Each side did an excellent job of presenting their case. I believe the con side did a more effective job of presenting their case and what stuck to me was "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Like they said before its not that they want the law to be totally abolished but they wanted it to be less broad and more defined and set in stone. Trayvon Martin was a hot topic in the debate and we understand that people are allowed to carry guns and if they do feel threatened where is it okay to use it? At the mall? At home? Thats where the law becomes unclear. I felt the pro side used examples that were not specifically geared to the stand your law debate and it was more about the right to carry and have firearms. What stood out to me from there debate was the statistics they used that said the US had 12%? less crime because we have a gun law allowing people to carry firearms compared to that of Canada. Overall, I think the con side won the argument.
stand your ground law debate
TrackBack URL: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/186393