On Campus Concealed Carry

Rebuttal to Contention 1: My opponent argues that CCWs (concealed carry weapons) on campus are unnecessary because campuses are statistically safer (on average) than other areas of the country. The problem with that reasoning is that while there is less crime, that doesn't mean that crime on campus doesn't exist. Students who are likely to be attacked and become victims of crime are also those least likely to be able to defend themselves, which includes women and people with physical disabilities. The best way for them to equalize their chances of protecting themselves is for them to be allowed to carry concealed. My opponent also makes the argument that the lower crime rates on a college campus indicates that concealed carry laws increase crime. Not only is that assuming that correlation implies causation, it's not even representative of the facts. If you look at the states where concealed carry is new or non-existent (Illinois is currently the only state without concealed carry) compared to states with more loose carry laws, there is no definite difference between them (http://www.disastercenter.com...). In fact, looking at college campuses where concealed carry is allowed, there has been no significant increase in crime since the colleges started allowing students to carry. Therefore, based on statistics, there is no reason to believe that adding concealed carry to college campuses would negatively impact student life. Rebuttal to Contention 2: My opponent claims that "Students who own guns are more likely to be mentally unstable". I don't know where my opponent gets that from but I've never seen any indication that that's true. Also, we are not debating who should own guns, only whether it should be legal to take them on a college campus. My opponent then cites two studies mentioned in a Brady Campaign article about the behavior of students with guns. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the studies mentioned by my opponent and I would appreciate it if he could post a link directly to the studies or if he could say where and under what name the studies are listed. My opponent then goes on to talk about how unstable and risk prone gun owners are. Since I couldn't find the studies con got these claims from, I have no reason to believe them. Also, if someone is prone to break the law, why would they care if a law is passed allowing concealed carry? They would carry regardless of what the law says. Rebuttal to Contention 3: The study my oppenent referrences asked whether or not people would feel safer if more people owned guns. The debate isn't over where or not more people should own guns, it's about where people who already own guns should be able to take them. Therefore the study really has no relevance in this debate. Additionally, my opponent's claim that allowing students to carry concealed will foster an anti-social fearful environment is unsubstantiated by off-campus society, where people in states with loose carry laws are no less social than people in states with strict gun laws. In fact, the gun shows that I have been to (where EVERYONE is packing) are some of the most social places I've been. Rebuttal to Contention 4: In my opponent's final point, he claims that having multiple people having guns will cause a shooting incident to become confusing to students and the police. I have yet to come across a similar shooting incident where police couldn't differentiate between victim and assailant. In fact during the UT tower shooting, students armed with their own weapons were able to pin the shooter in the tower until police could arrive and take over. At no point was there confusion over who the police needed to deal with and the students were able to help take control of a very dangerous situation. Con also says that police could potentially shoot an innocent CHL holder. While it is a slight possibility (I say slight because as I said before, there's no history of it happening) it's a choice that the CHL holder makes. Just as a police officer makes the choice to put himself in danger by accepting the job, a CHL holder makes the concious decision to accept the risk that comes along with it. Also my opponent says, "This scenario demonstrates the fact that increasing the number of guns on campus would generate confusion and could cause police officers to threaten even the innocent gun-wielders simply because it would be impossible to identify the actual threat." Hypothetical situations in no way constitute evidence and shouldn't be relied upon to demonstrate "facts" that don't actually have any evidence to back them up. "Second, this is empirically false as there have been over 1,400 cases in the state of Florida alone in which CCW permit holders have conducted violent felonies." I never said that CHL holders never commit crimes since that's not what this debate is about. I said that CHLs have not added to the crime committed on campuses that allow them. "Tucson, Arizona, October 29, 2002. Robert Flores, Jr. shot and killed three professors, and then himself, in a rampage at the University of Arizona School of Nursing, where he was a failing student. Reportedly, he had told classmates about a year before that he had obtained a CCW permit." If I'm not mistaken, the University of Arizona did not allow students to carry concealed at the time. So how exactly did CHLs being banned on campus keep him from shooting his professors? As for my opponent's final rebuttal, just because not veryone can carry to protect themselves doesn't mean that nobody should be able to.