down


Guns should be illegal, makes life safer for criminals.

Guns should be illegal, it makes it easier for GOVERMENTS to commit GENOCIDE against it's own people. Examples of this are:

Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917 Genocide against the Armenians, killed approximately 1.2 MILLION after banning guns from them

Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe 1933-1945 Genocide against jews, killing 20 million of them, outlawed jewish ownership of guns in 1926 with article 59 &182

Guatemala 1960-1981 Genocide against Mayan indians, 150,000 killed. Banned guns, and even some sharp tools, in 1947 (decree 386), began confiscation in 1964 (decree 283)

Uganda 1971-1979 Genocide against opposition tribes who were christians, killed 300,000. Thanks to firearms ordinace 1955 and firearms act 1970 the goverment first registered the guns, then implemented warrantless searches and confiscations.

Rwanda 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi tribal people, killed 800,000 some estimates state 1 million. Decree-law No 12, 1979 required registration with a jutificaiton of need (all tutsi people were of course denied) all concealable guns were outlawed and confiscation powers enacted.


This doesn't count the 20 million political opponents the Soviets rounded up and killed after first removing guns, nor the 2 million pollitical opponents the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia killed after removing guns, nor the combined 40 millon the Chinese National government then the Chinese Red goverment killed...again, as each group got in power they stripped the guns from anyone not previously affiliated with their brand of government...then killed millions.


Hey, there are a bunch of dirty backwards ethnic groups still clinging to some dirty villages all over this planet. We need to take their guns away so we can more easily wipe them from the face of the earth. (note, this is sarcasm)

The ONLY justificaiton for making guns ILLEGAL is to make GENOCIDE easier.

The fact that this also makes life for criminals safer is just a side-benifit
 
Akodo, I too congratulate on an excellent post and well done research. With your implied permission, I will print out your post and use it with my arguments with my liberal gun hating ''friends.'' :)
 
akodo, you hit the nail on the head, and posted exactly what I would have, along the lines of....

"About the only upside to so-called 'gun-control' is from the perspective of genocidal dictators, as it helps facilitate their control and genocides."
 
Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe 1933-1945 Genocide against jews, killing 20 million of them, outlawed jewish ownership of guns in 1926 with article 59 &182
Click to expand...

This is an often misquoted fact.

The 1928 laws were not put in place by the Nazis, the Nazi party was not in power at the time. Nor was it put in place to disarm Jews in particular.

In fact a lot of the reasoning for the 1928 law was to keep from arming the Nazi's themselves, among other opposition parties.

Now, once in power Hitler passed many gun control laws in 1938, disallowing gun ownership for "enemies of the state".

Gun laws under Hitler were, surprisingly, more lax than post WWI.

After WWI the German law passed in 1919 simply stated:

All firearms, as well as all kinds
of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately.
Click to expand...

5 years in prison and 100,000 mark fine was the penalty. That was later relaxed in passing the 1928 laws, which allowed for some hunting type firearm ownership.

Not exactly on topic here I know but when discussing historical gun laws it's always tempting to go to the "Nazi and Hitler" stuff for extremes, but it's not entirely accurate.

A great piece of research on the topic from Stephen Halbrook can be found here:

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf
 
I have no problem with what the teacher is making the student write about.


My most favorite professor (and most effective) would always make me write a persuasive piece that was contrary to the position he knew I already held. For instance: I support the death penalty, so I had to write on why it should be abolished.

I could see him making me write something like this. The moral of the story: sometimes you have to do things you don't like, or disagree with, and you have to be good at it.
 
Anyone with a strong grasp of a subject matter should be able to effectively argue both sides of a position, not just the "winning argument" or the position they personally believe in.

However, in order to be fair, the teacher should require some portion of the class to argue pro-gun and the remaining portion to argue anti-gun. An even better assignment would be to require the students to argue the opposite side after writing the first paper. If everyone in the class has to argue anti-gun then I would see that as the teacher attempting to indoctrinate the students with her/his personal belief system.
 
However, in order to be fair, the teacher should require some portion of the class to argue pro-gun and the remaining portion to argue anti-gun. An even better assignment would be to require the students to argue the opposite side after writing the first paper.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

If everyone has to argue anti-gun then I would see that as the teacher attempting to indoctrinate the students with her/his personal belief system.
Click to expand...

