Revisiting Virginia Tech: An argument about arms

"States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and, If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly." I showed this because it tells that a concealed carry law reduces violence. I would like to mention that my stance follows the Negative (Con) resolution; so, you've just agreed that Negative should be voted for. I also enjoy this debate, and hope that we may one day debate again. (I hate Michael Moore) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The reason I argue stricter gun control is to protect citizens because if stricter testing would be done, psychosis or previous crimes could be detected and preventing in the purchasing of a gun. And, I would like to argue that it does directly influence the purchase of guns on the black markets." "Then, again, we are in total agreement. I am all for the regulation of weapons, of course. I also am in favor of background checks and waiting periods. Believe me, I do not want weapons in the wrong hands -- namely, people who have PROVEN that they cannot be trusted to own a firearm." I completely agree with you on the above statement; although further down the paragraph you say: "My CENTRAL problem is that these bans end up hurting the average citizen who would not use them for nefarious purposes." If the Negative plan is followed, no average citizens will be endangered (presuming they have a crime free history and have clean mental health). If the Negative plan would be implemented, VT would be have not happened; not now or not this soon. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Constitution was made as a living document; intended for change. The Framers understood that time would change (Which explains the vagueness of the Constitution). It should be understood that the Constitution is a guideline for our nation, but meant to be changed once a part becomes outdated. On the subject of your argument on the Constitution of the United States, I'd like to ask you what exactly gun control breaks. It does not break any Amendment, and in your speech you only say that is opposes the constitution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arizona Applicants must qualify through a AZPOST certified firearms instructor approved by the CWPU (Certificate of Firearms Proficiency). The instructor will provide the applicant with an application that must be filled out and submitted to the CWPU. This shows that Arizona's concealed gun policy requires testing and forms before a permit for the carrying of a concealed firearm is permitted. In California no such testing exists. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You say that gun shows are not where the bulk of homicide-related weapons originate, but I'd like to say that they are near equal in some areas of the United States. (Columbine shooters' weapons purchased at a gun show). The true thing that needs to be examined is stronger testing in the process of acquiring a gun; criminal and psychological testing. You have already stated that you agree with my plan to increase testing as a form of gun control (We basically are arguing the same thing!) although, this proves the Negative (Con) case. This means that the case should automatically be awarded to Neg. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the good debate. I look forward to any future debates we may have, and hope that you might contact me to talk again one day; you have my information.