I headed into my second period history class, where the substitute announced that we would be participating in an open debate regarding March For Our Lives.
I don't believe you.
She divided the class into three stances: neutral, pro MFOL, and anti MFOL. I decided to join the anti MFOL perspective, along with my friend Mateo and a few other students. The majority of the class placed themselves in the pro MFOL side, while the rest remained neutral.
A Gradual Shift in General Perspective
Guns should be banned! They kill people.
My friend Mateo and I initiated the debate by mentioning the second amendment and utilizing the constitution to advocate for gun rights. Many students on the pro MFOL side believed that the government would have no interest in taking guns away from citizens.
Concluding the Debate
Mateo and I proceeded to debate using statistics, such as the fact that Detroit has some of the highest gun violence AND gun control rates in the US, therefore disproving the pro MFOL debate that gun control=less gun violence. Kaitlyn Durant, the rep for pro MFOL, denied this evidence.
Detroit is an example of why gun control only increases gun violence.
Law-abiding citizens can't defend themselves against criminals with gun control.
Mateo and I moved onto other opponents. A classmate named Emily believed that if guns were banned, the Majory Stoneman shooting wouldn't have happened. I debated that the shooter would have found a way to illegally purchase a gun because of his drive to commit illegal acts in the first place. She moved onto the anti MFOL side.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Eventually, Mateo and I managed to get the entire class on our side, save for Kaitlyn, due to our evidence cited from sources like the CDC and FBI. I realized that my peers were able to utilize information and make up their own mind, therefore capable of individual thought.