Question: Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?

Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. To start out carrying a concealed handgun in public is permitted in all 50 states as of 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation. Some states require gun owners to obtain permits while others have "unrestricted carry" and do not require permits. Proponents of concealed carry say that criminals are less likely to attack someone they believe to be armed. They cite the 2nd Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms," and argue that most adults who legally carry a concealed gun are law-abiding and do not misuse their firearms. Opponents of concealed carry argue that increased gun ownership leads to more gun crime and unintended gun injuries. They contend that concealed handguns increase the chances of arguments becoming lethal, and that society would be safer with fewer guns on the street, not more. The only state/district in the USA that prohibits carrying and concealing firearms (Washington DC) has more than double the highest violent crime rate in the US. This does not include American Samoa and the north Mariana islands. SOURCES:/ http://www.usacarry.com... https://www.census.gov...

Right to carry arms I, being the pro,am going to affirm the resolution and prove why people should be allowed to carry arms. I will ask that voters cast their vote in this round based on who debates the resolution better and not based on your own personal decisions. Keep in mind that I have no strong views on either side, but want to practise my debating skills. Thanks! In this debate, I am going to prove to you why adult individuals should have the right to carry a concealed handgun. On to my case - I wish to offer 2 points in this round to show that the decision to make carrying arms in the US a legal right was a good one. Firstly, Criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed. The deterrent effect of concealed carry benefits the individual carrying a handgun as well as the general public because criminals never know who is armed. With the right to carry arms in place, the general public can move around the country without having to worry about criminals, and areas that generally contain a lot of people who commit crimes. This is further proved by the fact that, according to a study by Dr. John Lott, "shall-issue" laws have reduced homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1570 murders, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992. These figures may seem insignificant at first, but when you're part of one the 1,570 families who lost someone they loved, it suddenly matters a WHOLE lot more. Secondly, One of the arguments against giving the right to carry arms to adults is that the public isn't ready to handle the responsibility of a gun, and that they might take to shooting and use the tool made for self-defence to harm other innocent civilians, but, most of the adults who own concealed handguns are law abiding. This is proved by the fact that according to a report by engineering statistician William Sturdevant published on the Texas Concealed Handgun Association website, the general public is now 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses, and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses, in comparison to before. This, therefore, refutes any argument about the public not being able to handle the responsibilities of a gun. I now give the (online)stage to my opponent, and wish him/her good luck.

Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. I see what you're saying, but even if they don't have violence related felonies, they could still do damage. They could use that concealed fire arm that they carry, to force someone to do something, to scare someone or even get carried away with that power. Sure criminals might be less likely to attack the person with the gun, if they knew it was there, and even if they don't know that it's there they might take it from the gun owner. And if the gun owner actually got to the point where he had to use it, most likely it would go wrong. Police take weeks, maybe even months to train with their guns, while gun owners usually train for a day or two. Also what would happen if that gun went off accidentally? Someone or some people could be seriously injured or worse killed. Leave the gun handling to the professionals. This is why I believe that Adults, without violence related felonies, should not have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Sources: http://concealedcampus.org...

Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. There are an infinite amount of scenarios that could go wrong. Just because something can go wrong does not mean that it will. You can not say that something should not happen simply because it could go wrong, unless there is proof that it will go wrong more times than not, which is not the case. 30-34% (70-80 million people) of adult Americans in the USA admitted to owning and regularly carrying a gun at some point. 4,346 murders were committed with a legally owned firearm in 2010. .0054% of the murders were committed by legal gun owners That is not anywhere close to a problem. That is like saying gasoline should be controlled and only kept available to certain qualified people because there are arsonists that will uses the gasoline to start fires potentially killing people. Qualified citizens having guns is not just a right but the opposite of a problem. Taking away the right to keep and bear arms will only cause more crimes to be committed. People will start illegally importing guns at much more of a vast rate and continue selling them to everyone including murderers or people who should not own guns. Statistics show that when gun control is implemented violent crimes increase. Example: Washington DC Sources: http://gunvictimsaction.org... http://www.justfacts.com...

Right to carry arms Being Side Con, I wish to counter my opponent"s claim that private citizens should be allowed to carry firearms. I concur with my opponent"s criterion for judging this debate and ask all voters to not consider any outside information not explicitly brought up in the debate or the sources. That being said, Side Con"s three contentions are as follows: 1. Concealed firearm use leads to lethal violent crime. 2. Concealed firearms easily find their way into the hands of convicted felons. 3. Concealed firearms are not adequate self-defense. Contention 1: Concealed firearms lead to lethal violent crime. The NRA loves telling the public stories of heroic storeowners hiding guns in their desks, successfully taking down thieves and various other assailants with lethal or non-lethal blows. Concealed firearms are thus portrayed as saviors. The NRA, however, does not tell every story. Meet Philip Davis, an Alabama police officer on duty on December 3rd, 2009. Davis pulls over pharmacist Bart Johnson for speeding. As Davis gave Johnson his ticket, Johnson "fired one shot" (1) from a concealed firearm, killing Davis instantly. Johnson had "obtained a concealed weapons permit in 2007," a permit he had renewed in 2009. Davis is one of 516 people killed by individuals with concealed weapons, weapons legally concealed (2). Looking at an even broader scale, we find an alarming amount of violence arising from handgun use. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, handguns were the weapons used in 70% to 80% of all homicides committed from 1993 to 2011 (3). Using the lower number, 70%, we can therefore estimate criminals killed 148,676 people with handguns. And this does not include non-lethal shootings, nor the violence of the past year. Considering the weapons themselves, we find a very dangerous prospect: handguns are exceedingly easy to use. This is not to say a knife or a baseball bat cannot be deadly, but a semi-automatic handgun has a greater range and ease of use than either. All one needs to do is pull back a safety and pull the trigger repeatedly. Furthermore, the clip size of handguns can lead to multiple deaths in mere seconds. An AR-24 Armalite 9mm pistol has a 15 magazine; assuming the gun-wielder is a poor marksman, needing two shots to kill someone, he/she could still take out 7 people (4). So how does this link to the resolution? Quite simply, as useful as concealed firearms seem for self-defense, they are definitely used for criminal, homicidal purposes. They are a threat to public safety. And though some lives have been saved by handguns, just as many, if not more, have been lost. Contention 2: Concealed firearms easily find their way into the hands of convicted felons. Most would not have a problem with law-abiding citizens owning a concealed handgun. Yet, often times, the handgun user is NOT a law-abiding citizen, but a convicted criminal regaining his/her gun rights. Several states, such as Washington and Cleveland, allow released felons to regain their gun rights as long as minimal requirements have been met. Since 1995, 3,300 convicted felons in Washington have regained their gun rights (5). 13% of these felons have engaged in further criminal activity with these firearms including first-degree murder, drive-by-shootings, and child rape. The process barring these individuals from acquiring firearms is atrocious. Aside from those felons incarcerated for first-degree murder and other such crimes, "judges have no discretion to reject petitions" (5) for criminals regaining their gun rights. The federal government can do little to stop this gun proliferation; due to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, the federal government must leave gun restoration policy to the states. And, as we've seen, many of them are not doing good jobs. Contention 3: Concealed firearms are not adequate self-defense As this contention clashes directly with my opponent"s first contention, this suffices to rebut his argument. First, we must realize guns are rarely used for self-defense. The NRA claims guns have been used to stop approximately 2.5 million crimes a year; analysis by the National Crime Victimization survey actually finds handguns are used for self-defense a mere 67,470 a year. In 2010 alone, there were 8,275 firearms based homicides, as compared to 230 justifiable self-defense homicides (6). My opponent brings up an alleged deterrent effect, as "criminals never know who is armed." There are a few problems with this analysis. First off, an exposed firearm is far more intimidating than a concealed one. If anyone saw someone with a Glock strapped to his/her ankle, they would likely stay away. Second, this analysis assumes every criminal will make the logical step, assuming anyone might have a gun. This is far from likely. If a criminal is mentally ill, he is not likely to take this logical step. The same applies to a criminal addicted to malevolent substances, such as PCP. This also ignores criminal desperation; if a criminal needs the money to satisfy a drug addiction, or even to put bread on the table, he will disregard the possibility of any random person having a gun. Finally, my opponent cites the research of Dr. John Lott, a "shall-issue" law enthusiast whose research is often cited by pro-gun advocates. Yet there are flaws in Lott"s analysis as well. We must consider the possibility of a conflict of interest, as Lott"s research was funded by the Olin Foundation, a subsidiary of the Olin Corporation, one of the largest gun manufacturers in the country. Secondly, Lott based his theories on econometric data points, rather than psychological data taken from case studies, surveys, and experiments with criminals; the latter data is far more compelling. Even if we look at the study itself, a revised data set of Lott"s study indicated the effect of "right-to-carry laws" had no statistical significance (7) on violent crime. Thus, this change was due to factors beyond the controls established by Lott"s analysis. Finally, concealed handguns have limited stopping power and poor accuracy in the hands of an untrained marksman. The entry and exit wound on handguns is smaller than for other weapons. Most don"t have a scope.. Even gun advocate Chris Bird notes a handgun is "the least effective fire-arm for self-defense" (8). Since these weapons are so rarely used for self-defense, rarely deter criminals, and are poor self-defense items in the first place, right to carry laws are not the best way to promote public safety. With this in mind, I would like to refute my opponent"s other argument, his second contention; Pro Contention 2: The public isn't ready to handle gun responsibility. I will keep this refutation brief for sake of clash in other rounds, but the main issue with my opponent's argument is a false correlation. Not only does correlation not assume causation, but the statistics my opponent asserts may not even have to deal with gun responsibility. The statistics only suggest people are less likely to be arrested for violent crime. This does not mean people are "better" or "more responsible." Dozens of other factors come into play. The recent economic crisis (thus limiting funds to purchase guns), the possibility of increased law enforcement, or decreases in drug abuse could all be responsible for this trend. The confounding variables severely hamper the validity of these statistics. With that, I close the first round. Thank you, and good luck. 1. http://www.vpc.org... 2. http://www.vpc.org... 3. http://www.bjs.gov... 4. http://www.armalite.com... 5. http://www.nytimes.com... 6. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com... 7. http://www.nap.edu... 8. http://www.nap.edu...

Right to carry arms As my opponent forfeited the previous round, the final round of debate, it is my job to formally end this debate. Since this is the final speech of the round, I would like to condense all the issues in this debate into two central questions. 1. Do concealed handguns deter criminals from crime? 2. Do concealed handguns save more people than they kill? On Side Con, I proudly believe the answer to both questions is NO; Side Con has a clear COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE on both of these issues. With that in mind, let"s examine the first question: 1. Do concealed handguns deter criminals from crime? As my opponent brought up in his first speech, "Criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed." The logic is simple: "if anyone could have a gun, then I shouldn"t attack anyone for fear he/she might pull a gun on me." The Instigator then defended this point with studies from Dr. John Lott. Yet, as we saw in my previous two speeches, my opponent"s logic does not hold up. First and foremost, Dr. John Lott"s studies have been found invalid due to a lack of statistical significance. The findings he had could have just as easily arisen from pure luck due to a large number of confounding variables in his study. The controversy behind the funding of his research is only a cherry on top. Furthermore, my opponent did not adequately respond to arguments put forth in the 1st and 2nd Con speech: openly shown firearms are a far more effective deterrent. Once again, whom would you rather rob? The old lady who might have a gun or the old lady who has a gun? The answer is clear. My opponent also ignores the psychological elements of crime, such as criminal desperation and drug addiction. Many won"t make the logical leaps my opponent assumes they will. The conclusion is simple. In a shall-issue law world, there will still be muggings, rapes, and murders. There are better, safer alternatives to this scenario my opponent failed to refute. With this in mind, we can safely say the answer to this first question is NO, favoring Side Con. 2. Do concealed handguns save more people than they kill? There has been a slight back-and-forth over this issue over the course of debate. Yet, looking over the previous two speeches, Con definitively emerged triumphant. The comparisons Side Pro made in Round 2 between the VPC and David Burnett were not "apples-to-apples" comparisons, as noted in Side Con"s Round 2 speech. To this day, individuals with legal concealed weapons permits kill citizens across the country. Such records are often incomplete, as not all crimes are reported. People such as Philip Davis have no chance to flee, giving the ease of use of a concealed handgun. My opponent claims "citizens should have the same advantages as the criminals who attack them." While, ideally, neither the criminal nor the average citizen should have a gun in the first place, a concealed weapons permit makes it far easier to kill a person with malicious intent than to defend oneself from an attacker. As discussed in Con"s Round 1 speech, the most common concealed handguns, namely the 9mm, are horrendous for self-defense. While they are rapid fire, the stopping power is minimal, especially when put in the hands of an untrained marksman. A criminal, on the other hand, is more likely to use the handgun as a threat, holding someone up for valuables. Or, if murder is the design, the criminal is far more likely to have practiced using the gun than the everyday citizen. These handguns are far more practical as murder weapons than self-defense. This point was not questioned at ALL by Side Pro. Side Pro also failed to properly refute Con"s second contention: convicted felons do regain their gun rights, and do kill again. In Washington ALONE, 429 felons have engaged in crime after regaining their gun rights, using their weapons as either leverage or as murder weapons. Even if denying these people of their gun rights would prevent practically the population of Nebraska from owning concealed handguns, this is still a step towards the safety of the American citizenry. If we look at the deaths and the nature of concealed firearms, we overwhelmingly find the answer to the second question is NO. Thus, who has the comparative advantage? Side Con. Side Pro may like the theory behind "shall-issue" laws, but, in practice, these laws have not markedly improved pubic safety. If anything, they make our world LESS safe. As Side Con has repeatedly shown you, voters, concealed firearms should be illegal for US private citizens. So, for the good of restricting gun proliferation, vote Con. For the safety of the American people, vote Con. For the family of Philip Davis, vote Con. Thank you.

Right to carry arms As Pro, I wish to start by contesting Con"s first argument " Concealed firearms lead to lethal violent crime " 1) My opponent starts his first argument by saying that the NRA loves to tell stories about concealed handguns to say they have saved lives. However, the information I give is not produced by the NRA, but by the Texas Department of Public Safety & Florida state records. The Texas Department of Public Safety released a study in 1999 that showed that in that year the rate of murder convictions for permit holders in Texas was zero percent. There were NONE. Florida statistics show only 18 crimes involving firearms by license holders, out of 221,443 licenses issued between October 1987 and April 1994. 2) My opponent then gives an example of a killing by a citizen with a concealed firearm, which is followed by the fact that 516 people have been killed this way. This may be true, but according to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, there are approximately 2.5 million cases of people using firearms for self-defense in America each year. However, this study was disproved and it was shown that he was greatly exaggerating. I tell you this to confirm the authenticity of the information I am about to give you. Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated almost 70,000 defensive gun uses annually. "We have 153 documented cases across 26 states with at least 550 lives saved", says David Burnett, who tracks incidents of defensive gun use. This shows the difference between the lives saved and the lives lost are definitely in favor of saved. 3) My opponent then says that we have an alarming amount of deaths from handgun usage. This point says nothing against the negativities of concealed carry, those are figures related to handguns in general. Therefore his argument is invalid. Next, I wish to put forth my second point - Citizens should have the same advantages as the criminals who attack them. Since this point clashes with my opponent"s second point, I will rebut it in this way. According to my opponent"s argument, convicted felons are also allowed to regain gun rights, and therefore this becomes a danger to the rest of the population. So, ideally, my opponent wishes guns to be banned from convicted felons. 1)Firstly, most criminals would not bother to get a concealed carry gun permit. There are many ways for criminals to get guns without obtaining a permit. 2)Secondly, this idea for guns to be banned from all convicted felons can be put down another way - in the US, as of 2010, there were a little more than 2.3 million convicted felons. Out of those, 700,000 were for violent offenses. Out of these, 400,000 commit crimes for the second time. If all convicted felons were restricted from obtaining a gun, there would be around 1.8 MILLION people who committed small crimes but were not able to obtain guns legally. That"s almost the state population of Nebraska! ! In my opponent"s third argument, he discredits the "alleged" deterrent effect and proceeds to advise that the guns should be exposed instead of concealed. There are 2 flaws in my opponent"s reasoning. Firstly, the "alleged" deterrent effect, as my opponent calls it, has reduced crime all over the country. For example, the report from ABC News shows that in Florida, where there are more concealed weapons permits than anywhere else in the country, violent crime has dropped to the lowest point in history. Firearm-related violent crimes in Florida have dropped by one-third in just four years, 2007 to 2011. I don"t think it can still be called the "alleged" deterrent effect. It is real, and it definitely works. My opponent"s second flaw is that if guns were allowed to be exposed, people wouldn't"t be warned of criminals coming their way, as he could be an innocent civilian as well. Also, think of the effect it would have on our nation. The United States of America is not a terrorist country, for people to be walking around with, and I quote my opponent, "with a Glock strapped to his/her ankle". The government considers all these effects before putting a law into place, and I think my opponent should too. With that, I close my argument for the second round.

I think that concealed carry should not be allowed. Prove me wrong Carrying concealed handguns are used more for criminal homicides than homicides. According to the violence policy center, For every justifiable homicide (a death caused by someone defending themselves) there were 34 innocent people killed by criminals who obtained a handgun and permit. and in 2014 eighteen states reported no justifiable homicides caused by handguns. People rarely use handguns for protection. And handguns may make someone feel safer but in reality they actually make them less safe. According to a peer reviews study someone carrying a gun for self defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault then an assault victim without a gun.

Everyone over 21 has the right to have a firearm. I think people over 21 should carry a firearm for protection because many citizens think that it is better taking care of themselves than the police. It may take a long time for the police to respond if someone is assaulting you or any other violation. It won't be that easy to have a firearm of course, they would have to go through the government to have a background check on the person.

Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is fully protected with concealed carry laws. The US Constitution does not specify what guns and what types of carrying methods should be lawful. It specifies only that "bearing" is a right. A restriction that disallows open carrying and allows concealed carrying is, therefore, fully consistent with the US Constitution's right to bear arms.

The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. For clarification, we are not talking about inside secured government property, or the right of property owners to disallow weapons on their property.

Right to bear arms confers right to carry openly. If the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms, as the Supreme Court officially ruled in 2008, then it is a fairly logical extension of that right that one should be able to exercise it openly. Making concealment a condition of that right hardly makes it a right at all. Free speech rights allow an individual to openly scream absurdities through a megaphone in Times Square. A right to bear arms, analogously, should also preserve the right to openly express that right.

