On the last day of the 2015 Western Conservative Summit, Fox News and TownHall.com journalist Katie Pavlich debated liberal talk radio show host Mark Levine on gun rights vs. gun control. Pavlich debated the affirmative, for gun rights and Levine the negative, for gun control while John Andrews, Director of the Centennial Institute, moderated the debate.
WCS is a hard place for a liberal to walk into, let alone debate a conservative on a prominent Gop issue, but Levine was a fearless opponent. The two debaters were civil, respectful, and put on a great debate. Katie opened the debate for the affirmative.
“I come from a pro-gun family and I was taught to respect firearms because of their power,” Pavlich said. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Quoting the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights, Pavlich reminded the audience why gun rights exist.
Levine then opened for the affirmative. Apart from a few voices in the audience early on, he was welcomed among the conservatives.
“I am a proud liberal, but I understand we need to talk with each other,” Levine explained. “We stand in our respective silos and talk with only those we agree. Both sides strive to form a more perfect union. We just disagree on the best way to do it.”
Pavlich began the debate, making the point that more often than not gun owners are better trained than police officers because they have to answer in court for every action they make.
Levine responded by stating that not all gun owners in this country are trained. He continued saying gun owners should pass a test before buying guns as young adults do before driving a car.
Body armor was another point discussed. The shooter in the Aurora theatre shooting was wearing body armor. The left wants to ban body armor for all civilians in the hopes that shooters will be less likely to to perform a mass attack if they cannot protect themselves.
“Police officers aren’t the only people who need body armor, private citizens have threats against their lives,” Pavlich responded. “And ordinary citizens who want to wear body armor should be able to.”
A place of common ground was found between the two over background checks. They believe in them and think they are necessary. However, Levine is for universal checks whereas Pavlich believes the current felony check is sufficient.
“States are not efficient in putting felony charges on background checks,” Pavlich explained. “If you want to stop criminals for getting guns maybe you should prosecute them for illegally obtaining them. Under the Obama administration, prosecution of gun violence has fallen 40 percent.”
“Yes, we do have background checks, if you buy from a licensed dealer,” Levine responded. “But you can buy guns on the internet, and find dealers at gun shows who won’t background check.”
The closing arguments were strong from both sides. Pavlich spoke first, citing Harvard and the BBC, both gun control supporters.
“Gun control does not stop crime according to Harvard and BBC,” Pavlich concluded. “It takes an average of 10 minutes for a police to arrive to the sight of a crime. The Newtown shooter killed 26 children in less than 5 minutes. The government does not have a right to make you a victim. Gun rights should be protected instead of implementing gun control.”
Levine ended saying “We aren’t going to arm children or their 70 year-old teachers. Lets not allow military grade drums, suicides, or accidents. There is a reasonable compromise we can reach.”
The post Gun Control vs. Gun Rights – Mark Levine and Katie Pavlich Debate appeared first on Centennial Institute.
