Gun control, privacy and refugees fuel debate

By Kannon Michaels

Friday, Jan. 1, 2016 | 2 a.m.

What’s on our teenagers’ minds? In its 59th year, the Las Vegas Sun Youth Forum is intended to answer just that question. The annual gathering, which this year attracted about 1,000 students, provides an opportunity for public high school juniors and seniors to discuss issues of the day in groups of 40 or so students moderated by a community leader. Each group selected one of its participants to reflect on the experience. This column is written by Kannon Michaels, a senior at Durango High School. Publisher and Editor Brian Greenspun is turning over his “Where I Stand” column to these young adults, who have something to say.

In meeting with some of the brightest juniors and seniors from Las Vegas’ public high schools, passions increased as we debated some of the biggest questions facing the American public. And with the 2016 presidential race heating up, many participants had chosen a candidate to support and used the candidate’s views to support their own. Many of us will be eligible to vote in the upcoming election.

So what got many of us emotional and encouraged active debate? Perhaps the most-debated subject was whether the United States should allow Syrian refugees to enter the country. Opinions were nearly evenly divided. A large majority had decided Syrian refugees should not be allowed into the country, citing the fact that the overwhelming number of homeless citizens (more than 7,000 in Las Vegas alone) represented a problem that should be resolved before others are allowed to enter the country. Counterarguments aimed to strike the participants in their hearts: “The refugees are people, too, flesh and bone, and they should not be left to suffer and fend for themselves.”

The second-most-passionate debate was about gun control and whether American citizens have become too dependent on firearms. There were references to countries with the strictest gun control, such as Japan, where only members of the military and police are permitted to possess firearms, leading to low numbers of gun-related crimes. Many in our room reached for the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms, as the single qualifier as to why firearms should be allowed for purchase. Many rebuked this by stating that when the 2nd Amendment was created, the nation had just overthrown a tyrannical rule, making the circumstances different from those of the present day. The final decision was that the right to bear arms exists for a reason, and it should not be revoked.

The opening question was one of the most debatable topics, in light of recent events in Paris: Is the United States doing enough to protect itself from terrorist threats, and is the monitoring of mobile devices acceptable in such circumstances? On this issue many facts and policies were presented, such as the Patriot Act, which was adopted about a month after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. It allows government to monitor phone calls and text messages as well as social media in the hunt for potential terrorists. Many participants consider the monitoring of phone conversations a violation of privacy, while many others stated, “if (we) have nothing to hide then why should it matter?” A few attempted to meet in the middle by stating the monitoring of social media should be allowed, but delving into text messages and listening to phone calls was too much an invasion of privacy. The majority decided the government should be allowed to monitor citizens in some form.

The day’s debates stemmed from researched facts to back the opinions of each participant, yet everybody left with respect and understanding of their fellow debaters. There will never be a definitive solution for these problems as long as people are allowed the wonderful things that we call opinions.