Right to carry arms In this second Con speech, I will examine the arguments in Pro"s second speech, demonstrating why they are not as powerful as my opponent believes. I must note my opponent never defended his own arguments. This significant drop should be considered by the voters. All of the arguments put forth against his second contention, namely that of correlation v. causation, still apply. Now, let us examine his rebuttals to Side Con"s contentions in full. C1: Concealed firearm use leads to lethal violent crime. My opponent first clashes with my critique of NRA reports of self-defense using firearms. He correctly claims this point has nothing to do with Side Pro's argument. The purpose of said paragraph was giving context to the political environment, not to add a false source to side Pro - mere stylistic flair. That being said, Side Pro then produces evidence from the Texas Department of Public Safety. Apparently, there were no murder convictions for Texas permit holders in 1999. My opponent has selectively chosen this number. In that same year (1), CHL holders were found guilty of 4 charges of aggressive assault with a deadly weapon, 1 case of sexual assault, 53 cases of assault causing bodily injury, 15 cases of deadly conduct, 5 terrorism threats, and 34 cases of unlawful carrying of arms. Furthermore, my opponent only looked at statistics from 1999. Considering more recent statistics, namely 2011, there were not only murder convictions, but manslaughter, robbery, child sexual abuse, and multi-murder convictions for CHL holders. There were four murders by CHL holders in 2010 alone. A full swath of CHL holder crimes can be found here (2). My opponent also asserts "Florida statistics show only 18 crimes involving firearms by license holders, out of 221,443 licenses issued between October 1987 and April 1994." This claim only looks at a time period far prior to a more modern, nuanced view of gun proliferation in Florida. Namely, prior to 2005, Florida"s firearm-involved murder rate never topped 3.5 people per 100,000. Since 2005, the number of murders has been higher. In 2011, 70% of all Florida murders involved handguns. Equally alarming is this fact: though Florida has the most concealed gun permits of any state, it still has the 13th highest firearm-involved murder rate in the state (3). Deterrent? The numbers disagree. Later, in support of his first contention, my opponent brings up a quote by David Burnett: "We have 153 documented cases across 26 states with at least 550 lives saved." At first, this 550 seems 34 lives higher than the 516 killed by CHL holders. Pro seems to win, but the numbers don"t match up. Burnett"s research was not confined solely to concealed carry self-defense instances, but ALL self-defense instances in the 153 documented cases. Thus, comparing this number to the 516 is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Under this comparison, Pro"s self-defense number pales to the total number of ALL handgun murders, including concealed carry murders, a whopping 8,275 in 2010 alone. Burnett's figures for purely concealed carry safety measures are undoubtedly smaller. When the 516 concealed carry murders nearly equal the same number of total self-defense instances found in 26 states, we have a problem. Finally, my opponent claims my statistics involving all handgun deaths are invalid and irrelevant. I profoundly disagree. The resolution states we have a "right to carry a concealed handgun" (Pro 1). If that is the case, we must consider the possibility if every person in the US decided to take up that right; otherwise, we would be adopting the resolution without looking through all possibilities, a prospect my opponent fears. Thus, when we look at the total number of handgun murders, we see how the US population tends to use semi-automatic handguns. Sadly for Pro, criminals are the guns" primary users, as outlined in my first speech. Thus, all points brought up against my 1C have been refuted. 2C: Concealed firearms easily find themselves into the hands of convicted felons. First, allow me to elaborate upon this point. Giving a gun to a convicted felon, especially one convicted of violent crime, is tantamount to giving a cocaine addict cocaine upon his becoming sober. It makes no logical sense, giving the criminal the ability to engage in crime yet again. My opponent correctly asserts I wish guns to prevent convicted felons from acquiring guns. However, he counters on two fronts. For one thing, he claims most will find illegal ways to regain guns. While illegal options are certainly viable, this does not make a legal option for them to obtain firearms any less immoral. Such an option still puts weapons in the hands of convicted felons, who, as my first speech demonstrates, do commit violent crimes. Since the legal option does not decrease the number of crimes these felons commit or the number of illegal arms purchased, it only serves as a detriment to the general public. My opponent"s second counter-argument is even more interesting. "If all convicted felons were restricted from obtaining a gun, there would be around 1.8 MILLION people who committed small crimes but were not able to obtain guns legally. That"s almost the state population of Nebraska!!" My response: why not? So what if 1.8 million people cannot legally own a gun? I thought the fewer guns you have, the fewer murders you have! After all, if Australia has shown us anything, limiting the number of guns available to the population has lowered the number of gun murders to mere triple digits (4) as opposed to the US"s quintuple digits (5)! Since my opponent has failed to demonstrate why preventing these felons from having their gun rights is wrong, this entire counterargument remains utterly unconvincing. Preventing 1.8 million convicted felons from acquiring guns is a huge boon to public safety. Thus, with both arguments countered, my 2C stands. 3C: Concealed firearms are not adequate self-defense. My opponent counters this in two ways. First, he claims the deterrent effect of "shall-issue laws" is very much real, due to statistics in Florida gun violence. Sadly, my opponent utterly ignores the argument I previously put forth: correlation does NOT equal causation. Hundreds of factors " economics, politics, racism, education " affect the reduction in violent crime. Furthermore, the drop in violent crime occurred from 2007 to 2011. Since Florida"s "shall-issue laws" came into effect in 1987 (6), why didn"t this drop in crime happen earlier? Secondly, my opponent attacks a world I promoted in my 3C, where people must reveal their firearms on their person. My opponent believes people could be frightened of innocent civilians. This would be true, but this is not as important as the greater deterrent effect. For an instant, voters, put yourselves in the criminal"s shoes. Who would you rather rob? A. An older woman walking down the street who MIGHT have a gun. B. An older woman walking down the street who visibly HAS a gun. My opponent also claims this would also make the US a "terrorist country." This is false; having a firearm exposed does not make you a terrorist or the US a terrorist country. Soldiers and police officers often have highly visible firearms; they are not terrorists. Such a world is far from IDEAL (a world with NO guns), it certainly deters more crime than the world Pro supports. Unless side Pro can adequately respond to all these arguments, along with those not addressed earlier in the round, Side Con must win this debate. Thank you, and good luck. 1. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us... 2. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us... 3. http://www.naplesnews.com... 4. http://www.gunpolicy.org... 5. http://www.gunpolicy.org... 6. http://www.nraila.org...

I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Carrying a concealed weapon should not be legal. Sure, There are some citizens that would use it correctly. But there are also a lot who wouldn't. If carrying a concealed weapon was legal, People wouldn't be able to know if someone was telling the truth when they said they had a weapon. This is dangerous because if the other person knew there was no weapon, They could run away. But if carrying a concealed weapon is legal they could never know for certain. People can still defend themselves if the weapon is not concealed.

Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime I would like to begin by clarifying three issues within this debate, no matter how important they are. (1) If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96.) Posted by my opponent. At first notice this suggests that it is a statistic of the nation of the United States. But to clarify, it only deals with Florida, "* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. " http://www.justfacts.com... Notice that it also seems that my opponent has altered the statistic, stating from 1987 to 1999. But when the actual evidence is looked at from its source you can see that it says 1987 to 1994. My opponent states that it could have possible been a human error, but we can't know for sure. (2) "Also what my opponent either doesn't know who has not acknowledged yet is that by me arguing for conceal and carry in all 50 states I am really only arguing for conceal and carry to be legal in Illinois and Wisconsin, because those are the only two states in the entire United States that do not have some form of conceal carry." My opponent must be referring to the map shown below in the link. http://www.wmsa.net... However, this map states that there are 65.7% of the US population lives in "Right To Carry" (Vermont, Alaska & 37 "Shall Issue") states, 28.1% in "Right Restricted" (9 "May Issue") states, and 6.3% in "Right Denied" (2) states. This means that 11 states may or can't issue right to carry laws. That means he is also arguing for these 11 states. I believe that my opponent has also not given examples of why these specific states would benefit. I have provided enough evidence to at least discredit my opponents source about Florida and shown that it can also be used both ways. (3) "If a trained police officer barges into a room, knowing exactly where the "test subjects" where seating there would be little anyone could do. How do I know this, well if you watch the case study you see that the trained police officer goes into room gun drawn and goes after no one else but the "test subject". It would also be very hard to defend yourself if you where wearing baggy pants and do not have you firearm in a holster like logic would presume for just such situation, I forgot to mention the over sized white tee-shirt you are wearing." My opponent has correctly identified the experiment I have cited. However, the test subject was not the first fired at; in fact, he had ample time to unholster his weapon and fire the weapon. The attacker was trained (for safety reasons of course) and fired first at the lecturer of the class, then took a while to spot the person in the crowd with the weapon. As for clothing, you can't expect every kid in the room with a concealed weapon to wear his shirt tucked in and have "non-baggy" pants. As for a side note, a couple of the test subjects actually missed the attacker when shooting and hit one of the people running out the door behind him. This shows that, just like a police officer, you need years of training to become accurate enough to shoot at someone that is standing in front of a crowd of people. So, after clarifying this aspect, it is safe to assume that this experiment accurately portrayed what would happen if concealed carry was allowed in colleges. =General Refutations to my Opponents Arguements= ((1)) My opponent mentions that I have not provided any evidence showing that teenage drivers are the leading factor of car accidents. Well here, "Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers. " Along with more evidence to support this claim. http://www.rmiia.org... ((2)) As for the controversy over Florida. I did not specifically say that the statistic does not help your case. I implied that it could also be turned around and used for mine. He states that if everyone had Florida's same laws on concealed weapons, what would suggest that Homicide rates would continue to increase throughout the nation. However, my opponent has said that the laws of all states regarding concealed carry vary greatly. He condradicts himself and tries to create a theory that all states will have the same law, and therefore homicide rates will decrease, but as he has already stated, "but it is very hard to tell difference between the to due to the fact that everystate has different firearm laws" As a side note, I believe my spelling and grammar constitutes a point for me. Had to state that somewhere. ((3)) I have also shown that my opponent may have altered evidence, to which he replied, ""As for my "falsified facts", I would like to suggest the human error of typo"". This is a very vague rebuttal to something to which he simply could of said, "I made a mistake". Instead he wishes to suggest that he did it, but does not take a stand. ((4)) I brought up my opinion of why concealed carry was wrong. My opinion no needed facts. I had expected to hear some of my opponents opinion. Instead he insists on copying and pasting evidence from other sites and draws blatant conclusions on them. He states, "My opponent states that it is the job of the government to protect our rights, but what about our lives?" I believe the natural rights of every citizen still stands to be the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. So to answer your question, I meant all three of these when mentioning rights of citizens of a government. I would like to ask some rhetorical questions which will hopefully have an impact on the readers judging decision. ;) Is it not one of the foundations of our government to uphold and protect it's citizens rights? Is it not the job of the State police and County police to serve and protect us as a people? Don't these State police and County police have years of experience which allow them to become one of our protectors? Why should we then, pass on the job of a professional policeman, to each citizen's of the United States? Why allow the use of a life or death weapon, to be placed within a human's hands which is capable of destroying lives? The answer is, we shouldn't. Because I have provided thoughtful insight and evidence to support my side of the resolution, I urge a negative vote.

We should have a ban on CCW BOP - Carrying a conceal handgun is permitted in 49/50 states, Illinois and DC are the only remainders banning the law. 35 states have shall issue laws, too. I think my opponent still is against the status quo overall, especially with a political and scientific consensus swaying towards my position. The BOP an be negotiated later in a private message, lets not waste a debate on it ;)Deterrence (use with argument below)A common misconception throughout Europe is less guns equal less crime, and the same argument applies in current US media, all claiming guns and conceal carry are evil.Now before we claim criminals can be deterred, we must first ask can they be deterred? The answer is yes, as many economic studies (studies done by economists) find when increased punishments or possible problems occur when doing the crime the negative outweigh the positives of committing the crime, and then they are less likely to commit the crime. Now we must ask why are they deterred by this? The answer is self explanatory, but I shall point out the obvious: They want self preservation, they want to be able to get away with their deeds. Also many surveys conducted show that criminals are more scared of people with guns then police officers, as if the gun is hidden they may be attacked back without warning (polices warning is the uniform).Now, lets look at a thing Lott calls a "hot burglary." This is when a criminal strikes when a person is already at home. In Canada and England, where gun control is very strict, almost half of the burglaries where hot. In contrast, 13% in america where hot. Now what is the reason? Because they think they may get shot, they say robbing at night when people are home is the best way to get shot, they would rather case a house. This proves they fear guns.Now, lets use some examples of deterrence. Lott uses the literal example of apples and oranges. He says if the price of apples increases while the price of oranges decreases apples sales will decrease, while orange sales will stay the same or increase. This shows the human oh it has consequences effect.Is open carry and conceal carry different, when it comes to deterrence? When a concealed carry permit holder has a gun, it is harder to actually tell if they have a gun. Criminals wont know if they are attacking an old lady, or an old lady packing a .45 Springfield in her purse. This raises the risk to criminals, hence also their preservation. Whereas open carry is much less scary, as you know who not to annoy, and not to annoy anyone around him (as he may help the other person). The conceal carry laws threaten the criminals more.The empirical data Law Passed Murder fell 7.7%, Rape fell 5.3%, Aggravated assault by 7.01%, robbery 2.2%, Burglary .5%, Larceny 3.3%, Auto 7.1%. [1] (1977-1997 data)Other data, his 1999 data, shows a better outcome of a 10% decrease in murder, and the other categories too had a larger decrease in crime, hence CCW in hi later data was slightly revised in new data sets. Lotts early data can be found in #2. Now lets look at PA. They had a drop in murder of about 26%, and overall violent crime drop of 5.3%. Now, one of the criticisms of this basic trend is just because the drop happened after the law, we can also look at other variables, the most common one is arrest rates. Lott makes many dummy variables, tables, and to the best of his ability shows CCW laws where a significant portion of the decrease. [1] Another reasons he concludes the drop is because when there is a spike in people who have permits there is a decrease in violent crimes. To get more local statistics, lets look at his findings in some states. In Oregon, for example, murder dropped 37% after the law was passed. Now, there are other variables he accounted for in the third addition making his data superior to the first. He did other dummy data sets, and still finds CCW had a large portion of the deterrence an drop in crimes. [1] Now, it is logical to assume they actually decrease crime due to my deterrent argument above. The CATO study also finds similar reasons why it would actually decrease crime. They also fund similar accounts of data, and they conclude the Florida CCW law was positive and the other states that passed these laws also had a positive showing. Another question that must be answered: would it increase or decrease mass public crimes? Now, as this is a valid fear, see the recent shootings in Chicago I believe, or Virginia tech. But to define shootings/killings, we must look into what is defined by. It is defined as a public shooting in a place where 2 or more people are killed or injured. Now based n his data in figure 5.1, he found the likelihood of a state to have this happen was about 60%, a little more. After the conceal carry law was passed, data and trends suggests the state now has only a 1% chance of these types of shootings in areas where conceal carry holders are allowed. [1] I may have misphrased the argument here: the likelihood of deaths or injuries when the crime occurs. Essentially saying conceal carry laws make it harder for the psycho to kill when in the area where a conceal carry permit holder resides.Now, another question would be does it lower crime committed with guns? This argument used is common amongst people trying to go against conceal carry laws. But this is not the case. In the new 2010 edition of source 1, it finds a 9% decrease in murders with guns after non-discretionary laws are passed. Murders with non handguns dropped at a similar rate, 8.9%."If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly." [1] [2] (1997 study)Summary -- This was found in one of Lotts rebuttal paper defending his origional 1997 paper. *The majority of my sources can be found online, and source 1 can be gogled on google books and you can look into the specific data I cited*Conclusion:I have failed to see any good statistical analysis showing the opposite of my data. I am aware of two studies arguing the opposite, but both involve the same author and are not acedemically refered. The other data I saw was created by bias gun control organizations. For my opponent to win the debate, he actually must argue it increases crime. If it has no effect then there is no other reason against it. I urge a CON vote. Sources:[1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. [2] Lott, Jr., John R., and David B. Mustard. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." The Journal of Legal Studies 26.1 (1997) [3] Snyder, Jeffery R. "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun." CATO, 22 Oct. 1997

Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms.

Gun ownership is an integral aspect of the right to self defence Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defence. (This can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons, deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc.)

18 year olds with concealed handguns because it is wrong if the 18 yo has it because he cold hurt someone or kill another or himself end of discussion

Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Sadly, the only argument you can tell is that carrying a gun is like having a power that prevents crime automatically, you didn't mentioned the danger posed by having one. The death and injury you can also get by defending yourself and your family. You also assumed that killing a criminal benefits the society because it will lessen the burden of a state to prosecute and jail someone. How about the injuries caused by using a gun? do you know that it is much expensive to treat someone than to bury a dead person? Moreover, in a democratic country where due process of law is observed, the cost of justice is nothing compared to the liberty you can get from it. Furthermore, having a gun close at hand can turn ordinary disputes and arguments fatal. Even legal gun owners can be involved in a crime. Crime of passion mostly involves gun that is legally acquired. No one really excuses someone to commit a crime even you are carrying a gun legally. To conclude, the issue here is not weather guns are beneficial or not. Anyone can exercise their rights to have one, but please do not be blinded by media or any pro gun group that it is all pros and no cons. Having one entails responsibility and precaution. To think that it will magically help your problem from the ills of society is absolutely crazy. Go get a gun, it is your right but always remember the responsibilities attached onto it.

Gun Rights for law abiding citizens should be protected. I am in favor of gun rights for law abiding citizens. The constitution of the United States protects our right to carry firearms. Citizens of the US should be allowed to own and carry guns, for the following reasons: a) A situation where the government is armed and the people are not can lead to frightening abuses of power. b) Criminals will obtain guns whether they are legal or not. If guns were illegal, criminals would know this, and take advantage of unarmed civilians. finally, and most importantly, c) The constitution of the United States says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Therefore, people must be allowed to own and carry guns NO MATTER WHAT, as the constitution is the "supreme law of the land."

Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime First off, my opponent offers a definition of right to carry: "mean the ability to have a concealed firearm on said persons in public areas. " I concede to this definition and would like to have it now noted that the affirmation has to abide in this definition in evidence and arguements. Example of Campus allowing concealed carry, and then not allowing concealed carry. Board Chairman Patrick McConathy explained the board's decision to disarm all law abiding adults on campus by stating that the "members of the CSU system board believe this is a reasonable, rational and responsible decision for our system. " The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators agreed, stating "there is no credible statistical evidence demonstrating that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms reduce crime. " My opponent suggests that if, in referrence to the Columbine Shooting, people were armed there could have been a halt to the shootings. We actually do not know this. In an experiment by 20/20, selected students from a college were chosen to take part. The students, varying from age, fire-arm training, and ethnicity were given a pistol loaded with paintballs and told to sit in a lecture hall with other students listening to a class session. (Note, one at a time these students were tested). The subjects were told that they would need to use a gun to defend themselves, but not when. When the attackers barged through the door, none of the subjects could kill or even down the intruder before being shot and killed. This experiment suggests that even if people were armed at the Columbine Shooting, they could never recieve the training needed to act accordingly in a life or death situation. My opponent mentions earlier that I neglected that he stated, "with correct instruction". However, as I have shown, one can never fully prepare themselves in life or death cases such as this. Even then, you can't expect the instructee to pay full attention. Example, driver liscenses. Teenagers are required to take a test and go through training, but why do teenagers make up the most of the car crashes that are reported in the United States? Because you can not fully know what the intentions are of a person when they want to get something. My opponent provides this as evidence. "Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987, these are the statistics of crimes rates in Florida to the rest of United States from 1987 to 1997 Homicide rate dropped 36% in Florida and went down .4% as United states as a whole. Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. 1998 NRA Fact Card. " Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, . http://www.nra.org...; I would like to ask first off, is this a concealed carry law? I can't affirm that because the source my opponent provided is blocked on my webbrowser. Second off, in order for this to work in favor of my opponents case, it must be assumed that every number in this piece of evidence is in direct correllation with the Right to Carry Law enacted by Florida in 1987. With that aside, notice these pieces of statistics that contradict my opponents case: "Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. " As a result of the Right to Carry Law, Firearm Homicide went up 15% as a nation? Handgun Homicide up 24%? The increase of homicides in these areas, which relate to the resolution, show that because of this Law, homicides went up. The increase of homicides in 49 states, far outweighs the decrease in 1. "If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. " (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. " University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96. ) I would like to note that there is a fallacy within this piece of evidence listed above. If this evidence came from the source posted after it, then it is not credible. The book was written in 7/26/96, so the year 1996. The evidence notes that it incorporates statistics from 1987 to 1999. Because this is an obvious contradiction, unless I am mistaken, this piece of evidence is not credible and can not be used. I will now state my opinion. It is the job of the government to protect our rights. To protect our natural rights. How is this justified if the government allows all of the nation to carry weapons? How safe will our society feel then? It is the obligation of the people to give up a portion of their freedom so that they can have the government protect their rights. Examples of this are the United States Navy, Army, Airforce, State Police, and County Police. By advocating for concealed weapon carry, one is saying that the government is not doing their job in protecting the rights of America. What would the need of a sheriff be, if every person in town carried a weapon. It would not turn our country into a safe haven. Likewise, concealed carry laws would create tension among everyone. My opponent advocates concealed carry. It can be the will of the negation to propose a better fitting solution. Since concealed carry is extremely unreasonable, I advocate for the allowing of weapons to be allowed in houses, but not concealed carry. I believe that in this respect, no one feels tension of being shot in public, because the guns are in the houses. I believe that this is a more suitable explanation of how it can reduce crime better than concealed carry. =Experiment= 20/20 provided another experiment. They sent one of their correspondents into a gun show, with no gun liscence and a set budget. Within a few hours, the man had purchased several firearms, without ever being asked for his liscence. This shows that if someone wanted a gun, they could get a gun. Concealed carry will inevitably create a negative effect and cause tension among people, it will also allow people with hurtful intentions to easily aquire a firearm. I understand that I have not posted any sources, aside from 20/20. That is because my computer has blocked every website that has to do with guns. I have disproved one of my opponents sources, which should hurt his credibility somewhat. For these reasons and many others, I still stand in firm negation of the resolution.

The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. We will be using the plain dictionary definition of the word "infringed". [1]The reason for this debate, is that all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting the carrying, or concealed carry of at least some semi-automatic weapons. While the US Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.An armed populace is a free populace. Tyranny cannot gain hold where the people have not only the will but the means to throw off a tyrannical government.In countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower.The United States should readopt the approach our founders took: An absolute liberty to keep and bear arms.References1. http://dictionary.reference.com...

The Second Amendment should be repealed The Moral Right to Keep and Bear Arms The following argument is taken from Bernstein’s et al. argument in favour of gun ownership.[1] 1. If x is a reasonable means of self-defence, then people have a prima facie right to be allowed to own x. 2. Firearms are a reasonable means of self-defence. Hence, 3. People have a prima facie right to be allowed to own firearms. Each of these premises are straightforward and will be explained in depth. Premise 1. P1 assumes the right to self-defence exists as a natural right; that is, individuals have the right to protect themselves or their property when being aggressed against. Indeed, if people have a prima facie right to live, people ought to have the ability to secure such a right. As individuals can only secure their right to life if they have the means necessary to defend themselves against individuals (or state actors) aggressing against them, it follows that the right to life ensures the right to self-defence. Of course, a right is meaningless if no one has the right to pursue it. Since the existence of a right entails the existence of the means to obtain what is needed for the rights-bearer, a right to self-defence entails the right to gun ownership. Indeed, a right to something—in this case, self-defence—means nothing if one lacks the means to utilise what is entitled. Take the right to free speech, for example. Imagine if the state told the New York Times that they were not allowed to have any money. While their publishing operations have not been prohibited, their ability to publish has ceased to exist. Or, in another example, assume the state affirmed the right to free speech, but didn’t allow their population to get educated. In this situation, the state would not be truly affirming the right to free publication, as the means for publication is severely restricted. In other words, by affirming the end of a right—in his case, self-defence a right to life—one must also affirm the means to pursue that end. To quote Bernstein et al., “A state that refuses to protect the prerequisite conditions of human flourishing cannot be said to respect human flourishing itself.” In sum, if individuals have the right to self-defence, they also have the right to be allowed to own tools as a means for their defence. The argument is strengthened in that it emphasizes reasonable self-defence. Indeed, any tool that is protected by this argument must be an equalizer. While a baseball bat may be an effective tool for someone like myself—a 6’1” 210 pound male—it would not be adequate for (most) women or the elderly. As physical disparities between victims and aggressors are very real, it follows that there is a real interest in allowing individuals to own weapons. Therefore, any means for self-defence must be reliable and effective. With this, on to premise two. Premise 2. To begin this argument, let’s presume guns were eradicated from our society. Neither criminals nor the average citizen has access to any form of firearm. Joanna, a teenage female, only has a knife with which to defend herself. Bob, a young male, breaks into the house, also with a knife to commit the crime. Bob, who is physically stronger than Joanna, quickly subdues here and proceeds to sexually violate her and robs her home when he is done. In this situation, the only way to dissuade her attacker is to enter into a physical altercation which, even if successful in fighting off her attacker, puts her at a serious risk for injury. If the example is slightly changed to that Joanna could own a firearm, the situation changes dramatically. If Joanna has the ability to own a firearm, it would be possible for her to end the situation without any physical contact. Even if Bob enters the home with a firearm, and both of them are armed equally, physical strength is now irrelevant—whoever comes out on top relies on who is a more skilled firearms, and there’s no reason to presume Bob is any better at shooting than Jane is. In the scenario where both are armed with guns, the playing field is equal. Therefore, guns are both reliable and effective, meeting the criteria from premise 1. The hypothetical above is backed up by reams of scientific evidence. Numerous studies have found the defensive benefits of gun use. According to one literature review, “[s]tudies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns … have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”[2] Indeed, defending oneself with a gun is more effective than other methods of resistance and non-resistance, with passivity being the worst option, and resistance with a gun being the best method for defence. One study found “victim gun use was the resistance strategy most strongly and consistently associated with successful outcomes for robbery victim.”[3] A study by Lawence Southwick found women who resisted with a firearm were four times more likely to escape without injury and even men were less likely to be injured. Specifically with women, he writes “[i]t would appear that having a gun really does result in equalizing a woman with a man.”[4] A study reviewing 16 forms of self-defence found “a variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun, appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury.”[5] Indeed, both logically and empirically it has been demonstrated that gun ownership is, indeed, a “reasonable means of self-defence.” As this second premise is only concerned with the efficacy of defensive gun usage, it has nothing to do with the public health concerns. Even if my opponent can prove guns, on balance, threaten public health, it has no bearing on this philosophically argument. Premise 3. People have a prima facie right to be allowed to own firearms. And, as the third premise flows directly from the first two—and the first two have been validated—this argument is, therefore, logically valid. Examples Where the Second Amendment Improves Public Health “Hot” Versus “Cold” Burglaries If burglars can be convinced to rob unoccupied homes or of non-residential properties, this would be a social benefit even if the overall rate of robbery does not change. “Hot” burglaries—or burglaries where a criminal breaks into a home while it is occupied—leads to a higher risk of assault, murder, and other violent crimes. A “cold” burglary is one where a criminal breaks into a home or property that is unoccupied. While neither one of these situations are optimal, cold burglaries are less-confrontational and are therefore preferable if one has to choose. Many scholars have argued that gun ownership reduces the number of hot burglaries because criminals would rather not encounter an armed citizen. If this were true, this possible benefit would accrue to all citizens because criminals can’t tell which home is armed and which isn’t. In other words, everyone benefits. Data seems to back up this basic theory. In the United Kingdom, where firearm ownership is either banned or strictly regulated, 43% of burglaries occur when someone is in the home. In the Netherlands, 48% of homes are occupied at the time of a home invasion. In Toronto, 44% of burglaries are hot, and 21% of burglaries led to a confrontation between the criminal and the victim. In the United States, only 13% of burglaries are hot.[6] Thus, guns serve as a deterrent for hot burglaries. Concealed Carry Laws Economists who study crime assume criminals are rational. Like law abiding citizens, criminals respond to costs and benefits. People consume less of a product when the cost is higher; similarly, criminals commit less crime when the cost increases. Concealed Carry Laws (CCLs) increase the cost of committing crime because the chance a criminal runs into a law-abiding citizen increases. Therefore, according to the theory, liberal concealed carry laws would reduce crime by deterring criminals. The majority of peer-refereed papers on this subject (albeit to varying degrees) support the deterrence hypothesis. As of 2010, 16 studies found CCLs reduced violent crime; only ten found no effect and zero found right-to-carry laws increased crime. However, many of the studies finding no effect—when their data is corrected for—find significant decreases in violent crime as well.[7] (Lott 1997, Lott and Mustard 1997, Lott 2010) Four of the more famous studies purporting to debunk the CCL-crime linkage (Black and Nagin, Duggan, Luwig, Ayres and Donahue) aren’t as powerful as they may look. Out of 113 coefficients reported by these critics, 56 of them find decreases in crime, only 2 show an increase, and 55 imply no impact.[8] In other words, the CCL reduces crime hypothesis is confirmed half of the time even by studies critical of the link! Conclusion The moral case to keep and bear arms protected by the second amendment remains relevant today as it is based on self-protection. On the utilitarian front, there are many cases where guns do make us safer. Therefore, the resolution has been negated. 1. C’Zar Bernstein, Tim Hsiao, and Matt Palumbo. “The Moral Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” Public Affairs Quarterly 29(4) (2015): 345. 2. http://bit.ly... 3. Gary Kleck and Miriam Delone. “Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in Robbery,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9 (1993): 71. 4. http://bit.ly...; 5. Gary Kleck. and Jongyeon Tark. “Resisting Crime: The Effect of Victim Action on the Outcomes of Crimes.” Criminology 42(4) (2004): 861. 6. Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (New York: Adine De Gruyter, 1997), 183. 7. John R. Lott, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (The University of Chicago Press, 2010), 284. 8. John R. Lott, The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Guns is Wrong (Regnery Publishing, 2003), 235.

Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses I believe that properly trained students with a concealed carry license should be able to carry on their college campus. Currently, college campuses are Gun-Free Zones. That means that even if you have the concealed carry permit, you may not bring the gun on to campus. My question is: who does this law hurt? The last few years has seen a rapid increase in the number of school shootings and other school violence. It seems every week or two you hear about a high-school or college age kid amassing a smorgasbord of weaponry, bringing a gun(or guns) to school, shooting people, and then committing suicide. It happens so frequently now that people non-chalantly hear it on the news as they flip the TV channel - they don't think twice about it anymore. The kids that are doing this are disturbed and once these nuts get it into their heads that they're going to go on a shooting rampage, nothing short of their plan being exposed will stop them. Now back to my question - who does the ban on concealed carry on campus hurt? I will tell you who it hurts, it hurts the innocent, law-abiding students of the school who are going to school to learn and get an education. It impedes on their ability to be as safe as they can possibly be. This is an important thing to remember: the nuts who are planning the attack DO NOT CARE if it is a 'Gun-Free Zone', they're packing heat either way, with the intent to kill. The people who are restricted by the Gun-Free Zone are the law-abiding, responsible citizens with CC permits. The aren't going to break the rule that says they can't carry, then when the wacko with a shotgun and a book bag full of ammo charges through the doors, they are left defenseless. My argument is that allowing the CC permit holders to carry on campus will ensure a safer campus if the unthinkable happens and the school comes under attack from a degenerate madman. Within a few minutes of the attack, concealed carriers would be able to draw their weapons and take out the assailant with one clean shot to the head, stopping the tragedy from becoming much, much worse, saving many lives. The people with CC permits are smart, responsible people who are able to make educated decisions to protect themselves and their peers from an undeserved catastrophe. If this ban were lifted, we would have much safer campuses around America, and many potential tragedies will be stopped short, all because people are allowed to fully employ their Right to Bear Arms, as granted to them by the Constitution.

Conceal to carry I believe that you have the right to conceal and carry if you please. If they go through the paper work and all the back ground checks they should be able to without anyone harassing them about it. If they have any type of criminal records at all they shouldn't be able to have one. People make it a big deal when someone carry's a gun into somewhere and people see it. Like if they got permission from the government to carry ii they have a right to bring it wherever they go. Lot of people usually us it when they go on trips or something. When they go to place there not usually from they may liker to have it or when ever traveling down the road and break down you never know if what someone might do to you. If they stop somewhere and people that have kids see it they make a big deal about and how there kids shouldn't be seeing that kind of stuff. You never know what kind of people you may run into when you are out on the road and now a days I would be scared at times and places I go. That is why I think that they should not be harassed about carrying a gun into public places.

Im Pro-Second Amendment: Change my Mind Concealed Carry owners are 6% more law abiding than police, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. They can shoot the shooter, and stop the massacre. States that implemented "shall-issue" concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent, according to an analysis of FBI crime data by economist and political commentator John R. Lott Jr., PhD. Conversely, states with more restrictive concealed-carry laws have gun-related murder rates that are 10 percent higher, according to a 2013 study in Applied Economic Letters. Statistically, guns save more lives than take them. Guns are for self-defense, but mainly to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, like the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution. If the government takes away our guns, we won't have any self-defense against a tyrannical government.

Private Citizens should be armed in public 1. b. The Reductio ad Absurdum still stands as a conduct voter, and calling this out is not an attack on Con's person; it is a critique of his conduct. If calling out poor conduct wasn't acceptable than it wouldn't be a voting issue on the ballots. 2. Rebuttals- a. People kill people- i. It needs to be clarified that con never addresses that concealed handguns are legal in every state but Illinois. The irrational fear Con posits does not exist in the status quo, the only exception would be sensationalism resulting from the recent shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin. ii. The chart provided is skewed evidence. It only reflects the beliefs of Gallup's users who took the time to fill out a survey. The voters may not even be American! If this evidence is good, then asking a friend their opinion and using it as evidence fine too; we know that isn't true, don't accept the Gallup poll either. b. Guns are pretty scary i. When you negate a proposition on the grounds that something bad may happen, but have no real evidence that it will happen, you're appealing to fear. Not being wary of the consequences. I could just as easily assert that something bad may happen if you're not carrying a gun; you may get raped by some-one who weighs 200 pounds more than you and have no means to protect yourself. ii. If you accept the rape argument, I nullify all of Con's impacts. If not, than all of Con's hypothetical arguments are out the window as well. c Slippery slope fallacy i. The major premise is an assumption, the minor premise is irrelevant as ownership is guaranteed to all 18 year old American citizens who are not felons and the conclusion Isn't the case as I show several times that owning a concealed handgun is already legal in the status quo. ii. Even in this format, this point is a slippery slope fallacy. There isn't any clause within the minor premise to legitimize the argument, it's just refers to what could happen. 3. Rebuttals- a. Second Amendment Rights i. This attack is Reductio ad Absurdum, and here's why; Con could have easily argued that one does not need to carry a gun in public, but instead chocked my argument up to absurdity by comparing it to jumping off a cliff. Maintaining the constitutional right to bear arms is important, and to reject that premise without warrant is completely abusive. ii. The argument that when one doesn't practice their rights, they illegitimatize them still stands. As I've said prior there is a push for stronger gun control which naturally follows tragedies like the shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin. We can't give ground on our rights based on this sensationalist fear, and practicing the right to carry a weapon is a fantastic way to maintain them. b. Security i. I never dropped my argument on gun operation, an initial tenet of this argument in round one was the fact that gun safety classes are at an all time high. ii. Follow the initial link, read the article and you will see the author explicitly writes on gun ownership deterring crime and making communities safer. My opponent cannot put further burden on me to prove something I've already proven, especially since they never even made this argument until their previous speech. c. Legality i. If failing to attack my argument (and accordingly the concealed handgun evidence) by claiming it was redundant is legitimate, then there's not much I can say here is there. I hope the voters will use their common sense to understand this is not a legitimate refutation and vote pro. This second amendment argument served to focus on the urgency of maintaining and practicing rights, while this one served to preempt the kinds of arguments my opponent makes in his 'guns are pretty scary' argument. 5. Conclusions- a. Overall I ask for a Pro ballot for the following reasons: Backing, Consistency and Conduct.

Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime I believe that the right to carry, reduces crime rates and should be made legal in all 50 states, with limitations to who would be able to carry a firearm of U.S citizens above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes with a firearm. Further more I would also argue that with correct instructions firearms can be very safe and recreational activities.

Lawful concealed carry is a good thing As I'm on my phone I am going to keep my conclusion short. In reference to my last argument, there are 500k to 3M instances per year where a firearm is used in self defense. That's potentially 3M violent crimes prevented per year. This has obvious individual benefits while also providing a huge benefit to society. Specifically in deterred crime and dead career criminals. At an average cost to tax payers of $30k per year per inmate, a ten year sentence for a violent criminal would cost tax payers $300,000. Multiply that by the thousands of criminals killed per year in self defense and you can plainly see that society benefits economically. So in summary; as an individual, you are more protected from criminals. As a society; crime and prison costs go down.

Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates My stance is that allowing citizens to carry handguns on their person reduces crime rates. The first round is for acceptance, and I will begin with my initial arguments during the second round.For this debate, the following is assumed: Citizens are allowed to open carry and/or concealed carry registered handguns. Citizens must apply for a permit to carry handguns. Precautionary measures such as background checks are used to prevent criminals obtaining handguns, and safety classes taught as part of the application. All handguns will be registered upon purchase. All handgunsare to be carried in secure holsters. Owners of private property are allowed to restrict handguns on their premises.

Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates Con makes a distinction between foresight and hindsight. While we do not have the advantage of analyzing the future from the perspective of hindsight, we can apply lessons learned from the past to future expectations. With an increase of people carrying guns, we haven't seen a dramatic increase in crime rates, as Con would have us expect. Instead, we have seen drastic reductions in murder rates. This serves to show that it is not strictly a probability that a person will commit a crime. People are individuals, not probabilities, and a peaceful person won't become violent simply because they have a handgun.Con's position is that we should limit the accessibility of handguns, but we have already established a baseline of regulations to keep handguns out of the hands of citizens who have shown themselves to be irresponsible. Not allowing citizens to carry handguns in this instance will only reduce the number of responsible citizens with handguns. Criminals will still be able to get handguns from illegal sources.It is clear that having a handgun doesn't change a person's propensity toward violence or crime. If that were the case, we would expect to see a higher percentage of police killing and robbing than ordinary citizens. Indeed, with the drastic increases in carry permits available to the public, we haven't seen crime rates soar. Instead, we have seen murder rates fall 42% since 1987. This fits in place well with the study by Kleck and Gertz showing that guns are used 2.5 million times a year to stop a crime.In conclusion, we can see that citizens carrying handguns can reduce crimes in many ways. Firstly, it allows citizens to defend themselves when attacked. Secondly, it allows citizens to help defend others who are in peril. Thirdly, the more guns responsible citizens carry, the more hesitant a criminal will be in trying to rob somebody. I have not only provided hypothetical explanations, but statistical analysis of murder rates, and reports of defensive gun uses. Con's position is based mainly off of probabilities, but a framework of probabilities that is at odds with actual occurrences must inherently be erroneous.

