Gun Control Debate-Yinan

This debate was clearly ill-planned. Chaos reigned, and no views could be expressed without shouting and disagreements. None of the four people on the show (including the host) demonstrated any form of professionalism during the debate. I am sad to say that CNN has lost much of my respect.

        First, I will address Piers' point of view. Although his delivery was too tainted by his emotions, he had a valid point. More guns will not result in less violence. No American citizen requires a semi-automatic, much less automatic, gun to "protect themselves", despite the Second Amendment. His British background gave him evidence to support his points, although the gun lobbyist ignored it entirely. Some may question his professionalism during the debate, and I agree with those who say he was behaving in a wrong manner. However, based on previous interviews and debates, we can safely assume that he acts in this fashion due to either his own passionate nature, or the simple fact that CNN pays him to do so. 

      Next, I will make a feeble attempt to understand the gun lobbyist's view. Although his thinking is obviously flawed, and he has a very distorted view on the structure that society resides on, there may be some merit to his argument. He states that atrocious crimes are committed more frequently in locations where gun control laws are more strict. He may be right. For those who are mentally deranged and wish to inflict the most amount of damage as possible, they would choose the path of least resistance. In an area where the citizens do not have the means to defend themselves using firearms, the mentally unstable subject can inflict the most amount of damage over the smallest amount time, meeting little or no resistance along the way. His delivery was sloppy, and for most of the interview, he sounded like a broken record.

       Finally I will examine the last two guests' views as a unit. Their arguments are the most stable, and their delivery was the most polite and professional. They were not overly extreme in their demands, but they were firm in their views. Guns are deadly, but Americans need them to protect themselves. I believe that as a short-term goal, their point-of-view is the most logical way of dealing with violence in America. However, with a long-term goal in mind, Piers' position sounded the most convincing. Converting America's slack gun control laws from it's current free-for-all state to a much safer and rigid Canadian system would solve the issue of gun violence in America.