On Campus Concealed Carry

My final round argument will consist largely of quoting my oppenent and responding directly to the quotations for the sake of organization. "...college campuses are already secure, meaning that there will be no positive impact to the safety of the students." While my opponent does validly point out that a majority of attacks occur off-campus, it should be noted that there is a difference between "no impact" and "a small impact". If there is an amount of safety to be gained and no evidence of a significant risk (I refer again to the college campuses that now allow CHLs and haven't had an increase in violence as a result of that) then based on a cost-benefit analysis, allowing CHLs on campus is the way to go. "there are other means that students can use to insure their safety, including campus and city police officers, other hand-held weapons, friends, etc." First of all regarding the campus and city police, there is a common phrase in the gun community "When seconds count, police are only minutes away." Put more bluntly, police aren't and can't be everywhere all of the time. If a person's life is in danger, it isn't very practical to have to rely on someone who isn't in the same place as you. Second, by "hand-held weapons" I have to assume my opponent is referring to tasers or pepper spray. The primary problem with most "non-lethal" weapons is that it's a bit of a guess as to whether or not they will completely stop an assailant. Tasers have been resisted after a mere few seconds in police tests and in Arizona in 2007, of the 150+ uses of tasers by police officers, they failed to subdue the assailant once in every 5 instances. Also, the stronger police issue pepper spray is illegal and common citizens are left with a weaker version that can be resisted outright or protected against by simple glasses. A gun however, is much more likely to stop a person if they are hit and many times prevents an assault before the assailant can do any harm. "Finally, using guns will not prevent any loss of life in 'self-defense.'" That is downright not true. http://www.pulpless.com... That is a breakdown of a 1994 Florida State University study of real life scenarios in which guns were used in self-defense. The statistics from that link directly contradict my opponent's quotation from David Hemenway that "[g]un use in self-defense is rare,". While my opponent's quote is a bare assertion, my link shows that "the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year". I would definitely consider that to be a significant impact. "in the city of Chicago, which does not permit concealed carry, the violent crime index per 100,000 people was 1,195.7 (http://www.disastercenter.com.........) , while in Dallas, the index per 100,000 people was 1,333.2" If my opponent expands to a 3 city comparison, D.C. which also has a history of strict gun laws had a violent crime index per 100,000 people in 2005 (the same year as my opponent's stats) of 1,459. If you add another loose gun law city like Phoenix, you see a violent crime index per 100,000 people of 729.4. As you can see, there isn't really a pattern showing that more guns equate to more violence. In fact the stats seem to indicate the opposite. "First, he says that he cannot reject my claim because I did not cite the study. This is false because he could have easily researched the position and tried to provide counter-statistics." I would remind my opponent and readers that it is his responsibility, not mine, to provide sources for his claims. "...students with guns were more likely than students without guns to have alcohol-related problems, such as getting into fights attributed to drinking alcohol and being arrested for drinking while intoxicated." While I can't read the article that my opponent refrences (his link doesn't go to a specific study) the lack of alcohol induced gun violence among college gun owners indicates that this is an inconsequential statistic that really doesn't provide a reason not to allow more college campuses to allow CHLs. "According to that same study, only 1/2 of college gun owners said that they had guns for protection, meaning that the rest use the guns for nefarious purposes." This is probably the most dishonest assertion in my oppenent's argument. Con assumes that there are no other reasons for college students to own guns. He clearly forgets about weapons owned for hunting, target shooting, and school competition teams. Those other uses, particularly hunting, account for very, very large reasons to own a firearm. "...if these are risk-prone criminals, then CCW will pose a security threat and there is no reason to affirm." As has been argued in the past, criminals commit crime. They won't obey laws against violent attacks or murder, so why would they obey laws about where you can bring a gun? The reason to affirm is that the only group that will increase in number of weapons carried are those that would normally not do so because they follow the law. "He also claims that these students would break the law anyways. While this is true, it is more difficult and more expensive for them to gain access to guns currently than it would be if CCW were permitted because gun companies would begin targeting college-aged children as buyers. This would allow criminals to purchase guns more easily than they currently can, making the prevalence of dangerous weapons on campus more likely." 1) I don't know what Con means by "college-aged CHILDREN" but only 21 year old adults are legally allowed to have a CHL. 2) If a company discovers that there is a greatly increased demand for a product, they are more likely to increase the price than decrease it. Since most people can afford a small, concealable handgun, companies would want to raise the price of said weapons in order to bring in a greater profit. 3) As I've said, we aren't talking about who get guns, only where they can be taken so I don't know how guns are more difficult to obtain than they would be. "...it explicitly demonstrates that the people do not wish to have guns because they fear for their safety; guns would increase on campus as a result of CCW. He then refutes my evidence with anecdotal evidence that can neither be verified nor proven false. Prefer my hard evidence over his anecdotal evidence because he there is no proof that his statement is true, while mine is actually backed by statistics." His study refers only to how people feel about an increase in weapons in peoples' communities. Since there are already the same amount of guns in the cities where these campuses are located as there would be if CHLs on campus were available, the statistic IS irrelevant. I wouldn't consider my opponent's assertion that guns cause lessened social activity backed by statistics because he hasn't shown that there is a precedent for guns reducing sociability in the real world. "...this proves that crime is not prevalent on campus, so CCW are not even necessary in today's college societies." While my opponent is correct in saying that the large, sensationalized shooting rampages are not common, they still happen and are avoidable. Also, what my opponent lables as crime being "not prevalent on campus" is his subjective view. What I consider to be an acceptable level of crime and what he believes is acceptable are two different things. I believe there is crime that could be reduced by allowing CHLs and as I have shown, they don't statistically increase danger. Con claims that I said "CHL holders 'never commit crimes on campus.'" I don't believe I ever made that claim and I would appreciate it if my opponent would only put quotes around things I actually said. I have shown how CHLs do not increase crime and guns are used in self defense often. Therefore, there is more benefit than risk when allowing CHLs on a college campus.