Right-to-Carry States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports) Right-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in "More Guns, Less Crime", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings: While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime.... non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime. Non discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business. States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns. There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%. Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men. The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens. The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this "halo" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area. The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns." thanks charles h mousseau jr NRA member

Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime I will start my this round by saying that obtaining a firearm is different in every state, it would be unwise to assume that the gun control laws are the same for every state. For instance, in Illinois you must be 18, to legally purchase a long gun (any gun with a barrel longer than 12 inches), and 21 to purchase a pistol. You must also have a FOID (Firearm Owner Identification) card, obtaining a FOID card requires an application to the IL state police where they perform a back ground check, after you have a FOID car you must wait 24 hours after purchasing a gun to pick it up. Logic would presume that this is not an easy way to obtain a firearm. Granted my opening statement was short and open to debate on the argument it would ensue, right to carry has nothing to do with obtaining firearms, that is not what is discussion is about. It is about whether or not right to carry reduces crim my opponent provided no evidence that people who own fire arms that carry them in on them would not reduce crime. Has I am now realizing this being my first debate I should have defined Right to carry, but I believe my opponent to mistaken in his definition, Right to carry mean the ability to have a concealed firearm on said persons in public areas. Housing firearms is merely owning firearms, and due to the fact that in 1993 49% of homes had at least one firearm in them (Study: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun. " By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995. Accessed at . http://www.saf.org....) I do not believe that 13 year old are the main issue when it comes to Right to carry. My opponent also neglected the fact that I stated "with correct instruction", I do not have enough time to provide detailed information about gun safety this link should be detailed enough (. http://www.nrahq.org...). As for the columbine school shooting, those firearms where obtained by adults and given to young adults who had the intent to cause arm to people, if some one is that determined to cause harm, will have a gun really stop them. Think of any public shooting, however sad they are, could each one have not been stopped if a trained person carried a firearm, could many of lives have not been saved? The argument could be made that couldn't the lives be saved if guns where band, and I would like the audience know that this is not the issue at hand. If my opponent would like to argue that I would be more than happy to right after this. My opponent asked for evidence that crime would actually be reduced well Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987, these are the statistics of crimes rates in Florida to the rest of United States from 1987 to 1997 Homicide rate dropped 36% in Florida and went down .4% as United states as a whole. Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. 1998 NRA Fact Card. " Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, . http://www.nra.org... If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. " University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96. ) "As of 1999 no permit holder has ever shot a cop and, in many cases permit holders have protected polices officers life. " Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pages 1, 11, 43 I will hold further arguments for now I apologize for the opening argument, due to the fact that I haven't spent much time reading debates, I viewed it as more of a opening statement to purpose a debate and not an opening argument. But thank you for providing a formidable opponent for this debate.

The individual should not have the right to possess a firearm. Firstly I would like to respond directly to some of Con's claims and statistics, which I believe are misleading, to put it kindly. To begin with, I have to immediately counter Con's claim that the 31 states that allow concealed carry on firearms have a 24% lower violent crime rate etc. There are actually 48 states which have laws which allow the concealed carrying of firearms of one sort or another. Con also claims that the homicide rate increased once laws against handguns came into effect. This is being extremely selective with the figures he chooses to publish to support his argument. Homicide actually decreased equally in a number of areas which had no lifting of any bans (maryland, fairfax VA to give but two examples). http://www.texasguntalk.com... I put forward that there was no relation between the lifting of the band and the decrease in homicides. This is merely con being selective with figures. The example of EnglandYou have given example of England where you say an increasin gun control has constantly led to an increase in crimes. I refute this as being untrue. However if you look at the difference in gun crime statistics, you will find that gun crime in the USA is several times more common than England and the UK in general (as an example I gave in my opening argument demonstrates). Guns laws deprive citizens of guns for self-defenceGun laws also provide potential criminals with arms. They make potential murderers of people. Con is defending the right to bear firearms in general, not merely handguns. The idea that a citizen has the need for an AK47 or a Sweeper (which are both legal in many states) is simply ridiculous. AccidentsI can't criticise the supposed 'security' the legality of private ownership of guns is supposed to bring without drawing on another statistic. Each year 10,000 people in the USA alone are involved in 'gun accidents'. http://www.buzzle.com... When you consider guns are only used in approx 60,000 of 'defense' incidents each year added with the many crimes committed as a result of being able to access guns (which number in the 10's of thousands also per annum), it strikes me as obvious that guns result in more danger for the individual than security. Finally, I would like to contest that 'guns are used for protection annually 5 timesore than they are to commit crimes. Con hasn't provided a source to base this claim that I can scrutinise, but this strikes me as most probably nonsense.

Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime I would like to start this round by stating that there are a few things I would agree with my opponent. If a trained police officer barges into a room, knowing exactly where the "test subjects" where seating there would be little anyone could do. How do I know this, well if you watch the case study you see that the trained police officer goes into room gun drawn and goes after no one else but the "test subject". It would also be very hard to defend yourself if you where wearing baggy pants and do not have you firearm in a holster like logic would presume for just such situation, I forgot to mention the over sized white tee-shirt you are wearing. That case study stacked the odds in favor of the attackers, there was noting anyone could do in such a biased situation. My opponent compares teenage drivers to conceal and carry permit holders, this argument should be refuted because A. provides no evidence that teenagers have highest percent of car wreaks due to lack of paying attention, couldn't it be because they are the least experienced drivers? As for my opponent say my statistics on Florida do not help my case, explain to me how Florida in 1987 homicide rates dropping as a whole does not help my point? Yes they went up as a country but what if the rest of the country did not share the same laws that Florida did, how is it proven that the country as a whole homicide rates would drop. They certainly did not go up in Florida which is on of my opponent's arguments for what could happen. My opponent states that it is the job of the government to protect our rights, but what about our lives? They also state that by advocating conceal and carry it is saying that the government isn't doing there job. Well the Supreme Court states that "It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection." The court case was "TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES". So the Supreme Court as said that they have no legal obligation to protect the individual. So what do you do when cops just aren't around or the police believe that there is a greater cause to attend to than your life? Also what my opponent either doesn't know who has not acknowledged yet is that by me arguing for conceal and carry in all 50 states I am really only arguing for conceal and carry to be legal in Illinois and Wisconsin, because those are the only two states in the entire United States that do not have some form of conceal carry, so if he/she believes that having conceal and carry in Illinois and Wisconsin would create tension in the United States as a whole then that would be saying a lot, but if conceal and carry would create tension then would we not already be feeling it now? I have already stated that if someone wants to get a firearm they are able to get one, but yet again this has nothing to do with being able to carry a firearm. Finally if I was deranged enough to want to cause harm to innocent people with a firearm and I owned firearms in my house, how would not being able to carry them stop me. Do you really think that a minor felony is going to stop someone who wants to murder people? Actually having conceal and carry permits is one of the few ways that could stop me. As for my "falsified facts", I would like to suggest the human error of typo, until my opponent look up document I took this off of I don't see how he can call it false.

Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Ok I'm sorry i wasn't able to respond on the previous round First of all I fully agree to the 2nd amendment, I will argue against your vague position that "concealed carry is a good thing" I hope voters will recognize what we are debating about and not the legality of concealed carry/2nd amendment First of all, gun isn't free, you need to shell out a lot of money to buy guns, bullets, not to mention training regularly for precise shooting and renting a place for such activity. Money that can be use for other much important things like house,food and clothing. Yes, everyone have the right to bear arm, yet the reality is only people with money can do so. In addition to that, racial discrimination play a big part when it comes to carrying a gun. Admit it, you don't want to see a mexican or african-american guy carrying in your street, why? because of their race. I don't want to explain the sociology of crime but we all know that poverty breeds crime and most of this race are poor, thus, many of them are connected to some crime of sorts. I'm not being a racist here but you can Google for yourself the statistics of crime committed by a certain race here in America. http://en.wikipedia.org... Lastly, ever heard of the post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychiatric illnesses caused by killing someone? yes you might be able to defend yourself or your family by some thugs who want to hurt you/them. But the consequence might haunt you for the rest of your life. Soldiers experience this, police and private securities are no exemption, how much more to an individual not trained to "kill" someone. There are some ex-soldiers who go berserk and kill their loved ones because of this disease. The recent fort hood shooting is just another case of many incident like these. http://edition.cnn.com... These are just some of the bad things that can happen in carrying or owning a gun. Again, just what I have mentioned, I didn't debate against the legality of owning a gun but the "bad things" owning a gun can do to a person and society

All should have there right to own a gun Well all have the right to self defense and a gun is protection if you know how to use it in the right way.

All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights. Pro’s only argument was that taking away a citizen’s right to own a gun, will impede their ability to rebel against a corrupt government, and will therefore make the US corrupt. There are five problems with this.1) In the United States we actually have a democratic-republic, which means that citizens get to vote on just about everything, meaning that the majority of Americans would have to agree with, and allow the government to become corrupt. 2) We have a separation of powers, meaning that the power that the government has is divided up among different groups (Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches). This prevents the government from getting too much power, and in effect becoming corrupt. 3) The Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches have the power to check and balance each other. If the Executive branch is becoming too powerful, the Legislative branch and Judicial branch have the ability to take away some of that power, and so on for every branch. 4) The United Nations (UN) is a peacekeeping organization that prevents war and stops corrupt government. Even if the paramount improbability of the US becoming corrupt happens, the UN has an obligation to resolve it. 5) Even if the significantly more paramount improbability that the UN cannot resolve our corruption, the people can still revolt, violently if they choose to, with every weapon or tactic available to them except firearms.The chance that it will come to the people to have to overthrow the government is so small that the risks much outweigh the benefits. Even if it were to come to the people, what are they supposed to do against the military, with tanks, airstrikes, etc. It will likely just lead to more deaths.

Private Citizens should be armed in public People kill peopleWhen you allow private citizens to be armed in public, you allow both people who may want to kill others to walk around town with guns, as well as those who may not. The problem is that if those people who want to kill others shoot somebody, the person being shot does not have time to react. Even if they could, the fact that they don't want to kill others makes the gun really pointless. In the hands of somebody nice, guns are not really all that problematic, while in the hands of somebody bad they have the power to inflict a lot of terrible damage really quickly. So why would you be carrying a gun if you didn't intend to kill people, in public? Presumably to scare attackers off. But why would attackers be scared if they know you couldn't react and probably wouldn't use it even if you could? It so happens that there is a much better way of scaring attackers off, and that's making guns illegal in public. That way if somebody is carrying a gun in public, you know they're either an attacker or a police officer. When the fact that all the responsible law-abiding people aren't carrying guns, the bad guys are easy to spot. Guns are pretty scaryThere's nothing more freaky than having a gun pointed at you. You know in that instant your life is hanging on a trigger, even if it really isn't and you have nothing to worry about. My point is that average citizens of America should have the right to go to town and not feel unsafe or unsettled by the fact that everyone else has the ability to kill them in an instant. Let's talk about the outcomes here. People have to live in fear - they don't have the choice, as everyone has to go into a public space sometimes. Worse still, the alternative is that people become desensitized to guns and ignore the threat until it is too late. It's good that guns are scary, because they can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. Since guns have this power to make people feel unsafe, then that's good grounds to ban them unless there is some real advantage to their prevalence. Slippery slope of ownershipIf everyone else has a gun except for you, the best psychological defense you have is to buy yourself a gun. This is because guns are the object that are causing your emotional distress - if you feel you have a weapon too, then you feel that you can control the outcome a lot more if things do go bad. Of course, this isn't really the case. Holding a gun is incredibly unlikely to stop a bullet if one is fired at you. So the harm is that you create this big cycle where everyone feels they need a gun - even people who might normally not feel inclined to have a gun, or who might personally feel (perhaps because they know they are prone to getting a little violent) that they should not own a gun. And thus, simply making it legal to carry guns in public increases gun ownership rates.2nd AmendmentJust because it states in your constitution that you're allowed to bear arms does not mean it's a good idea. If your constitution were to explicitly state "All Americans have the right to jump to their deaths in the Grand Canyon", it wouldn't make that a good idea either. If it did say that my opponent would make the same arguments - "jumping to your death in the Grand Canyon loses inherency and power when nobody's doing it! " - "we must not be limited by our fear of dying and exercise this right! "SecurityThis debate is not about whether you should have guns in private (which would include your house or wherever your family lives) but rather in public, making this study irrelevant. My opponent also notes many people know how to operate guns safely. Knowing how to operate them safely and actually using them safely are, however, two different things. Current LegalityI have absolutely no idea how this extends my opponent's 2nd Amendment argument. It's exactly the same, because the other laws are all based on the 2nd amendment.

Conceal Carry Laws reduce violent crime Why shouldn't I get to know if someone is carrying?If someone is acting like a lunatic I might tolerate that behavior if they are unarmed, but if they are armed I want to be able to get away.Instead of allowing concealed carry, only open carry should be allowed. The individual is more advantaged by open carry than concealed anyways. If you are openly carrying the criminal will know and avoid you. With concealed carry since most citizens aren't carrying criminals are unlikely to suspect that you are carrying. You want to avoid trouble in the first place if you can. That's why open carry makes more sense than concealed carry in deterring crime.Furthermore there is the risk of accidents and the right for citizens to know you are carrying so they can avoid you to avoid accidents.

Concealed Carry on College Campuses Qualified students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons while on a college campus. There is no good reason to deny capable students with permits the right that they are afforded everywhere else. The issue is about student safety. Needless crimes happen everyday because students are not allowed to defend themselves in the most effective way: with a gun. According to the Department of Education, 25% of crimes that happen on college campuses are rapes and 39% are assaults. These numbers would be significantly lower had these victims been lawfully armed.

Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Before I begin, I wish to remind con and the voters that the right to keep and bear arms does protect some form of publicly carrying a weapon. A state may not excessively prohibit concealed carry and open carry. One or both MUST be allowed. As that is not the topic, that is all I have to say on that (for proof of that statement, look up Peruta V. San Diego). My aim throughout this debate is to demonstrate that: -Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals -Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings -As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes. --Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals "Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994]." --Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings I had 8 links to incidents where armed resistance ended a shooting but they would not work in this format unfortunately. See the bottom of this page for a few URLS. According to FBI statistics: When civilians stopped a shooting event there was an average of 2.3 deaths. When law enforcement responded, at an average time of 3 minutes, 14.3 deaths occurred. --As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes My apologies that this is a copy and paste. I have to wake up for work in 5 hours. "A front-page story in today's New York Times tries to stir up alarm about liberalized carry permit laws, which let people carry concealed handguns if they meet a short list of objective criteria. To illustrate the hazards of that policy, the Times cites crimes committed by permit holders in North Carolina. How many crimes? Excluding traffic offenses, the Times counts 2,400 over five years, of which 200 were felonies. More relevant (since critics of nondiscretionary permit laws worry that they contribute to gun violence), "More than 200 permit holders were also convicted of gun- or weapon-related felonies or misdemeanors, including roughly 60 who committed weapon-related assaults." That's a dozen gun assaults a year. How many permit holders are there in North Carolina? According to the story, "more than 240,000." So 0.2 percent of them are convicted of a non-traffic-related offense each year, about 0.017 percent are convicted of a felony, and only 0.005 percent are convicted of a gun assault. The Times concedes that the number of permit holders convicted of crimes "represents a small percentage of those with permits." More like "tiny." By comparison, about 0.35 percent of all Americans are convicted of a felony each year--more than 20 times the rate among North Carolina permit holders. It seems clear these people are far more law-abiding than the general population, a finding consistent with data from other states. Such data are not surprising, since law-abidingness, as measured by a clean criminal record, is one requirement for a carry permit." http://www.kgw.com... http://www.frontpagemag.com... http://www.theblaze.com... http://www.buzzfeed.com...

Concealed carry laws decrease crime definitions: Conceal carry: Being allowed to carry a weapon hidden. "Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity." http://en.wikipedia.org... Requirements for the permit: "is at least 21 years of age; ï¿½ is a resident of the state; ï¿½ provides fingerprints and submits to a criminal and mental health background check; ï¿½ has not been convicted of a felony or any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; ï¿½ is not a fugitive from justice; ï¿½ is not an illegal alien; ï¿½ is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; ï¿½ has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent or been committed to a mental institution; ï¿½ has not been dishonorably discharged from the armed services; ï¿½ is not subject to a restraining or protection order; ï¿½ has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; ï¿½ is not awaiting trial for, and does not have any charges pending for, a crime punishable by more thanone year imprisonment; ï¿½ has completed a firearms safety or training course; and ï¿½ pays a licensing fee." [1] __________ Round 1 acceptance clarifications and definitions. Good luck [1] Snyder, Jeffery R. "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun." CATO, 22 Oct. 1997

Private Citizens should be armed in public 1. At the end of the debate, the vote should go to the debater whose arguments are comparatively better than their opponent's. 2. Definitions- a. A "Private Citizen" will refer to any American above the age of 17, who has not been convicted of a felony charge. b. "Should" will mean 'a good idea'. c. "Armed" will refer to possession of a registered firearm. d. "Public" will refer to the any area which is open to any person to attend and inhabit. 3. Framework- a. Votes should be based solely on the things expressed in the debate section, no-where else. This includes prior debates and the comments section. b. Since there is an infinite amount of ground that could be covered on this subject, only things explicitly written in the round are grounds of debate. c. The scope of this debate is the United States 4. Second Amendment Rights- a. The right to bear arms is a fundamental liberty given in the second amendment of the U. S. Constitution[1]. therefore, arguments of legality are not legitimate. Instead this debate is one of whether or not it is a good idea for private citizens to be armed when entering public spheres. b. When citizens fail to practice their rights, they weaken its inherency and it loses power. We see that this is the case with the right to vote[2], and a similar link must be made with the right to bear arms. when we fail to uphold this right, we lose sight of its importance. c. We cannot limit our rights based on fear. We see a call for stronger gun control in the public opinion due to the shootings which have received so much media attention as of late, but let us not forget that those are sensational stories and far from the norm[3]. that's the reason they"ve received so much media attention in the first place, because this doesn"t happen every day; to assume as such and limit rights will only take use to the place that implementing the TSA after 9-11 did; a culture of fear which violates rights. [1] bit. ly/WlcqTM [2] cbsn. ws/GA5vcC [3] bit. ly/12k6NFO 5. Security- a. Homes with guns are safer than those without guns. Or at least they have a greater sense of community and make residents feel safer as Dr. Hemenway argued[4]. Hemenway"s study showed that more than half of gun owners cite protection as a reason for owning a fire-arm in the first place. Furthermore, that impact extends beyond their home and into the community. Families who own guns increase community safety by deterring criminals from committing crimes. b. Attendance of gun-safety classes is on the rise, and has only picked up steam since the recent shooting in Colorado and Wisconsin [5]. Referring to the prior argument of sensationalism, Patrick Egan, assistant professor of politics at New York University made a point to say that gun violence has been at an all-time time low for the past 40 years. Aside for those latching onto the sensationalism, most analysts agree that the solution is not to limit the rights of gun owners, but to increase education on gun safety. [4] bit. ly/XCNanr [5] usat. ly/U99JCq 6. Legality in the status quo- a. Despite the school shootings in Wisconsin, they became the 49th state to legalize owning a concealed handgun in November, making Illinois the only state to forbid the practice[5]. This argument can even be seen as an extension of my second amendment argument on how not practicing rights leads to a weakening of their legitimacy. Carrying a weapon is a right for American citizens, and must not be retracted based on principles of fear. 7. Underview- a. I look forward to a good debate, and hope all voters enjoy reading it. b. As it stands the Pro has fulfilled their burden, I remind voters to make their decision based on this debate"s content and not on personal opinions.

