Did you know that the largest debate league in the country is debating gun control this month? The NSDA resolution couldn’t be more timely: “Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.”

Debaters are arguing for and against the legality of handguns. How does the evidence speak to you?

Debaters are arguing for and against the legality of handguns. How does the evidence speak to you?

How timely. President Obama is making headlines with Executive Orders for firearms. His reasoning is becoming fairly predictable:

  1. No support from Congress. Therefore, the Executive Actions are justified.
  2. Mentally ill people should not get guns. This has turned out to be the only real change the President proposed.
  3. Government should subsidize “smart gun” technology.

Debaters are doing the same. Last month I published some cards on my initial research on the President’s Executive Orders he outlined. Like a good debater, I allowed my research to guide me.

I have become molded by my findings, and I remain open to more discoveries as I read about the president’s propositions. For now, I have made these conclusions:

  1. Claim of non-support is untrue. The President is missing an opportunity to pull the country together to establish the mandate he already has. He should be boasting bipartisan support for his action, rather than using it to dig into Republicans.
  2. Claim of mental health issue is untrue. Mental Health is a crucially important, but it is fallacious to make the link between mental health and gun control. Science shows no link. Good for the President for funding mental health institutions, but that mandate was already his, as well as supported by conservatives.
  3. Claim of smart gun solution is untrue. Smart Gun technology sounds like a great idea, but it is a “long shot.” Technology does not support the president’s claim. Besides, if we want to see success in the development of the technology, make sure it stays out of the hands of the government.

I know, this won’t convince people who aren’t debaters. They’ll likely get swayed by angry presidential candidates on one side and crying presidents on the other.

For me, I choose the freedom that comes with seeking the truth, as debaters tend to agree.