The best of BC’s Dems vs Republicans gun control debate

“Two years ago I was walking around Dorchester where I was held at gunpoint with an illegal firearm.

“It was brought in here from New Hampshire by someone who wanted to protect his family, but fell into the hands of his kid who went around the local neighborhood to rob someone who was walking around.”

This dangerous experience was described by Senior James Cody.

James served as a representative for the College Democrats during a UGBC-sponsored debate between College Dems and Republicans on the Second Amendment.

From Columbine to Sandy Hook, Charleston to Tucson, and Fort Hood to Umpqua Community College, gun violence has only escalated over the last decade. Consequently, gun control has become a very controversial, and widely-recognized issues in American politics.

During the debate, I was not only witness to the positions of the organizations, but their relationship as opposing political groups on campus.

Representing the Democrats of Boston College were Senior James Cody and Junior Emma Harris. For the Republicans, it was senior Michael Crupi and sophomore Mariella Rutigliano.

The Democrats had the floor first, in which they explained some key facts to gun violence. 

James said: “This is a unique problem for America. Every eight days there is a mass shooting in America. 

“There’s a very select minority in Congress that are opposed to taking measures against a pretty senseless issue, blocking it in the senate and blocking it in the house … there’s no reason for that .. no one’s taking away your guns.”

The Republicans were quick to jump on this point by expanding their own view on the issue. 

Michael countered and said: “We support reasonable restrictions on guns. The gun debate is a lot more nuanced than people from people on both sides like to make it out to be.”

He then pivoted his argument to focus on the lack of connection between gun laws and perceived gun violence, and said: “Vermont has the lowest murder rate in the country. They have some of the loosest gun laws. They make Texas look like a Communist country.”

In a chance to rebut, the Democrats directed their argument towards the unnecessary amount of ammunition that can be legally obtained in many states.

James said: “You have no reason to buy 33 bullets and eight rounds of ammunition, there’s no self-defense background for that.” 

At this point, the moderator had not had the chance to ask a question – tensions were already high. 

The first question the moderator posed was in regards to the accessibility of weapons, in which he gave the example of buying guns in a Walmart in North Carolina.

Michael said: “We object to that. What we find necessary is a background check for anyone who is buying a gun.”

James responded: “We are in agreement there, background checks are good. Unfortunately, during that two or three days when that background check hasn’t been done, since they are often backlogged, the gun purchase still goes ahead as scheduled, as we saw with Dylan Roof in South Carolina.”

21-year-old Dylann Roof was recently convicted of killing nine black churchgoers during a Bible study in Charleston.

Responding the accessibility to guns, Mariella said: “Guns are in every movie, in every song, they are part of popular culture. Toy guns are made for children. They recognize it is dangerous.”

The debate then moved towards its last segment, which was a “crossfire” period in which each side could go back and forth asking questions and providing responses for several minutes.

When asked again about background checks, Cody gave his personal example of how lenient gun laws have affected his life.

Michael responded: “People use guns to defend themselves and others. Women, if there house is broken into might be raped and killed, and they would use a gun to defend themselves.” 

The teams then gave their closing remarks. 

James aid: “Weapon of war have no place in our communities.”

“There’s no reason to have [military grade weapons] unless you have a Call of Duty fetish,” he jokingly added.

Mariella concluded: “Background checks should be based on the fact that states are airing all credible information with the federal  government and the FBI.”