Im Pro-Gun: Change my Mind Concealed Carry owners are 6% more law abiding than police, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. They can shoot the shooter, and stop the massacre. States that implemented "shall-issue" concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent, according to an analysis of FBI crime data by economist and political commentator John R. Lott Jr., PhD. Conversely, states with more restrictive concealed-carry laws have gun-related murder rates that are 10 percent higher, according to a 2013 study in Applied Economic Letters. Statistically, guns save more lives than take them. Guns are for self-defense, but mainly to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, like the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution. If the government takes away our guns, we won't have any self-defense against a tyrannical government.

All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights. Thank you for clarifying the round structure. Now for my arguments. Right to rebel A government can easily become corrupt, even a republic. When this happens, the people have the right to rebel. As Thomas Jefferson said,"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." Patrick Henry said,"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Alexander Hamilton said,"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." I could go on and on with similar quotes by America's founders, but I think this shows how wrong it would be to deprive citzens of their guns.http://econfaculty.gmu.edu...

The United States federal government should force states to allow citizens to carry guns. >>> The problem with your argument is if the goverment allowed all citizens to carry guns mentally handicapped unstable people and murderers would all have guns, a citizen is a member of a state or community. +++ This is untrue. A gun concealment law bans minors and mentally handicapped from carrying guns. +++ Mentally handicapped individuals pose less of a threat to society than an unarmed citizenry. A defenseless citizenry will be threatened by criminals constantly. A criminal's biggest fear is an armed victim. Criminals advantage from a defenseless citizenry. +++ You already conceded that gun control is uneffective. We are in concession. You can't rescind your statement. >>> laws are made by the state to protect those from dangers no state has banned everyone from holding guns so you say all citizens regardless of mental or physical health. +++ Alaska bans arms in bars, D.C. bans arms, Illinois bans concealment, etc. Gun control does not work and my opponent NEVER REBUTTED CONSTITUTIONALITY. I win this debate because my opponent dropped the 2nd Amendment argument.

Concealed Carry Laws Decrease Violent Crime As Robert Cottrol, JD, PhD, Professor of Law and History at George Washington University, wrote in the article "Gun Control Is Racist, Sexist, and Classist" published in the Sept. 1999 issue of American Enterprise: "In recent years a majority of states have passed laws permitting honest citizens to carry concealed weapons, and the results tell us much about self-defense and the responsibility of the average citizen. Once it was passionately argued that such laws would turn minor altercations into bloody shoot-outs; now we know better. Over 1 million Americans have licenses to carry firearms, but firearms misuse by this group has been utterly negligible. Criminologists now debate not how much harm has been caused by concealed-carry laws, but how much good. .. [A right to bear arms] says the individual is not simply a helpless bystander in the difficult and dangerous task of ensuring his or her safety. Instead, the citizen is an active participant, an equal partner with the state in ensuring not only his own safety but that of his community. This is a serious right for serious people. It takes the individual from servile dependency on the state to the status of participating citizen, capable of making intelligent choices in defense of one's life and ultimately one's freedom. This conception of citizenship recognizes that the ultimate civil right is the right to defend one's own life, that without that right all other rights are meaningless, and that without the means of self-defense the right to self-defense is but an empty promise. " In other words, concealed carry laws are very beneficial to the community. It allows people to protect others. Here are some statistics from Campuscarry. com: 1. At the start of the 2010 fall semester, 14 Colorado community colleges (38 campuses) began allowing licensed concealed carry on campus. 2. Since the fall semester of 2006, Utah state law has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of Utah's nine degree-offering public colleges (20 campuses) and one public technical college (10 campuses). 3. Concealed carry has been allowed on the two campuses of Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO, and Pueblo, CO) since 2003 and at Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA) since 1995. 4. After allowing concealed carry on campus for an average of more than three years (as of June 2011), none of these 26 colleges (71 campuses) has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides) or a single resulting gun accident. When we look at the concealed carry movement as a whole, from its beginnings in the late 1980s to the present, we see a huge increase in the number of people with carry permits, from around one million in 1987 to around six million today. Now here's the kicker: during this same time frame, violent crime has fallen to record lows in America, hovering nationwide at rates not seen since the early 1960s. Historic numbers of guns in the hands of private citizens, who are increasingly carrying those guns in public, and a dramatic, ongoing drop in violent crime. Now there's something to think about! Tactically speaking, the element of surprise is a great thing. If someone doesn't know you have a firearm, then they can't tactically adjust them selves for that. If they were to try and rob you and you pull a firearm they didn't know about, that surprises most criminals, not all, but most. Something they were not expecting has the potential to rattle cages. Plus when you are out in public I think people are less likely to be jumpy or nervous if they don't see a firearm on your side and no badge on your shirt. Again, not all people would respond that way I wouldn't think, but some might. . http://concealedguns.procon.org... . http://www.campuscarry.com... . http://blog.chegg.com... . http://www.usconcealedcarry.net... . http://www.usacarry.com...

Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Honestly you really can't compare gasoline to a firearm. For an arsonist it takes a longer time to kill someone, but for a murderer it's just hit and boom the person's seriously injured or dead. Plus to be an arsonist you have to place the gasoline, which plenty of people can see them while they do it. The fact that we can't prove that something will or will not happen, scares people. When people are scared or worried, we do what seems right and to people, banning firearms is the right thing to do. Washington DC is where the president lives, not everyone likes the president. Which can lead to higher violent crimes, people trying to kill the president, people just showing their hatred, and etc. The .0054% of murderers that were committed by legal gun owners, is a problem. People still have to watch their backs where ever they go, they have to wonder: Does that guy have a gun I can't see? Will he kill people? What if he does? It is a huge problem!

Conceal/open carry laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paraniod. You come off very anti-gun. I apologize for my assumption. Now, to the argument here. Who's to say that someone shouldn't carry a gun to feel safe? It seems to me that someone would be more likely to be able to help a situation, if the need should arise, if they were armed rather than attempting to user their fists to deliver justice. Correct? Sure, there's some people that shouldn't be using guns, but there's always someone that manages to use something they shouldn't. Like a car, for example. Basically, I'm getting that you really just want people to have to undergo proper training in order to carry a gun publicly. That makes perfect sense, yes. We definitely shouldn't let just any old jerk carry around a gun because they want to feel safe. But we shouldn't say that people don't have a right to be safe either. Guns don't(usually) turn people into complete wimps, and people don't usually want guns because they're wimps. It all comes back to safety. Why would you tackle a gunman willing to kill you? It would make a lot more sense for someone that was carrying to actually do something to him. That doesn't make the carrier a wimp, it makes them a logical human being.

Citizens ought to possess handguns. Although I will admit that not everything is always used with its original intention, the purpose of citizens owning handguns is to protect them. As to harming society in general: Society is not hurt because individuals own handguns. Society is hurt by individuals. You cannot condemn the hammer because the wielder misuses it: in the same way, you cannot condemn a gun as "bad" because individuals choose to misuse it. You can't justify taking away a citizen's right to their own protection by saying that others will cause them harm with the same thing they use to protect themselves. Even if handguns were to be legalized, there are ways of getting around laws and regulations that people who intend to harm others will be able to access that regular citizens will not. Example: the black market. Another point: we're arguing handguns specifically. However, there are many other different types of guns. Even if handguns were to become illegal, people who seriously intend to cause damage to others have easy access to OTHER types of guns, such as rifles. All you'd need to do is walk into a hunting/sports store. So arguing that guns are empowering, thus citizens ought not carry HANDGUNS won't benefit society either way: illegalizing handguns for that reason would be pointless. Taking away a citizen's right to owning a handgun will not decrease the potential for crime - it will decrease the potential for defense against crime. Society will be harmed, not helped. You argue that children could potentially get into the guns, or even other people. That is a nonunique arguement. That reasoning could be applicable to any dangerous item in a house, and is not proper justification for the illegalization of a handgun. Lighters were originally intended to do just that: to light. However, they were used as a means of torture by gangs, and the potential for danger when using a lighter is high. However, they are sold over-the-counter. Say a child finds a lighter on a table and accidentally severely burns himself. Should lighters then be illegalized? I think there's another important point to bring up: When a government tells it's citizens that they have no right to carry arms, to protect themselves, and going against its own Constitution in doing so, what message does that send to the citizens? When a government does not adhere to its own laws then its citizens cannot be expected to do the same, which could potentially send us into a state of either anarchy or tyranny. From history we know that anarchy leads to violent revolution, and tyranny leads to death and governmental abuse, and as we're valuing societal welfare in this debate, we cannot take away that right to bear arms because the society will always be harmed.

Lawful concealed carry is a good thing I left the title vague so as to allow my opponent the choice to argue against the benefits of individual concealed carry or as a society. From my R1 post: "You may argue against an individual carrying or that it is detrimental to society as a whole." Correct, this debate is about whether or not it is beneficial. Your arguments are all straw man arguments. Please post something more concrete next time. While you are correct in saying "gun isn't free," when it comes to concealed carry you don't need something high performance since the average defensive gun use is at less then 15 feet. So a gun for concealed carry just has to shoot reliably, that's it. That's why when it comes to the cost of a gun, compacts have by far the cheapest average price. There are a large number of them in the $150-$300 range. While I get it that that amount would be difficult for some to squeeze out of their monthly budget, those in poverty have a much greater need to own something for self defense. That argument is in fact quite racist while also being irrelevant. This is about concealed carry. In other words, I would not even be aware that the individual was armed. And as stated above, those in impoverished environments have a greater need to have a firearm. The law abiding should always have the right to defend themselves regardless of race. Yes I've heard of it. I'm in the Navy. I know some people who have it. I also know a number of people who have been in their fair share of firefights who don't. Your argument is invalid as it assumes you will get PTSD from using a gun defensively. And as you said: "you might be able to defend yourself or your family by some thugs who want to hurt you/them." Choose one: option a.) your family is torn apart by the murder/rape of one or more family members. Or b.) your family watches a criminal get his chest ventilated. Which do you really think would be more likely to cause PTSD? "These are just some of the bad things that can happen in carrying or owning a gun." On the contrary, all of your arguments were irrelevant and not "bad things" that can happen owning a gun. You could have said something about having a negligent discharge and that would have at least been a valid argument. Instead you talked about how poor people can't have guns, armed minorities make you uncomfortable, and that you'd rather be a victim. Late last year, Illinois finally began issuing concealed carry permits. Gun control advocates were metaphorically, up in arms claiming there would be blood in the streets. But what really happened to the crime rate? It's down 25% and Chicago experienced its lowest murder rate since 1958 for the first quarter of this year *1. In 2013, President Obama commissioned a $10 million dollar study on gun violence *2. That study found that firearms are used in self defense anywhere from 500,000 to more than 3 million times per year. It's impossible to have an exact number as a lot of them go unreported. Since brandishing a firearm is illegal, most people would rather just let the assailant run off and not report it. *1 http://abclocal.go.com... *2 http://www.nap.edu...

Concealed carry laws help reduce violent crime - Clarification -Many terms may be used in this debate. One of them may be the term ‘shall issue’ laws. Shall issue laws are a form of liberalized concealed carry law. They generally mean if you meet the criteria of the law—including but not limited to—being 21 years of age or not having a violent criminal record, you will obtain this law. If you pass training and pass all requirements, you obtain the law.This is in contrast to may issue, meaning if you pass all of the requirements, you still may not be licensed as you need a ‘good reason’.No issue is self-explanatory. Concealed carry is banned, and you will never be issued a concealed carry permit. BOP I would argue both sides should be given equal burden of proofs. Although I am affirmative, CON is now against the status quo. Nearly all states have passed shall issue laws, and a few (Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Arkansas, Vermont) have no restrictions [8]. Therefore, I have a burden to prove that concealed carry laws do reduce crime, and CON must prove they either have no discernable effect or increase crime.C1) Deterrence theoryThis will provide theoretical reasons as to why concealed carry laws would decrease crime.Deterrence theory began in the 1960s under the groundbreaking research by now deceased economist Gary Becker. His work in the field of criminology is almost unmatched. His theory is now known as deterrence theory. The theory holds criminals are rational actors and will act rationally towards incentives and punishments. Indeed, Becker finds many criminals are in crime solely for payment: money. But others see the emotional thrill overweighs the costs of punishment. Essentially, criminals react to different forgings. If there is increased threat to them, they back down and are less likely to commit criminal acts [1].This applies to concealed carry in a fairly obvious manner. If citizens are able to arm themselves, this increases the cost to the criminal. Citizens may now react violently towards criminal actors, either ending in a failed attack or even death. Armed citizens also could increase the chances which criminals are caught. Therefore, concealed carry laws significantly increase the risk of committing various crimes. Based on Becker’s theory, we should see a decrease in violent crime if people are now allowed to arm themselves.And concealed carry holds more of a deterrent than open carry. Open carry can and does deter criminals. However, it also means if you are a criminal you know who to avoid. This means either you will attack at a different place, or merely murder the carrier and then harm the defenseless masses. Concealed carry means the criminal is unaware as to who is armed. The criminal does not know when a civilian has the capacity to end his life. The criminal does not know who to attack first. The criminal is the one who will be taken by surprise. Although open carry does reduce crime, concealed carry is one of the strongest deterrence methods a civilian can possess.C2) How firearms affect crime ratesFirearms have two effects on crime. First, they can increase crime. They do this by arming criminals. This can empower them to commit more crime or make the severity of their crimes more severe. However, firearms can also reduce crime. Arming citizens will both deter crime but also reduce the impact of crime. Defensive gun uses, for example, would reduce the impact of the crime, even though the crime is still attempted. The question is which effect is more important. Overall, firearms have been demonstrated to have little effect on crime, and gun control is largely ineffective. Gun control primarily affects law abiding citizens, meaning they even have the potential to increase crime [2].So why is this relevant? Obviously, laws which give firearms primarily to law abiding citizens will reduce crime. Concealed carry laws chiefly arm law abiding citizens. This means the second effect—the crime reducing effect—is amplified by concealed carry laws.C3) Empirical research on right to carry lawsWhat does the empirical literature reveal to us as to how concealed carry laws affect crime rates?The research begins with two scholars, John Lott and David Mustard. Their study took into account every single country in the United States. Their study found concealed carry laws would save the economy 6.2 billion dollars each year due to reduced crime impacts. Murder fell 7.7%, rape fell 5.3%, aggravated assault fell 7.01%, and robbery fell 2.2% [3].John Lott’s work received criticism—which I am sure my opponent will mention. Regardless, the study received much praise, including from award winning criminologist Gary Kleck. Lott’s study was the first to utilize the entire country. Before him, studies would focus on small non-geographically representative areas. They studies every shall issue law passed between 1977 and 1992. Lott’s study attempted to control for many factors other than merely changes in shall issue laws in order to obtain the true effects—previous research did not. The study was also the first to focus on all types of crime, whereas studies before focused only on homicide. Although Kleck remained fairly skeptical of the studies conclusions, he noted the study proved concealed carry laws did not increase crime. He also conceded the study was the best designed study of publication to date [4].There has been a few literature reviews on the topic. A recent one by John Lott in the Maryland Law Review summarizes the recent literature. Little research was found as to whether or not concealed carry laws increase accidental death rates. Of the evidence currently in existence, there seems to be no relationship between concealed carry laws and accidental deaths or suicides. There have been a total of 29 studies published by economists and criminologists on the issue. Of those, 18 supported the idea concealed carry laws reduced crime, 10 claimed no effect, and only one found an increase in crime. There are 5 different methods which have concluded concealed carry laws reduce crime. Authors of different political views have contributed to the idea that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime. If you extend the meta-analysis to include non-refereed studies, there are 21 studies which claim concealed carry laws reduce crime, 11 which claim no effect, and 3 claiming an increase. 60% of the literature, therefore, supports my position. Of the ones which claim increased crime, they have been found to be severely flawed. Ironically, they accuse Lott’s work of having coding errors. However, it was on a paper which he was not an author, and the coding errors did not affect the results. The ironic part is that their work is now notorious for coding errors, including having the same county in the dataset multiple times. Scholars have failed to reproduce their work, meaning it is highly unlikely these laws increase crime. The research claiming no effect also often makes errors—such as truncation bias—and when the errors are accounted for, they also find no increase in crime. Lott concludes, “the consensus is the same: right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime.” [5][6].Some research even indicated concealed carry laws reduce police deaths. Before a law, states have a slightly higher chance of police deaths via shooting. After shall issue laws are passed, there is a slightly lower chance of being murdered if you are a police officer. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms does not endanger police officers—in fact, it may even protect them [7].Conclusion Research on general firearms tells us one thing: Guns can both increase and decrease crime. Concealed carry laws primarily arm citizens, indicating the decreasing crime effects would become amplified. This means there should be large decreases in crime after shall-issue laws are passed. Research on general crime also gives credence to the idea. Criminals are rational actors and respond to incentives and costs. Concealed carry laws increases the cost for criminals, meaning they would be more hesitant in attacking citizens who may be armed. And research on concealed carry laws themselves almost unanimously argue these laws reduce crime. Unless my opponent really refutes C3, he loses the debate.[1] http://www.nber.org...[2] http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu...[3] http://www.law.uchicago.edu...[4] Gary Kleck. Targeting Guns, pp 371-372.[5] http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu...[6] John Lott. More guns Less Crime (2010).[7] http://papers.ssrn.com...[8] http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Guns... US **Note my case is for conceal carry, my anti banning guns is in the rebuttals. My opponents case is in favor of banning guns, and anti conceal carry in rebuttals.**Deterrence (use with argument below)A common misconception throughout Europe is less guns equal less crime, and the same argument applies in current US media, all claiming guns and conceal carry are evil.Now before we claim criminals can be deterred, we must first ask can they be deterred? The answer is yes, as many economic studies (studies done by economists) find when increased punishments or possible problems occur when doing the crime the negative outweigh the positives of committing the crime, and then they are less likely to commit the crime. Now we must ask why are they deterred by this? The answer is self explanatory, but I shall point out the obvious: They want self preservation, they want to be able to get away with their deeds. Also many surveys conducted show that criminals are more scared of people with guns then police officers, as if the gun is hidden they may be attacked back without warning (polices warning is the uniform).Now, lets look at a thing Lott calls a "hot burglary." This is when a criminal strikes when a person is already at home. In Canada and England, where gun control is very strict, almost half of the burglaries where hot. In contrast, 13% in america where hot. Now what is the reason? Because they think they may get shot, they say robbing at night when people are home is the best way to get shot, they would rather case a house. This proves they fear guns.Now, lets use some examples of deterrence. Lott uses the literal example of apples and oranges. He says if the price of apples increases while the price of oranges decreases apples sales will decrease, while orange sales will stay the same or increase. This shows the human oh it has consequences effect.Is open carry and conceal carry different, when it comes to deterrence? When a concealed carry permit holder has a gun, it is harder to actually tell if they have a gun. Criminals wont know if they are attacking an old lady, or an old lady packing a .45 Springfield in her purse. This raises the risk to criminals, hence also their preservation. Whereas open carry is much less scary, as you know who not to annoy, and not to annoy anyone around him (as he may help the other person). The conceal carry laws threaten the criminals more.The empirical data Law Passed Murder fell 7.7%, Rape fell 5.3%, Aggravated assault by 7.01%, robbery 2.2%, Burglary .5%, Larceny 3.3%, Auto 7.1%. [1] (1977-1997 data)Other data, his 1999 data, shows a better outcome of a 10% decrease in murder, and the other categories too had a larger decrease in crime, hence CCW in hi later data was slightly revised in new data sets. Lotts early data can be found in #2. Now lets look at PA. They had a drop in murder of about 26%, and overall violent crime drop of 5.3%. Now, one of the criticisms of this basic trend is just because the drop happened after the law, we can also look at other variables, the most common one is arrest rates. Lott makes many dummy variables, tables, and to the best of his ability shows CCW laws where a significant portion of the decrease. [1] Another reasons he concludes the drop is because when there is a spike in people who have permits there is a decrease in violent crimes. To get more local statistics, lets look at his findings in some states. In Oregon, for example, murder dropped 37% after the law was passed. Now, there are other variables he accounted for in the third addition making his data superior to the first. He did other dummy data sets, and still finds CCW had a large portion of the deterrence an drop in crimes. [1] Now, it is logical to assume they actually decrease crime due to my deterrent argument above. The CATO study also finds similar reasons why it would actually decrease crime. They also fund similar accounts of data, and they conclude the Florida CCW law was positive and the other states that passed these laws also had a positive showing. Another question that must be answered: would it increase or decrease mass public crimes? Now, as this is a valid fear, see the recent shootings in Chicago I believe, or Virginia tech. But to define shootings/killings, we must look into what is defined by. It is defined as a public shooting in a place where 2 or more people are killed or injured. Now based n his data in figure 5.1, he found the likelihood of a state to have this happen was about 60%, a little more. After the conceal carry law was passed, data and trends suggests the state now has only a 1% chance of these types of shootings in areas where conceal carry holders are allowed. [1] I may have misphrased the argument here: the likelihood of deaths or injuries when the crime occurs. Essentially saying conceal carry laws make it harder for the psycho to kill when in the area where a conceal carry permit holder resides.Now, another question would be does it lower crime committed with guns? This argument used is common amongst people trying to go against conceal carry laws. But this is not the case. In the new 2010 edition of source 1, it finds a 9% decrease in murders with guns after non-discretionary laws are passed. Murders with non handguns dropped at a similar rate, 8.9%."If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly." [1] [2] (1997 study)Summary of argument: source: [1], and "the conceal handgun debate", john lott. CONCLUSION: It is logical to assume even without the data CCW laws would decrease the crime rate, but the empirical data makes an indestructible case. With this information we can conclude CCW lowers crime. Now, lets hope my opponent can attempt to prove opposite and gun bans save lives, which they do not. [1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010.[2] Lott, Jr., John R., and David B. Mustard. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." The Journal of Legal Studies 26.1 (1997)[3] Snyder, Jeffery R. "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun." CATO, 22 Oct. 1997

