Gun Control/ Assault Weapons Ban/ Concealed-Carry Ban

Round 2! Thank you for this debate Con, This may be the best one I"ve ever done. --Concealed Carry Laws -- " In the research I've done, Concealed-carry holders commit crimes 16% less than police officers. That is how law-abiding they are. [1]" This is completely irrelevant to the debate. We are not arguing over how safe concealed-carry holders are, We are arguing over whether concealed carry increases crime, Which it does. Let"s say you put 10 groups of 2 people in rooms, And give them all knives. Let"s say in 9/10 rooms, Nothing happens, But in one room, Someone gets stabbed. In retrospect, It would still be better to not give these people knives, Even if most of the people are safe, Peaceful, And not accident-prone. "As concealed-carry goes up by the thousands, In the past 20 years, Violent crime in America has decreased by 50%. [2]" Unlike the carefully correlated full study that I have presented as the second source in my first argument, [4] Con simply shows a set of 2 statistics. This is the definition of correlation does not equal causation. We can find tons of other reasons for this change, Such as the aging U. S. Population, [1] and the legalization of abortion, [2] which have both decreased crime. --Gun Laws-- You said this: "I agree on background checks and restrictions on guns, Only law-abiding people should get them, Yes, " And yet you are arguing with me on gun control. Con is contradicting himself here, By arguing against gun restrictions but agreeing with them at the same time. Is he afraid that if he says that he agrees with me that background checks and mental health checks are necessary he will be conceding this point? Because I can assure him that he is not, And I will object to any vote that is given on that basis. For the record, The two things we disagree on are these: 1)I am against concealed carry, He is for it And 2)I am for a ban on semiautomatic rifles, He is not. For the record, The U. K. Does not have a ban on semiautomatic rifles, Although they do have some restrictions. [3] I suggest that for greater clarity we throw this section out of the debate. --Assault Weapons -- "Before I start, There is no official term "assault weapon. " That is a made up term. What guns are in the "assault weapon" category? Automatic guns have actually been banned since the 1930's, So this is an ivalid argument. In addition, Semi-automatic weapons are basically any gun, Like handguns, Pistols, Shotguns, AK-47, AR-15, Etc. So your "assault weapons" are my average gun, Because semi-automatic weapons which you constitute into this category is almost every gun. Therefore, You basically want to ban all guns. " Although it is true that I misphrased, This is nothing short of an incredible leap of logic. Allow me to explain: By "assault weapon", I mean semiautomatic rifle. I apologize for the disparity, But I thought that it was a given. Apparently, I was wrong. However, Saying that I want to ban all guns even though I have explicitly clarified to you in this debate and through private messages that I do not want to ban all guns is just a ridiculous statement taking advantage of a technicality. "There actually is evidence that guns deter crime. According to an unpublished CDC study, [4] there are almost 2. 5 million Defensive Gun Uses per year(DGU's). As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15. 7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else"s life. In addition to that, Another 14. 6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, Let"s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. Since they surveyed 222 participants, The margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4. 8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270, 000 lives are saved by guns, Up to over 500, 000 just counting the "almost certainly people. " If all the "probably" people are right, Then that number goes beyond 800, 000. Moreover, For every firearm homicide, At least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, Then 8-23 lives are saved per death[5]. " This argument is now irrelevant because there is no evidence from this data that implies that assault weapons account largely for these lives saved by guns, Or that the owners of these guns would have been any better off with an assault weapon than a pistol. Since we agree that all guns should not be banned, These statistics are useless. I once again apologize for the disparity in my language. Here are some arguments against semiautomatic rifles: Pragmatically, Due to their faster firing speed, Semiautomatic rifles are much better able to take down a large number of people in a short period of time. This advantage outweighs any advantage (for which I cannot think of any) for which it could be used in home defense over a pistol. Studies confirm this. Louis Klarevas in his book "Rampage Nation" has studied the effects of the 1994 U. S. Ban on semiautomatics. He found that mass killings where 6 or more people were killed decreased by 37% when the ban was instituted, And the number of fatalities decreased by 43%. The ban expired in 2004. When this happened, The mass killing rate skyrocketed to 183% and fatalities also skyrocketed by 239%. Con cannot argue that this could"ve been replaced by another weapon because for one, These were mass killings, Not mass shootings, And secondly, I doubt that doing this with a pistol or a knife would"ve had nearly as much effectiveness. [5] "Most mass shootings, And gun homicides overall, For that fact, Are done with handguns. There are over 2. 5x as much handguns used in mass shootings than any rifle. If we are talking about the number of incidents, Handguns are used 2x as much as rifles. [6]" For one, There seems to be a disparity in our evidence, Because the Mother Jones Analysis points to rifles as the main weapon. My analysis may be better because it accounts for the most recent shootings as well. [6] Secondly, Okay sure, Handguns account for more homicides but I"m sure my opponent can agree that there are many more handguns than rifles in America. I"ve already addressed in the paragraph before this that although there are more pistol killings than rifle killings in America, Rifle killings do contribute to crime and banning them would decrease crime, Which is what we are arguing about. Con seems to consistiently confuse what percentage of crime is done by certain things (which we are not debating about) with would my bans on concealed carry and assault weapons decrease crime (which we are arguing about). --The Second Amendment -- "I would argue concealed-carry is protected by the second amendment, Because the right to protect yourself doesn't just extend to home-defense, But wherever you go in public. " Uh". Source? Explain your reasoning? Where does it say that? Con drops literally all my arguments about Supreme Court rulings and decisions with regards to these subjects and my arguments supporting them. Literally every. Single. One. "The Constitution is still in tact and just because it was written 200 years ago does not question its validity. " But it does! It absolutely does! Rules are up for questioning, That"s why we have rules! Moreover, The constitution was written in a radically different time where a tyrannical government (Britain) did post a threat to American democracy! It was written at a time when the government wasn"t powerful enough to resist a people"s militia, Which it now is! We can"t just blindly follow rules. I have explained that trusting the constitution for it"s own sake is a ridiculous argument in the previous round. "They wrote it knowing that they themselves could go tyrannical. " I ask my opponent: If they were to go tyrannical now, How would a disorganized mass of Americans across the country with guns stand up to the U. S. Military? It"s like saying we need wooden sticks to break metal walls. We don"t! "Just because freedom of speech was made 200 years ago does not mean we should not consider it because the Constitution is too old. Without the second, Their is no first amendment. We have to protect the freedom expressed in the first amendment. " We have gone back on Constitutional amendments before, Like with the 18th amendment, Which was Prohobition. Did we violate free speech then? Why not revise the document? For the record, I am not opposed to the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment. I think, In fact, That our current provisions for the Second Amendment permit my suggestions for legislation. But if it was ruled that it wasn"t, I would like to revise the amendment. -- "I thank my opponent for making good arguments that I could think about and research more. This is probably the hardest argument I have gotten, So props to my opponent for that as well. Thank you for your patience and civility, And if the sources do not go through, I will provide them through a google doc in the comment section, Like armoredcat, My opponent, Did in round one. Now the torch is passed back to you, My friend. " Same to you. You truly are a very impressive debater, And I was blown away by your argument. This is the hardest debate I believe I have done, And I look forward to continuing it. Also, And I do not want to expose your privacy, But per our online discussions previous to this debate, You are a very kind person who has put up with my technical difficulties. --- In conclusion, I have proved that allowing concealed carry is detrimental, And the allowing of semiautomatic rifles is detrimental. Con has dropped my arguments on the Constitution and I have proven that it is not only allowed by the Constitution, But bringing the Constitution is revisable. Back to you. I have added my sources to the original google doc.