Pavle Djokic: Alrighty Nick, let’s discuss probably the most divisive issue in American politics: Gun Control. It has come to my attention that liberals such as yourself are in favor of stricter gun control measures, some of which overstep constitutional bounds. How far do we go? Have we gone too far? I think that rational minds must prevail and stop this insanity known as gun control.

Nick Giorgetti: I agree with you that rational, bipartisan groups must find a solution. The federal government cannot sit idle after countless mass shootings and individual shootings have claimed the lives of Americans–we have a problem. And you’d think after the death of 20 kids in Newtown, Connecticut, legislation would have drastically changed — and it hasn’t. We owe justice to our fellow citizens whose lives have been changed due to gun violence.

Pavle: Legislation did change. In the wake of the tragedy, Obama signed TWENTY-THREE Executive Orders relating to gun control and proposed a further 12 congressional actions. Furthermore, five states passed further gun control restricting the purchase of firearms.

Nick: Legislation has NOT changed. Congress overturned Obama’s executive orders and is continuing to do so. And five of fifty states passing gun legislation is not a statistic to brag about.   

Pavle: Congress has overturned one executive order and it was in order to let the courts decide on the boundaries for background checks. Obama’s regulations were far-reaching and blocked many “mentally ill” people from buying firearms that included those with eating disorders and the like. There is a process for making new laws in the United States and it must be respected. In cases where gun control needs to be implemented, it should follow the same process as all other laws must follow.

Nick: Pavle, Pavle, Pavle. No serious measures have been taken to combat our gun violence. The U.S. needs stricter background checks. And I know you’ll say, “Well, background checks aren’t gonna work.” Well, Pavle, it’s worth trying to prohibit mentally ill people from obtaining firearms. In addition, high capacity magazines should be banned to civilians. Please explain to me why you need 50 rounds to protect yourself from the zombie apocalypse.

Pavle: I agree completely that mentally ill people should in fact be prohibited to buy guns, but there should be more work to control gun violence in areas we can definitively predict like inner-cities.

Stephen Paddock did pass multiple background checks, and he was a 64-year-old multimillionaire who exhibited no warnings that he had any intentions to commit mass murder. More background checks would have done nothing. Furthermore, the vast majority of gun-related homicides take place within the first seven bullets of a magazine, under the commonly but never cited statistic claiming that magazines should be capped at 10 bullets.

Nick: I’m glad you agree mentally ill people should be prohibited from purchasing firearms. In regard to your Stephen Paddock example– we can’t sadly stop all crimes and murders from occurring. But we can still enact stronger background checks to hopefully prevent the mentally ill from carrying out murders. Lastly, Pavle, even if the majority of homicides occur within the first seven bullets of a magazine, we still cannot take the risk of a mentally ill lunatic walking into a school or crowded place and killing scores of people with an extended magazine.  

Pavle: So, on the off-chance that some supposed mentally ill person passes a background check and obtains a very expensive assault rifle and high capacity magazine, we should ban them for all the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners? Going that far, why don’t we ban trucks used in mass killings in Europe, pressure cookers used in the Boston bombings, and household chemicals used to down a plane in Africa earlier this year?

Nick:   Pavle, this is a slippery slope fallacy. You are stating a crazy hypothetical scenario in which the federal government bans high capacity magazines and assault rifles, a potentially harmful right that the U.S. populace possesses. You then go on to state that because trucks and pressure cookers have killed people we should just ban them too? This is simply absurd. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Pavle: Nick, I have no interest in pointing out the countless fallacies that you have already committed thus far in this debate. Instead of pointing out why I am wrong, you simply say it’s absurd. The very fact is that I believe the government has no right banning things left and right. Killers will not stop just because something is illegal. What the government needs to focus on is educating the populace, not making decisions based on misconceptions.

Nick: Mr. Djokic, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the fallacies of one’s opponent in a debate. Moving past this, I do not believe that the U.S. government should ban things left and right. It is a constitutional right of U.S. citizens to own guns and never would I suggest banning guns. All I am suggesting is that our gun violence is out of hand. America is a world leader, but it is struggling with gun-related homicide and mass murders. Perhaps enforcing and enacting stronger background checks and considering banning high-capacity magazines and rifles will help to lessen our crime troubles.  

Pavle: I agree that gun violence is indeed out of hand, yet mass shootings make up a small percentage of firearm deaths. More people die from improper handling of firearms or improper education; these things are what should be focused on. I believe we should look towards Switzerland where instead of mere bans of firearms, gun owners are properly educated on how to handle them.

Nick:  I researched gun death statistics, and according to PBS, there were 372 mass shootings in 2015, killing 475 U.S. citizens. Ergo, I’d say mass shootings are a problem. I also agree with you that improper handling of firearms and improper education are serious problems, too. We can both agree that there are several serious problems pertaining to gun violence and usage in the United States.  

Pavle: Yes, there are many issues, and I think we can also agree that this issue will take many more debates of much longer lengths to fully figure out and solve America’s gun violence problem. I am glad that, although we do not agree, we can see eye to eye. Nick, thank you for sitting down with me. Once again, you are a true even match.