I'm Pro Second Amendment: Change my Mind Concealed Carry owners are 6% more law abiding than police, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. They can shoot the shooter, and stop the massacre. States that implemented "shall-issue" concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent, according to an analysis of FBI crime data by economist and political commentator John R. Lott Jr., PhD. Conversely, states with more restrictive concealed-carry laws have gun-related murder rates that are 10 percent higher, according to a 2013 study in Applied Economic Letters. Statistically, guns save more lives than take them. Guns are for self-defense, but mainly to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, like the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution. If the government takes away our guns, we won't have any self-defense against a tyrannical government.

I think that concealed carry should not be allowed. Prove me wrong Sources?

Concealed weapons buy time to draw gun. An extension of the above argument is that while an open carry gun might be slightly faster on the draw (perhaps a second or two), a concealed carry gun offers the element of surprise, which buys an individual plenty of time to choose the right opportunity to draw the gun on the unsuspecting assailant. In addition, with an open carry gun, the assailant knows exactly what the person is reaching for, so will move faster to try to overcome them. With a concealed carry gun, the person to act casually and inconspicuously while reach for gun, perhaps saying something like, "OK, I'm reaching for my wallet." There are many situations in which, therefore, a concealed carry weapon buys more time than an open carry weapon.

On Campus Concealed Carry For organization's sake, I will break my argument down into numbered points. 1) Everyone remembers the tragic school shootings that have plagued the U.S. in recent years. Columbine and Virginia Tech are only two among multiple other shooting rampages that took place on school campuses. While police responded as quickly as they could, they were unable to stop the shooter(s) before they could kill dozens of students and teachers. Had there been a student or teacher on the school's grounds however, there is a very real possibility that the shooter(s) would have been stopped in the very early stages of their tirade. 2) Utah was the first (and I believe only so far) state to universally allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry while on college campuses. Thusfar they have had no major incidents that have resulted from CHL holders on college campuses. Other individual college campuses around the U.S. (Ex: Colorado State University) allow concealed carry and have similarly suffered no major incidents from CHL carriers. 3) The only people who would be allowed to carry concealed while on college campuses would be (based on proposed states' legislation) the same people who could normally own and carry a gun everywhere else. To conclude my argument this round, adding concealed carry to college campuses has yet to cause a problem, and therefore, the state has no right to not allow people who already carry concealed elsewhere to carry on campus.

On Campus Concealed Carry For organization's sake, I will break my argument down into numbered points. 1) Everyone remembers the tragic school shootings that have plagued the U.S. in recent years. Columbine and Virginia Tech are only two among multiple other shooting rampages that took place on school campuses. While police responded as quickly as they could, they were unable to stop the shooter(s) before they could kill dozens of students and teachers. Had there been a student or teacher on the school's grounds however, there is a very real possibility that the shooter(s) would have been stopped in the very early stages of their tirade. 2) Utah was the first (and I believe only so far) state to universally allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry while on college campuses. Thusfar they have had no major incidents that have resulted from CHL holders on college campuses. Other individual college campuses around the U.S. (Ex: Colorado State University) allow concealed carry and have similarly suffered no major incidents from CHL carriers. 3) The only people who would be allowed to carry concealed while on college campuses would be (based on proposed states' legislation) the same people who could normally own and carry a gun everywhere else. To conclude my argument this round, adding concealed carry to college campuses has yet to cause a problem, and therefore, the state has no right to not allow people who already carry concealed elsewhere to carry on campus.

Conceal to carry I accept. In this debate, I will show that CCW laws cause more harm then good. Rebuttals first. "When they go to place there not usually from they may liker to have it or when ever traveling down the road and break down you never know if what someone might do to you." Do you have any evidence that concealed carry weapons will reduce attacks on stranded drivers? Is this even a problem to begin with? " If they stop somewhere and people that have kids see it they make a big deal about and how there kids shouldn't be seeing that kind of stuff." - I don't get this point. You explained a possible counter argument, but failed to rebut it. Extend. "You never know what kind of people you may run into when you are out on the road and now a days I would be scared at times and places I go." - As I will point out later, CC will actually make these situations worse. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? "That is why I think that they should not be harassed about carrying a gun into public places." -This is a problem. The resolution is about CCW laws, but now you make a point about harassment. Please extend. Now onto my arguments. C1: Increased Crime. - A common claim by gun rights activists is that guns will decrease crime, as citizens can stop criminals. This is false. A study done in 2012 by the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that states that had "shall carry" laws had a 2% increase in murders and a 9% increase in violent crime [1]. A 1995 study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminalogy found that states that passed "shall issue" laws had a 4.5 person per 100,000 increase in the gun homicide rate [2]. So allowing CC is increasing the crime risk. C2: Increased risk. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault then people who don't carry guns [3]. This is more of a rebuttal of the gun rights activists' claims that guns will keep you safe. C3: Restrictions don't stop crime. You state that we should place restrictions on concealed carrying. However, these laws do not work. From 2007-2014, 636 people were murdered by people legally licensed to carry firearms [4]. Even worse, the Violence Policy Center states that CC handlers were arrested for gun offences 81% more in Texas [5]. Plus, just in 2007 Florida, 1400 felons, 128 active domestic violence perpetrators, and 216 people with active warrants held CCPs [6]. So how can you say that restrictions will keep criminals away? C4: Public opinion. You may think guns will make people feel safe. This is false. First, after Illinois passed a law allowing CC, a poll found that over 52% of the population felt less safe [7]. Plus, 79% of college students would not feel safe if people had firearms on campus [8]. Finally, 57% of the US population felt less safe after learning people could conceal guns in public [9]. C5: Criminal reaction. When it is easier for people to carry firearms, it is more likely for criminals to carry guns. 75% of convicted felons carried guns because they fear their victims could be carrying guns [10]. What does this mean? Victims who are not carrying could be at risk of being shot because of others. To conclude, I have shown that CC laws should not exist, due to my 5 contentions. I have proved the CC makes people feel less safe, cause more crime, and restrictions don't keep criminals from carrying guns. I await my opponents response. Sources: [1] http://www.nber.org... [2] http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu... [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [4] http://www.vpc.org... [5] http://concealedguns.procon.org... [6] http://www.gainesville.com... [7] http://news.siu.edu... [8]https://www.researchgate.net... [9] http://smartgunlaws.org... [10] https://www.ncjrs.gov...

Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free. 1. Carriers that are required to obtain a permit only have to show BASIC levels of competence. Just because you know how to use and maintain your firearm properly doesn't mean that you are mentally stable. The most psychotic individuals seem sane until the light is upon them. 2. Lack of permits do not make it more time-consuming. Even with permits people still shoot people unlawfully and most LEO's still have to define a motive that the individual has for carrying a gun. Without a permit it would actually reduce time because they are cutting out the checking of the permit for authenticity and validation. It might take seconds to show a permit, but all LEO's ask why the suspect is carrying the gun, usually where they are going, and if they can examine the firearm. *In states like Kentucky, which doesn't require a permit to open carry, there was 47% ownership of fire arms in 2010. In that year they only had 116 gun murders. In California, a state that prohibits open carrying of a loaded firearm, they had 21% gun ownership with 1,257 gun murders. Regardless of population that is still a large number in and of itself. This statistic shows a basic correlation to: more guns=less gun murders. Also lets use scenarios that carrying firearms could have prevented tragedies. 1. Columbine- One student on campus carrying a firearm, concealed or not, could have stopped the perpetrators. 2. Sandy Hook- One armed teacher or security guard could have stopped him. 3. Aurora theater- one armed movie go-er could have hit him with at least one of his 10-16 rounds. These are three instances that people's lives could have been saved by just ONE person carrying a firearm. If five people had a firearm, they individually would have only gotten of a few rounds. Not the massive amounts they did. Also people forget that guns are the only thing that can stop a gun. There was an incident on a train a few days ago where three men subdued a man wielding an AK-47. The only way the subdued him was because his gun jammed. If it hadn't, they, along with the many others on the train wouldn't have survived. You cannot stop a gun with a knife, frisby, brass knuckles, ink pen, or even martial arts. If someone is firing a weapon, you are at the discretion of their aim. If more people carried guns, people would be less likely to try and commit these acts of violence.

Private Citizens should be armed in public 1. Introduction- a. There are lots of drops, and unwarranted refutations from Con. I will point them out through-out my refutations. b. I stand by the conduct argument for the Reductio ad Aburdum fallacy. Even if my opponent can justify abusive logic (which he hasn't) it is still an unacceptable tactic which violates educational discourse. 2. Refutations- a. People Kill people i. My opponent makes no mention of my status quo argument, on how concealed handguns are legal in every state but Illinois; accordingly I still win this point as I show the horrible impacts Con asserts could happen, can already happen in the status quo, but don't. ii. Read the article my opponent links, you'll see there are some crucial flaws with his logic here. By his own admission it is very difficult, if not impossible to own a gun in Japan; in the U.S. this isn't the case. If you compare Japan's death rate because of guns to America's then it would of course seem like his argument is true, and having access to gun makes people blood thirsty; but that's just not the case. Japan's society is very different from America's[10], Japan's #1 cause of death is stroke, but that doesn't mean American handles stroke better, it means Japan's problems are different. [10] bit.ly/R4skyW b. Guns are pretty scary i. Concealed handguns are legal in all but one state in the United States[5]. If the negative impacts my opponent proposes would happen with affirmation really would happen, then we would already see these impacts in the status quo; the fact that we don't makes this an appeal to fear, not an argument considering the consequences. ii. The gallup survey my opponent uses isn't good evidence as the survey is voluntary response[11]. It isn't an accurate representation of the American public as anyone who has taken an intro stats course will tell you[12]. iii. What this means is that there is not warrant here which asks you to consider the consequences, it's an argument which claims 'bad things may happen so let's play it safe'. [11] bit.ly/RDnjPq [12] bit.ly/J5dYL3 c. Slippery Slope of ownership i. I maintain that this is a logical fallacy. My opponent's deduction consisted entirely of claims which had no warrant to back them up. If the argument were simply a logical syllogism[13] that would be different as I could refute that, but none of my opponent's minor premises had any warrants to them which would posit them as a legitimate argument. [13] http://bit.ly... 3. Refutations a. Second Amendment rights i. My opponent's initial argument doesn't refute the importance of maintaining constitutional rights, instead he compares defending one's right to jumping into the Grand Canyon just-because-you-can. The fact is, whether or not my opponent places any merit in the US constitution or not, it's a right guaranteed to US citizens for protection and defense, jumping into the Grand Canyon is not. ii. Because we see there is a purpose behind the second amendment (unlike jumping into the Grand Canyon), simply comparing it to jumping off a cliff is Reductio ad Absurdum; this is an unacceptable tactic as I have to spend time explaining debate decorum instead of actually debating. b. Security i. Perceived security isn't a false security whatsoever; if it makes a family feel safe it's a benefit. ii. My opponent doesn't respond to the point of guns making the community safer by deterring crime. c. Legality i. There's still. No. Argument. Here. Simply saying my opponent doesn't get the link doesn't mean that the link isn't there; this is a drop two times over. ii. I've extended the fact that concealed handguns are legal in every state but Illinois I don't even know how many times now; that argument comes from this point and was meant to preempt any appeals to fear (such as my opponent's first two contentions). This is a huge impact and it's just been brushed off. Underview- a. The Conduct argument stands. b. My opponent has made a lot of drops.

THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom. This is for friendly debate practice and constructive criticism is much appreciated.

Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free. I'm going to expound on my first argument a bit. All sources here : http://nation.time.com... Failing to require a permit to showing competence and ability with a firearm(s) is grossly irresponsible because the lack of said carrier's abilities can be an enormous public health concern. "According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department"s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time." This is coming from a demographic that is REQUIRED to show ability with a gun on a regular basis in order to carry it. Allowing citizens to carry with no training is undoubtedly going to cause a higher rate of civilian casualties. These reasons alone should be enough to require a permit that shows competence of the carrier.

The individual should not have the right to possess a firearm. In keeping with the rules of the debate, I shall post my opening arguments first. 1. Gun ownership leads to lower crime ratesStatistics show that an area with easier access to guns will have lower crime rates. Within the U. S. , the 31 states which allow the concealed carry of firearms have "a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. " [1]. Examples have shown that greater gun control does not lead to lower homicide rates, in fact, the opposite occurs. When Washington D. C. banned handguns, the murder rate shot up from less than 30 per 100,000 to 80 per 100,000. The homicide rate increased, and only decreased following a removal of the ban on handguns, at a time when the homicide rate nationally was decreasing. [2]. Another example is Chicago, where a handgun ban led to a 17% decrease in the homicide rate (lower than the national average of 25%), and a huge increase in the murders committed with handguns, going from just over 40% before the ban to close to 80% in 2007 before the ban was repealed [2]. This shows that within the U. S. more gun control in fact means more crime and greater gun rights, less crime. In terms of international examples, the rule of more gun control leading to more crime still holds true. Countries such as Switzerland, Norway, Germany, Austria and Denmark have a high number of guns per capita ratio while having low homicide ratios compared to nations such as Luxembourg, Holland and England with draconian gun control laws and high homicide rates [3]. In England an increase in gun control has constantly led to an increase in crimes, with England in the late 1800's having virtually no gun crime with little gun control to over 10,0000 gun related offences in 2005/2006 with a large amount of gun control [4] [5]. The truth is that gun control laws deprive citizens of guns for self-defence while not affecting criminals other than allowing them to operate under easier conditions. Gun control laws take guns away from people who are using them for non-criminal activities, not criminals. With guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, they can protect themselves. Guns are used for protection annually 5 times more than they are to commit crimes, and 56% of felons admit that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun. " It is clear that gun ownership reduces crime and on that account the individual should have the right to possess a firearm. [1] = . http://www.cato.org...[2] = . http://www.justfacts.com...[3] = . http://gunowners.org...[4] = . http://reason.com...[5] = . http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses Firstly, I don't understand how the campuses of America will be safer if any student with a CC permit is able to walk around with concealed weapons. Being a student myself, it would make me very uneasy to know that anybody walking around me might have a concealed firearm, even if they are supposedly "smart, responsible people." Also, when guns become involved, it is rarely an issue of "one clean shot to the head." If there are a bunch of students carrying guns, and someone comes in with their own weapon intending to shoot people, do you think that one of the students is just going to say "don't worry, I'll handle this" and get a clean shot in the assailant's head? I think the reality of the situation would be that there would be a period of chaos when all of the concealed weapon holders take those weapons out and start firing. There is even high probability that bullets will miss their targets and innocent people will get injured or killed. Also, I'm sure that in the past many CC permit holders, not in schools but in other places, have actually been the crazy criminals who take out those concealed weapons and start firing on people. Schools are places of books, not guns. There are thousands of colleges throughout the United States, and the number of campuses where shootings happen is relatively tiny. If students anywhere with a CC permit are allowed to take guns to school, the number of shooting will go up because fighting fire with fire does not work. Giving people more opportunities to use weapons has never been, and never will be, a solution to violence. Lastly, using our "right to bear arms" is a really poor argument for allowing arms in schools. Do you really think when our founding fathers made the "right to bear arms" they were thinking of it pertaining to schools? I really don't think so. I think that right was created mainly because of the need for a militia, which means that the citizens needed to have guns on hand in case they were called to fight the British, French, Spanish, Native Americans, or whoever. Clearly, there are no more militias in the United States, and even if there were it would have nothing to do with schools. Allowing guns in schools will not reduce crime, that just doesn't make sense. Schools should continue to be Gun-Free Zones.

Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime **Note my opponent broke the acceptance rule****Note he argued my side.***Rebuttals* C1: Conceal Carry Increases crimeIf you actually read his argument, he is not even relating too conceal carry, rather he is arguing that gun control increases crime, I have no reason to think this helps him on a deterrence aspect. He concedes many of these gun control laws actually increased the crime rate..... So he actually concedes banning guns or controlling them is bad, his argument makes no sense also because it does not even utter a word of conceal carry. C2: Conceal carry laws are unconstitutional My opponent thinks conceal carry laws are unconstitutional, by saying: "This position is supported by the Supreme Court, which struck both the DC and Chicago handgun bans on grounds of Constitutionality." Well, conceal carry does not ban guns... His argument is FALSE AND UNTRUE, if anything conceal carry increases the right to weapons, as it says your allowed to own guns and carry them hidden.... My opponents arguments on gun bans are not true... His case is a red herring!!C3: Protect the innocentI agree, the innocents can now fight back... Your arguing the wrong side. C4: ???Your arguing my side!!! They make us stronger, as first you say gun control and gun bans are bad, conceal carry is less control and more gun freedom!! You are arguing my side. He then goes on guns are good, I agree I think I own over 20. Well guess what, you argued my side. You must argue guns are bad, I stated this: Conceal carry laws reduce crime, I am pro, I am arguing that they REDUCE CRIME. My statement on the NOT was not me saying I argue con. It was saying I dont think a piece of paper does nothing, rather the effects of the law do. Either concede as you argued MY SIDE, or argue that they have no effect on crime or increase it. --Case--Deterrence (use with argument below)A common misconception throughout Europe is less guns equal less crime, and the same argument applies in current US media, all claiming guns and conceal carry are evil.Now before we claim criminals can be deterred, we must first ask can they be deterred? The answer is yes, as many economic studies (studies done by economists) find when increased punishments or possible problems occur when doing the crime the negative outweigh the positives of committing the crime, and then they are less likely to commit the crime. Now we must ask why are they deterred by this? The answer is self explanatory, but I shall point out the obvious: They want self preservation, they want to be able to get away with their deeds. Also many surveys conducted show that criminals are more scared of people with guns then police officers, as if the gun is hidden they may be attacked back without warning (polices warning is the uniform).Now, lets look at a thing Lott calls a "hot burglary." This is when a criminal strikes when a person is already at home. In Canada and England, where gun control is very strict, almost half of the burglaries where hot. In contrast, 13% in america where hot. Now what is the reason? Because they think they may get shot, they say robbing at night when people are home is the best way to get shot, they would rather case a house. This proves they fear guns.Now, lets use some examples of deterrence. Lott uses the literal example of apples and oranges. He says if the price of apples increases while the price of oranges decreases apples sales will decrease, while orange sales will stay the same or increase. This shows the human oh it has consequences effect.Is open carry and conceal carry different, when it comes to deterrence? When a concealed carry permit holder has a gun, it is harder to actually tell if they have a gun. Criminals wont know if they are attacking an old lady, or an old lady packing a .45 Springfield in her purse. This raises the risk to criminals, hence also their preservation. Whereas open carry is much less scary, as you know who not to annoy, and not to annoy anyone around him (as he may help the other person). The conceal carry laws threaten the criminals more.Empirical DATALaw Passed Murder fell 7.7%, Rape fell 5.3%, Aggravated assault by 7.01%, robbery 2.2%, Burglary .5%, Larceny 3.3%, Auto 7.1%. [1]He also draws preliminary conclusions in the introduction [note he used to be pro gun control if I can recall] using deterrence theory mentioned above. He finds a significant correlation that whenever a conceal carry law is passed, crime rates decrease significantly. In the third addition, the source I am using, he finds his original study said 7.7%, he says after new data and averages from the state and county level he saw a 10% decrease in murder. He also finds if one state/county passes a conceal carry law, the bordering states and counties also gain a crime decrease. He finds based on assaults per 100,000 people went from about 340 to under 320 on average [based on the neighbors passing the law]. [1] Now before I proceed with the empirical evidence, we must ask why does this occur, why does the county overs laws effect my crime rate? Border wars. When gangs fight they fight each other and attack other bystanders. If the bystanders are armed they are then scared to fight as the victim can always fight back [possibly] without warning if they had a conceal carry license. The famed Lott/mustard paper as well as my #1 source find in each of the studies find if each state passed a conceal carry law, it would prevent:"If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly." [1] [2]Also two other studies confirm the lott results saying "there is a deterrent when passing conceal carry laws", and "the lott mustard data is not biased", and they acquire and replicate lotts results. [3] [4]Another question that must be answered: would it increase or decrease mass public crimes? Now, as this is a valid fear, see the recent shootings in Chicago I believe, or Virginia tech. But to define shootings/killings, we must look into what is defined by. It is defined as a public shooting in a place where 2 or more people are killed or injured. Now based n his data in figure 5.1, he found the likelihood of a state to have this happen was about 60%, a little more. After the conceal carry law was passed, data and trends suggests the state now has only a 1% chance of these types of shootings in areas where conceal carry holders are allowed. [1] I may have mis-phrased the argument here: the likelihood of deaths or injuries when the crime occurs. Essentially saying conceal carry laws make it harder for the psycho to kill when in the area where a conceal carry permit holder resides.The last question is accidental deaths, it decreases. the suicidal deaths rose by 2.67% after the law, and decreased other methods by 6%. Other statistics show an essential double of that, 4% increase for guns decrease 10% for other methods. http://www.debate.org...http://polyticks.com...CONCLUSION:Conceal carry laws reduce crime, my opponent actually ARGUED THE PRO SIDE, MY SIDE. Vote pro. Like really, with the resoluion and I am pro, I argue it reduces crime, you said it decreased it, therefore conceding. So, please, argue the other side. http://www.debate.org...

Guns should be legal for home defense in the U.S. There is a fundamental right to self-defense Con agreed with my contention but argued, citing Mill, that it better justified by the principle of liberty. For the purpose of the debate it doesn't matter how the contention is affirmed, it is enough that we agree that there is such a right. Mill's claim “[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.” supports my contention. But I'm not sure that Mill even disputes the origin of the right. If the right of self-defense derives from the principle of liberty, we then ask why the principle of liberty ought to be valued. I think there is no answer other than that it derives from the nature of mankind. For example, If bees somehow became intelligent, they could not honor a principle of liberty. That's because no bee can survive without the community of the hive. Humans have moral obligations to self, to family, and to community and that make human morality subject to conflicts. Con challenges the right of self-defense by posing a conflict between survival of the self and survival of the family. Con is correct that a conflict may exist. With some sci-fi imagination, one can hypothesize a conflict between the right of self-defense and the survival of the entire world. We don't have to resolve these extreme moral conflicts because, for this debate, we are only considering the case of self-defense in the home. The question is whether a person has a right to defend himself and his family against intruders, and Con's objections do not undermine the fundamental right to defense in that situation. Con poses situations wherein lethal force is not justified because the offense against the person is trivial. Indeed, you cannot shoot a girl who threatens to throw an egg at you. But you also cannot strangle her, club her to death, or run her through with a sword. Laws vary by state, but lethal force cannot be used unless a reasonable person in that situation would believe he was in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. [16. http://www.cnn.com...] There is nothing special about guns in those situations, the law always applies to the legitimacy of self-defense. Many states make a special case for home protection called the “castle doctrine.” The Florida statute, for example, says that it is reasonable to fear great bodily harm if: The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, ... [17. http://www.leg.state.fl.us...] But again, it doesn't matter whether the weapon is a gun or sword or a baseball bat. A castle doctrine puts more fear into criminals because they know that a homeowner can shoot them without having to argue whether they felt in imminent danger. Many states passed castle doctrine laws after 2000. The effect was that property crimes and burglary rates decreased, and violent crime overall decreased as well. [14. op cit p332] Background checks are consistent with a right of self defense Con references a claim made by “Poetaster” that implies background checks are those in the Brady law. However, I made no reference to the Brady law. I only said that firearms should be subject to reasonable background checks and training requirements. I agree with Con that the Brady background checks are excessive. The check on mental competence should be limited to whether the person has been judged by a qualified profession to be unstable to the point of posing a threat to himself or others. A person may have a serious mental condition that poses no threat. Persons convicted of felony are reasonable restricted because recidivism rates are very high, as high as 80%. The reason for denying convicted drug addicts is not that, in most cases, the drug directly causes mental instability. It is because disputes between addicts and illegal drug dealers often turn violent, and because addicts often support their habit through crime. If a particular drug does not pose such dangers, then there should be no restriction as a consequence of it. Prohibiting these classes of people from buying guns will have little effect on them actually getting a gun if they want one, because guns will always be available illegally. What it accomplishes is that it enables a person with a violent mental condition or other cause to be arrested if they are found in possession of a gun. That's a reasonable protection for society against future crimes. I also called for a gun safety training requirement. Many localities allow online courses like the one for the District of Columbia. [18. https://dcfst.mpdconline.com...] That is suitable. They cover the basics. Rep. Nancy Pelosi showed and AR-15 to her colleagues by pointing the gun at people with her finger on the trigger. Basic safety is that you don't do that even if you are sure the gun is not loaded. Con argues that my position is incoherent because I am arguing that self-defense is a fundamental right, but that it is acceptable to limit the availability of guns to the mentally unstable, convicted felons, and those who buy illegal drugs. I agree that there is no unlimited right, but that's true of all rights. We have a right to free speech, but we still have laws against fraud. What it means to be a fundamental right is that the restrictions ought to be as few as reasonably possible, and that the prejudice in evaluating restrictions ought to be in favor of supporting the right. Law-abiding citizens are careful Con set up the example “Consider: you are sitting outside your house with a gun, as I imagine you Americans enjoy doing, and a little girl approaches you holding an egg...“, and he asked, “How many eggs must be thrown before you can shoot her, Roy?” The strait answer, of course, is that lethal force cannot be used unless it is reasonable to expect death or great bodily harm. Still, Con is implying that Americans are casual about shooting people. That's reflecting a James Bond stereotype of having a license to kill and using it promiscuously. Oh wait, Bond is British. But you get my point. The background checks for concealed carry permits are generally slightly more stringent than I have proposed, but they are comparable on average. About five million Americans have concealed carry permits. Lott [14. op cit p 332] summarizes: From 1990 through July 2008, [Lott] found twenty-three cases where a permit holder committed murder with a gun (twenty of those cases resulted in convictions, and in the other three murderers died at the scene). … [This] amount[s] to slightly more than one murder per year. Permit holders committed murder at 1/182nd the rate of the general public. Michigan has more violence than average, so it is an interesting case. Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold. But ... The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined. [14. op cit p 234, quoting an article in the Detroit Free Press] A concealed carry permit allows the gun owner to be in many situations more difficult to evaluate than when a criminal is breaking into a home. The supposedly gun-happy citizens show remarkable restraint even in those cases. The US has a significant criminal class that use guns as part of their crimes. Criminals are not affected by gun laws and don't worry about legal requirements to buy a gun. A legal prohibition only suppresses the ability of honest people to defend themselves.

Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Welcome to the debate. I will be arguing in favor of concealed carry by law abiding citizens. I welcome you to use the first round for an opening argument. You may argue against an individual carrying or that it is detrimental to society as a whole. As always, verifiable facts with sources will be weighed more favorably than made up hypothetical anecdotes.

Citizens ought to possess handguns. You wouldn't happen to be a (former) high school debater, would you? I recognize much of your rhetoric and language. Anyway, on to your points: FIRST AND FOREMOST, just because making something illegal creates the risk of black market sale of said item, doesn't mean we ought to keep the item legal. Further, just because I argue against the resolution, doesn't mean I argue that we should make handguns illegal. You bring up the hammer argument, but it doesn't address anything I said. I'm talking about whether people should have guns, not whether guns themselves have any inherent impact. I know that whole "guns don't kill people, other people do" thing, and I agree with it. And it doesn't at all weaken my case. You also mention other types of guns. If guns are to be used as deterrents and/or just for self-defense, what reason is there to conceal them? And then, in response to my concern for child safety, you bring up lighters, saying they were originally intended to light. Guns, as I stated, are originally intended to kill. Not open cans, not power devices, not light a fire. To kill. So no, Ms. or Mr. Sarcasm, lighters should not be "illegalized," because first of all, there's no such word, and second, there's no reason to make them illegal. It is a non-sequitur. And what has this to do with anarchy or tyranny? The right to bear arms says nothing about concealed firearms, and it was written at a time when firearms were weak, inaccurate, unwieldy, and, in short, good for nothing but hoping to deter an enemy identified from a distance. What kind of enemy can be so identified? A soldier in a bright red uniform. So the next time the United States of America is invaded by brightly dressed soldiers, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

States/local municipalities should have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens Definitions: Handgun -a firearm that is held and fired with one hand[1] Opening Arguments: Many individuals feel the need to purchase a handgun for various purposes such as protecting their families and property, and in the hands of responsible pose no serious threat to the general public, however when handguns fall into the hands of ex-convicts and those who are mentally ill it does. The fact that hand guns could fall into the hands of those who are likely to commit a crime again such as ex-convicts[2] or those who are mentally unqualified to carry a weapon should justify giving local governments the ability to regulate handgun ownership. Thank You. [1] . http://www.google.ca... [2] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates Clarifications:1 - I don't consider the specifics of regulations important to the debate, if we work off of the assumption that an agreed foundation for regulations can be established. That being said, criterion would include proving citizenship, a background check looking for criminal activity(robbery, burglary, assault, murder, and other violent crimes), and a training class on the safe handling of the handgun. 2 - Crime rates that are or can be affected by weapons should be considered, as reported by law enforcement agencies and published by the FBI and other agencies. Crimes should be considered on a percentage basis to avoid variance in population.Rebuttals:1 - Con states that an increase in available handguns would cause an increase in crime rate due to a higher percentage of people having access to said handguns. This argument focuses not on the cause of a crime, which is the criminal, but on one of the instruments of a crime. It is not the weapon that causes the crime, it is a person deciding to commit the crime that causes it.2 - Con states that an increased number of people capable of committing crime increases the probability of crime. The fact is, anyone who could commit a crime with a gun could also commit a crime with another weapon, or with their hands. Having a weapon available doesn't influence someone to be a criminal. Everyone(in general terms) is capable of making a fist and punching someone else, but the fist isn't the cause of the crime.3 - A background check removes the possibility of a gun being sold, or a permit being issued, to someone with a violent history. Con states that some individuals don't have a criminal history but can still commit crime. This is true, everybody has the capability to commit crime, but that doesn't inherently make them likely to do so.4 - A background check doesn't preclude one from getting a permit for something like jaywalking. Again, the focus of this debate is on citizens carrying handguns, with an assumption that we have preventative measures in place. Those I have clarified already.Further Arguments5 - Banning guns doesn't deter criminals from obtaining and using guns. In 1995, Washington D.C. had a murder rate of 65 murders per 100,000 citizens[1], during a time when handguns were banned(unless they were locked or disassembled). Of those murders, 81% were committed with firearms[2], even though they were banned. This shows that criminals don't care if guns are illegal or not, they show their disrespect for the law in committing a crime, and in using illegal weapons.6 - Stripping citizens of handguns only makes it easier for someone to commit a crime. For example, consider you decide to rob a bank. There are two banks in town. You know that the teller and manager at Bank 1 both carry guns. You also know that nobody at Bank 2 carries a gun. For the criminal, the defenseless Bank 2 is the obvious choice. It is similar for criminals in general. If they know that no citizen can legally carry a gun, they are less likely to encounter such deadly force in perpetrating a crime. If they know that any citizen could legally be carrying a gun, they are more likely to try and find someone they are sure isn't armed.7 - Despite the number of states issuing carry permits increasing drastically since 1987, the average murder rate in the United States has fallen 42% as of 2010.[3]8 - A study by criminologists Kleck and Gertz found that U.S. citizens use guns approximately 2.5 million times per year to stop a crime. Only 24% of reported incidents involved firing a gun, showing that 76% of the time a criminal will stop and leave with just the sight of a gun.[4]I appreciate my opponent's arguments, and look forward to the continuing debate.[1]http://www.disastercenter.com... [2]http://www.fbi.gov... pg. 193 [3]http://www.disastercenter.com... [4]http://www.saf.org...