And that would NOT be acceptable, and should be brought up with the principal/school board.
 
I would say DEBATE...
Since I grew up in a one sided system (they taught shooting and religion classes on the same day) I know how stupid people can get if you think of voicing ANY opinion that wasn't more 'Radical' or farther right wing than the last guy.

Any voice of moderation was labeled a 'Herotic' and brow beaten by virtually all the school...

Now that I'm 50, wiser, and able to defend myself, I appreciate a good debate about whatever...

This may very well be a 'Pro' and 'Con' assignment, and you are jumping on the kid for doing exactly what his assignment is...

Anyone with any LOGICAL QUALITIES at all would further investigate the situation...
And try to help the kid with his project/schoolwork.

Personally, I feel much safer with my guns knowing the religion Nazis are out there on the march!
The 'Anti-Gun' bunch doesn't bother me, since they are NOT ARMED!
 
If the kid HAS to write in favor of gun control, he could use subversion by pretending to side with genocidal ststist regimes like the Nazis and argue that guns in private hands make the elimination of undesirable non-arian races more difficult.
 
LWGN said:
There is a question up on Yahoo! Answers by a kid who says he needs to write a persuasive essay on why guns should be illegal, and he is asking for help.

Anyone interested in helping him see this assignment in a different light should visit

http://tinyurl.com/p4en9p

I did what I could, but I'm sure there are more persuasive folks here who could do a better job.
Click to expand...

ZoneAlarm (my firewall) warns me that this site is a known SpyWare distributor.
 
ZoneAlarm (my firewall) warns me that this site is a known SpyWare distributor
Click to expand...

Tinyurl.com is just a redirection website. Since tinyurl can send you anywhere and you have no idea where it is going to send you before it does, zonealarm is telling you this out of an "abundance of caution". There is noting sleezy about TinyURL.com itself, but it can be misued just like any tool (more info; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinyurl).

The URL it redirects you to in this case is:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...pADbeLWvbnpKI1FIjMryMmBn5DzG_pkPUStZOUZNgcMUy

Answers.yahoo.com is safe, so don't worry, or worry and just follow the above link instead.
 
I'd start by saying;
The argument to ban weapons from the masses is not new. This is a century old argument from the ban on peasants owning swords in medevil Europe to the creation of martial arts and the innovation of turning farm tools into lethal weapons in Japan...
Remember, if there were no "guns" we'd be arguing about sword and knife control.
 
If indeed this teacher only wants the side that supports the teacher's opinion, add that to the other "only liberal opinions wanted" slant our education system has. And the product they are putting out is not getting a bit better in my area, either.
 
I don't know about a teacher forcing me to write an essay on while guns should be illegal. Might as well write an essay on why cars should be illegal, far more people die on the highways after all. Heck, I could make up a sports car ban modeled on the AWB, with almost identical reasoning.

Sports cars should be banned because they encourage speeding which causes wrecks. Why would anyone need that much HP? Of course, I'd make that argument after a big pileup on the Interstate, those sort of arguments work better after a tragedy.
 
Guns should be illegal for exactly the same reasons the other amendments to the Bill of Rights should be illegal...........you know free speech, freedom of religion, etc
 
If the teacher actually believed the thesis, I would just write a paper filled with emotional appeals and rhetoric to blow smoke up their arse. It's worked wonders for my grades in the past.
 
If you wanna hit below the belt

Write this to the teacher:

According to the book Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Kleck, Gary: Penguin Press 1995) approximately 16,000 girls each year use a gun to defend themselves from rape. A thesis explaining why guns should be legal would only be persuasive if we want these girls to be rape victims instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Gun safety in grade school why vs why not
2 3
Replies
56
Views
1K
MrPeter
M
T
  • Locked
Help with a question please
Replies
7
Views
406
Essex County
E
T
  • Locked
PSA: Writing pro-gun letters, school reports, etc.
Replies
2
Views
343
Billy_H
B
C
  • Locked
MT- Student cited for turning gun in at school
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Amish_Bill
A
2
  • Locked
Policy Issue of gun control
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
george_co
G
Back
Top