Tweet
In my political science class today we talked about "Does more gun control = less violence". After our professor gave a short lecture about the history of gun control he ended with "If you are a liberal or Democrat you support gun control and if you are conservative you are supporting easy access to guns"
Then the class was divided into 5 different groups (of about 7 students each) and we were each to discuss a different aspect of gun control and then present out conclusions to the rest of the class.
The 5 questions were:
1. What would be the consequences of a law banning the possession of handguns to a) criminal violence b)accidental injury c)self-defense?
2. How would a ban on handguns be enforced?
3. Would a ban on handguns be more or less effective than a ban on illegal drugs?
4. Have gun control laws been effective in reducing violence?
5. Does the large number of guns available to Americans cause violence, or does violence cause the possession of large numbers of guns?
This class is about 70% male most about 20 years old and the entire class is made of of a good selection of races, black, white, asian, middle eastern and latin.
So I know what you're thinking, but you will be surprised that every group gave answers that were "pro-gun". They all basically said that guns are tools and don't create violence, banning them doesn't work, and the right to own them is guaranteed in our constitution. I was the speaker for group 5 and I said that since our book states there are about 200 million guns owned in the US and about 11,000 deaths a year associated with guns, that if guns caused violence there should be a vastly higher number of deaths and that 11,000 seemed statistically low to me (when compared to the numbers of guns in existence).
The teacher was pretty upset at all the pro-gun statements but he just stated that he didn't agree with our conclusions. After class the kid sitting behind me came up and said he agreed with me 100%.
I have to say I was really surprised by everyone. On other topics we discuss it is obvious that most people in the class have "liberal" ideals. BTW I attend the College of San Mateo.
Then the class was divided into 5 different groups (of about 7 students each) and we were each to discuss a different aspect of gun control and then present out conclusions to the rest of the class.
The 5 questions were:
1. What would be the consequences of a law banning the possession of handguns to a) criminal violence b)accidental injury c)self-defense?
2. How would a ban on handguns be enforced?
3. Would a ban on handguns be more or less effective than a ban on illegal drugs?
4. Have gun control laws been effective in reducing violence?
5. Does the large number of guns available to Americans cause violence, or does violence cause the possession of large numbers of guns?
This class is about 70% male most about 20 years old and the entire class is made of of a good selection of races, black, white, asian, middle eastern and latin.
So I know what you're thinking, but you will be surprised that every group gave answers that were "pro-gun". They all basically said that guns are tools and don't create violence, banning them doesn't work, and the right to own them is guaranteed in our constitution. I was the speaker for group 5 and I said that since our book states there are about 200 million guns owned in the US and about 11,000 deaths a year associated with guns, that if guns caused violence there should be a vastly higher number of deaths and that 11,000 seemed statistically low to me (when compared to the numbers of guns in existence).
The teacher was pretty upset at all the pro-gun statements but he just stated that he didn't agree with our conclusions. After class the kid sitting behind me came up and said he agreed with me 100%.
I have to say I was really surprised by everyone. On other topics we discuss it is obvious that most people in the class have "liberal" ideals. BTW I attend the College of San Mateo.
Comment