Concealed carry laws decrease crime quote = lol. Guns save more lives then they take away.Deterrence (use with argument below)A common misconception throughout Europe is less guns equal less crime, and the same argument applies in current US media, all claiming guns and conceal carry are evil.Now before we claim criminals can be deterred, we must first ask can they be deterred? The answer is yes, as many economic studies (studies done by economists) find when increased punishments or possible problems occur when doing the crime the negative outweigh the positives of committing the crime, and then they are less likely to commit the crime. Now we must ask why are they deterred by this? The answer is self explanatory, but I shall point out the obvious: They want self preservation, they want to be able to get away with their deeds. Also many surveys conducted show that criminals are more scared of people with guns then police officers, as if the gun is hidden they may be attacked back without warning (polices warning is the uniform).Now, lets look at a thing Lott calls a "hot burglary." This is when a criminal strikes when a person is already at home. In Canada and England, where gun control is very strict, almost half of the burglaries where hot. In contrast, 13% in america where hot. Now what is the reason? Because they think they may get shot, they say robbing at night when people are home is the best way to get shot, they would rather case a house. This proves they fear guns.Now, lets use some examples of deterrence. Lott uses the literal example of apples and oranges. He says if the price of apples increases while the price of oranges decreases apples sales will decrease, while orange sales will stay the same or increase. This shows the human oh it has consequences effect.Is open carry and conceal carry different, when it comes to deterrence? When a concealed carry permit holder has a gun, it is harder to actually tell if they have a gun. Criminals wont know if they are attacking an old lady, or an old lady packing a .45 Springfield in her purse. This raises the risk to criminals, hence also their preservation. Whereas open carry is much less scary, as you know who not to annoy, and not to annoy anyone around him (as he may help the other person). The conceal carry laws threaten the criminals more.The empirical data Law Passed Murder fell 7.7%, Rape fell 5.3%, Aggravated assault by 7.01%, robbery 2.2%, Burglary .5%, Larceny 3.3%, Auto 7.1%. [1] (1977-1997 data)Other data, his 1999 data, shows a better outcome of a 10% decrease in murder, and the other categories too had a larger decrease in crime, hence CCW in hi later data was slightly revised in new data sets. Lotts early data can be found in #2. Now lets look at PA. They had a drop in murder of about 26%, and overall violent crime drop of 5.3%. Now, one of the criticisms of this basic trend is just because the drop happened after the law, we can also look at other variables, the most common one is arrest rates. Lott makes many dummy variables, tables, and to the best of his ability shows CCW laws where a significant portion of the decrease. [1] Another reasons he concludes the drop is because when there is a spike in people who have permits there is a decrease in violent crimes. To get more local statistics, lets look at his findings in some states. In Oregon, for example, murder dropped 37% after the law was passed. Now, there are other variables he accounted for in the third addition making his data superior to the first. He did other dummy data sets, and still finds CCW had a large portion of the deterrence an drop in crimes. [1] Now, it is logical to assume they actually decrease crime due to my deterrent argument above. The CATO study also finds similar reasons why it would actually decrease crime. They also fund similar accounts of data, and they conclude the Florida CCW law was positive and the other states that passed these laws also had a positive showing. Another question that must be answered: would it increase or decrease mass public crimes? Now, as this is a valid fear, see the recent shootings in Chicago I believe, or Virginia tech. But to define shootings/killings, we must look into what is defined by. It is defined as a public shooting in a place where 2 or more people are killed or injured. Now based n his data in figure 5.1, he found the likelihood of a state to have this happen was about 60%, a little more. After the conceal carry law was passed, data and trends suggests the state now has only a 1% chance of these types of shootings in areas where conceal carry holders are allowed. [1] I may have misphrased the argument here: the likelihood of deaths or injuries when the crime occurs. Essentially saying conceal carry laws make it harder for the psycho to kill when in the area where a conceal carry permit holder resides.Now, another question would be does it lower crime committed with guns? This argument used is common amongst people trying to go against conceal carry laws. But this is not the case. In the new 2010 edition of source 1, it finds a 9% decrease in murders with guns after non-discretionary laws are passed. Murders with non handguns dropped at a similar rate, 8.9%."If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly." [1] [2] (1997 study)Summary of argument: source: [1], and "the conceal handgun debate", john lott. CONCLUSON: VOTE PRO :P[1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. [2] Lott, Jr., John R., and David B. Mustard. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." The Journal of Legal Studies 26.1 1997 [3] Snyder, Jeffery R. "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun." CATO, 22 Oct. 1997

Gun Free Zone on College Campus I am currently an enrolled student, and also have a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. To be more specific about my position on this, I believe that it is wrong for Public Colleges/Universities to not offer any kind of process in which an individual may gain legal rights to carry a concealed handgun on campus when he/she goes to class. Of course, I also welcome faculty/teachers/staff to be allowed that offer as well. It's not just for the students. I do agree that we should not just hand guns to everybody, but there are some select individuals who I believe are deemed trustworthy to handle that kind of responsibility, even though you must be very responsible. As of now, I'm going to say that I believe that if you already have a concealed handgun permit, and are allowed to carry virtually all public places(Stores/Malls/Movie Theaters/ etc.) Then why should campus be any different? Of course if we agree that there should be a process to make it legal for certain people, I understand maybe not everybody agrees that a CCW permit is enough. I'm perfectly open to discussion as to what kind of requirements do you think in individual must pass to make it legal, but that's all details. For now, I wanna say that I am open to the idea that there should be some legal process offered by the public University to allow a certain individual conceal carry rights, so as long as he/she meets the following requirements, x,y, and z. For now, I think we can just take advantage over the system that is already in place to allow people to carry in public places and require a student/faculty to possess a valid CCW permit. It is wrong to deny a person rights just because some other people have abused it in the past. As a person who believes in America the way it was meant to be, a Republic, not a Democracy, then individuals including minorities should have constitutional rights in public places. Private Universities are another story. But Public Universities should abide by constitutional law. To start off with the argument, I'd like to say that criminals and anyone wishing to do harm will probably break the law regardless of the fact that we deny everybody the right to carry. We cannot protect people with just a sign saying that it's illegal to carry a firearm. This leads me to believe that there really is no logical reason to think that Gun Free Zones themselves would have any affect other than disarming the people who abide by the law and have everything to lose(no felons, no misdemeanors, no criminal recored etc.) Of course I'm referring to Gun Free Zones on college campus's. I do however, think that Courthouses are at least smart with that law by setting up preventative measures such as metal detectors and making sure the place is full of armed police officers. Because of the mass shootings and other various forms of gun violence that have appeared on College campus, it is clear that Gun Free Zones don't prevent everybody from coming in with a gun. The Gun free zone clearly does not actually disarm everybody, and it only seems to be the people we should be afraid of the most who are going to still carry anyway. I'll get into stats and facts in the later rounds. For now, this is my position as clear as I can make it with some rational reason why I don't think "everybody" should be disarmed. I welcome an opponent, preferably one who completely disagrees because obviously I 'd be preaching to the choir otherwise. So anybody who wants to challenge me, bring it on brother... or sister.

Conceal carry laws by private citizens Conceal carry laws exacerbates cop violence particularly against black and minorities. By private citizen being allows to conceal their lethal firearms, cops are forced to assume that ANY ONE could be carrying a gun, be they man, women, adult or child. Therefor they are naturally inclined to shot first in order to protect their lives if they feel threatened in the slightest which does not take much because of their own prejudice and police training teaching them to value THEIR lives over citizens. Minorities are greatly affected because even if they are a lawful gun owner in a open carry state or have a conceal carry permit, the majority do not exercise this right cause the majority of cops racial profile and shot first before asking questions so they do not want to take the chance. Criminals on the other hand are forced to conceal because they are acting in a criminal manner and add to the racial prejudice and skewed thinking, even against whites if they are judge to be poor due to their dress, appearance, or speech. Therefor if an officer happens to see a person with a concealed weapon or believes they have a concealed weapon, they are most likely to shot without warning or while warning cause they assume the person is a criminal. Though I don't think private citizens need to go around carrying guns for their protection, as that there are non lethal means available and you are more likely to be shot by friendly fire from another citizen or the cops mistaking you for a criminal or from an angry ex or shooting yourself while cleaning the gun rather then from an ACTUAL CRIMINAL IN THE PROCESS OF A CRIME, and there is the police which we are paying for in the first place, I don't think we need to carry guns at all unlessl for hunting food but I would rather it be open carry instead of conceal if anything at all.

Conceal carry laws decrease violent crime As noted, I argue that conceal handgun laws LOWER violent crime. Deterrence (use with argument below)A common misconception throughout Europe is less guns equal less crime, and the same argument applies in current US media, all claiming guns and conceal carry are evil. Now before we claim criminals can be deterred, we must first ask can they be deterred? The answer is yes, as many economic studies (studies done by economists) find when increased punishments or possible problems occur when doing the crime the negative outweigh the positives of committing the crime, and then they are less likely to commit the crime. Now we must ask why are they deterred by this? The answer is self explanatory, but I shall point out the obvious: They want self preservation, they want to be able to get away with their deeds. Also many surveys conducted show that criminals are more scared of people with guns then police officers, as if the gun is hidden they may be attacked back without warning (polices warning is the uniform). Now, lets look at a thing Lott calls a "hot burglary. " This is when a criminal strikes when a person is already at home. In Canada and England, where gun control is very strict, almost half of the burglaries where hot. In contrast, 13% in america where hot. Now what is the reason? Because they think they may get shot, they say robbing at night when people are home is the best way to get shot, they would rather case a house. This proves they fear guns. Now, lets use some examples of deterrence. Lott uses the literal example of apples and oranges. He says if the price of apples increases while the price of oranges decreases apples sales will decrease, while orange sales will stay the same or increase. This shows the human oh it has consequences effect. Is open carry and conceal carry different, when it comes to deterrence? When a concealed carry permit holder has a gun, it is harder to actually tell if they have a gun. Criminals wont know if they are attacking an old lady, or an old lady packing a .45 Springfield in her purse. This raises the risk to criminals, hence also their preservation. Whereas open carry is much less scary, as you know who not to annoy, and not to annoy anyone around him (as he may help the other person). The conceal carry laws threaten the criminals more. The empirical data Law Passed Murder fell 7.7%, Rape fell 5.3%, Aggravated assault by 7.01%, robbery 2.2%, Burglary .5%, Larceny 3.3%, Auto 7.1%. [1] (1977-1997 data)Other data, his 1999 data, shows a better outcome of a 10% decrease in murder, and the other categories too had a larger decrease in crime, hence CCW in hi later data was slightly revised in new data sets. Lotts early data can be found in #2. Now lets look at PA. They had a drop in murder of about 26%, and overall violent crime drop of 5.3%. Now, one of the criticisms of this basic trend is just because the drop happened after the law, we can also look at other variables, the most common one is arrest rates. Lott makes many dummy variables, tables, and to the best of his ability shows CCW laws where a significant portion of the decrease. [1] Another reasons he concludes the drop is because when there is a spike in people who have permits there is a decrease in violent crimes. To get more local statistics, lets look at his findings in some states. In Oregon, for example, murder dropped 37% after the law was passed. Now, there are other variables he accounted for in the third addition making his data superior to the first. He did other dummy data sets, and still finds CCW had a large portion of the deterrence an drop in crimes. [1] Now, it is logical to assume they actually decrease crime due to my deterrent argument above. The CATO study also finds similar reasons why it would actually decrease crime. They also fund similar accounts of data, and they conclude the Florida CCW law was positive and the other states that passed these laws also had a positive showing. Another question that must be answered: would it increase or decrease mass public crimes? Now, as this is a valid fear, see the recent shootings in Chicago I believe, or Virginia tech. But to define shootings/killings, we must look into what is defined by. It is defined as a public shooting in a place where 2 or more people are killed or injured. Now based n his data in figure 5.1, he found the likelihood of a state to have this happen was about 60%, a little more. After the conceal carry law was passed, data and trends suggests the state now has only a 1% chance of these types of shootings in areas where conceal carry holders are allowed. [1] I may have misphrased the argument here: the likelihood of deaths or injuries when the crime occurs. Essentially saying conceal carry laws make it harder for the psycho to kill when in the area where a conceal carry permit holder resides. Now, another question would be does it lower crime committed with guns? This argument used is common amongst people trying to go against conceal carry laws. But this is not the case. In the new 2010 edition of source 1, it finds a 9% decrease in murders with guns after non-discretionary laws are passed. Murders with non handguns dropped at a similar rate, 8.9%. "If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly. " [1] [2] (1997 study)Summary of argument: source: [1], and "the conceal handgun debate", john lott.

More guns will cause less crime Whether you have a gun, rock, or knife you are obligated to protect yourself. The police are not going to be right behind your every step, so why not carry a gun? Police only show up after the crime/call, if anyone calls at all. I am sure that anyone can tell if the person carrying a gun is a good person or a bad person. What's to misunderstand? Can you not tell when someone is going to rob you or not? And if I were to get robbed I would want something to protect me, such as a gun! Students for concealed weapons said ,"In fact, no law will ever affect criminal behavior because criminals, by their very nature, do not follow the law." Even if we do make gun laws stricter or make it to were no one can have a gun a criminal can still get his/her hands on it. Have you heard of the black market? That is a way for a criminal to get a gun. With the ages there are different reasons why they would carry a gun. For example, an elderly person cannot take a beating like a young person could.

Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free. All right I'll start small with hopes my opponent won't forfeit next round. 1. Carriers should be required to obtain a permit to show basic levels of competence with their firearm of choice. 2. Lack of permits would make it time-consuming for LEOs to distinguish lawful citizens from felons. It takes seconds to show a permit.

Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Open carry of handguns deters crimes from happening

Handguns are Required For Symbolic Reasons As A Defence Against the State Monopoly of Power Handguns are legal in the U.S. for symbolic reasons. In Justice Scalla’s oral argument he stated “isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”9 Guns are necessary to prevent the disarming of the people and as a statement that the citizens of the U.S. are allowed to stand up against the state. In the formation of the state, the citizens of the state give up their freedoms and their ability to do violence upon each other in favour a state monopoly on violence. The implication is that the state, through this monopoly on violence, then prevents citizens from doing violence against one another. However, it is possible for the state to use its monopoly on physical force in a reckless or subversive fashion. This means that the citizens should always be able to reassert the primacy of their rights and independence over the state, should the state begin to deviate from its mandated role as protector of those rights. The right to carry firearms is part of this ability to assert one’s power over the state. However, as the state has become more powerful, ownership of small arms has become an increasingly symbolic gesture. Taking away the right to bear arms from any American is thus harmful, as it removes the symbol that the state’s power is not absolute and that ultimately the state is subservient to its people.10

THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom. Throughout this posting, I will state three contentions in favor of the motion. I will also define the terms within the motion now: Teachers will be any certified instructor within a school system. Concealed weapon will be a lisceneced weapon that is concealed appropriately, without any necessary training. Classroom will be anywhere on the school campus. FIRST ARGUMENT It is understood that school shootings are a rising threat. Yet is this the correct way to combat violence? With more violence? Essentially, to arm a teacher is to add more bullets, more violence, and more death to the scene. Already, policemen have trouble hitting a target, yet what of an untrained, nervous teacher tasked with saving his/her students? What should we do in response to violence? Add more violence? perhaps arm the whole school to the teeth? which leads into my SECOND CONTENTION What about the teachers that sexualy harass students, or feel agression towards them? Although these are extreme cases, think of all of the stressed-out teachers. When armed with a tool with the ability to end multiple lives, a certain physcological effect takes place. Although it would be egregious to say that if a student is upsetting a teacher the teacher will immediately pull a gun on the student in question, possesing a gun in stressful situations makes the user more confident, and endows the posessor with a misleading sense of power. Let us discuss an extreme (but too common) circumstance. If a shooter invades a school and takes a student hostage. A teacher without a gun will call for backup. A teacher with a gun will be much more likely to use it to save the student, although a violent response to a person with violent intent will certainly trigger a chain of events, for hit rates against live targets are low even among policemen, and kill rates low as well, perhaps leading to even more unessecary deaths. Again, fighting violence with more violence simply adds fuel to the flame. Perhaps a different approach is called for. THIRD POINT Already, policemen are seen on campus of many schools. At least these policemen are trained, more detatched, and have more tools at their disposal. Policemen also carry exposed weapons, which may serve as a detterent to any potential shooter. Instead of funding weapons for teachers, enforce security such as gates more closely, or hire more professional policemen. 3 in 4 gunmen (TIMES magazine) turn on their own community. This shows that the problem comes from within. Instead of tearing ourselves apart with the accumulation of even more weapons, more effective ways and programs to rehabilitate the person in question before the violent act is commited would be the most effective in stopping these unessesary deaths. In conclusion, granting gun rights to teachers worsens the situation by adding another aspect of violence to the scene. Also, already-pressured teachers who are granted a gun are more likely to use it. And finally, more peaceful and efffective methods are available.

Individuals Should Not Have the Right to Bear Arms in DC The issue with Washington DC and certain states in the U.S. is that the police and the state are unable to protect people. The opposition believes that people who visit violence upon one another should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, within certain areas of DC, the state consistently fails to protect its citizens and enforce its monopoly of violence in a just and effective fashion. In doing so the state is failing to uphold its part of its agreement with its citizens. Further, if police in these areas are corrupt in any way, then the state is actively visiting harm upon its citizens. If the state is failing to maintain its monopoly on violence then the citizens of that area have to take over in order to provide for their own security. The citizens of DC have a right to bear arms in order to protect themselves. The failure is thus on the part of the state for deaths in DC. Citizens within the state should not have their rights curtailed for what is essentially a failing of the state.3

Teachers should be able to carry concealed Guns at School I think that teachers should be able to carry concealed guns at school but not have them loaded. In the case of a actual emergency the teacher then can load the gun for protection . Right after the event they MUST unload it.

Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Right to bear arms confers right to carry openly.

Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Concealed carry preserves element of surprise against threats

Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses First of all, thank you for debating me. While we completely disagree on this issue (and evidently many others from a view at your profile), it'll give us each an opportunity to express our beliefs in a fun, educational manner. You mentioned in your post that it would make you very uneasy to know that anybody walking around you might have a concealed firearm. What about when you walk out in public at stores, restaurants, and maybe even work? There's a good chance that you have passed many people who are concealing, and college campuses should not be different from any of these other establishments. The people with the CC permit are responsible and have had much training and extensive background checking to ensure that they are of sound body and mind. Here is a list of what most states require: • The holder being at least 21 years of age • No felony convictions; or Class A or B misdemeanors within 5 years • No domestic violence conviction • Being a legal citizen of the United States • Not chemically dependent (ie. Known alchoholic or drug user) • Not delinquent in child support payments • Is legally allowed to purchase a handgun • Has no court protective order or restraining orders against them • Has not been diagnosed by a physician as suffering from a major psychiatric disorder or hospitalized for psychiatric problems While these requirements do not guarantee anything, they set a very low possibility of the wrong people getting their hands on a permit. I am confident that one clean shot is an attainable goal for a skilled shooter and would not be an issue, regardless of how stressful the situation. The assertion you made about these folks loosing their concentration tells me that you personally have had little or no experience using a firearm. While it is possible that a crazy criminal(and very tricky one at that) could get their hands on a CC permit, why would they go to the trouble. If they're crazy enough to shoot someone, than who cares if they have a permit or not, they're going to shoot someone either way - permit to carry a gun or not. A look at the statistics shows that more guns does equal less crime. While it is simple to say fighting fire with fire won't work, it simply isn't true. Since the fall semester of 2006, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of all public colleges. Also, concealed carry has been allowed for several years at both Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) and Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA). This has yet to result in a single act of violence at any of these schools. Numerous studies, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times LESS likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes. I agree with you that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Right to Bear Arms amendment, they were not thinking about schools. However, these are VERY different times. The thought of a student taking a gun into a school back then never even crossed their minds. The idea that did cross their mind was the right for citizens to protect themselves from danger regardless of their location, and that's exactly what allowing guns on campuses will do.

The Right To Bare Arms Let me see if I understand your rationale: - We should have guns because it makes us feel safer. - People would not harm other people if they knew that they had weapons. School shootings are incredibly rare, and giving teachers guns is really not the answer. Putting a trained officer in schools as my high school had is a better idea. But training teachers to use handguns and be warriors in defense of their students? Not a good idea. It's just as likely that the teacher would use the gun improperly or criminally against his or her students as it is for a school shooter to attack. In terms of your assertion that if the government goes bad on us it's a good idea to have guns to defend ourselves...That's a really big assumption. That's assuming that in the blink of an eye, our government, our army, our police officers - they could all go evil on us. That's assuming that no one would see it coming and try to stop it before the first line of defense became civilians armed with hunting guns and pistols. And that's also assuming that those civilians would be at all a match for the professional U.S. army which is now under evil ruthless fascist control. Now I agree, many criminals would still get guns if they were made illegal. But do you really think it's a good idea if everyone carried around a handgun wherever they went? Because say you get mugged and you have a handgun, is it really going to be that great if you pull it out in the middle of the street or wherever you might be and just start shooting? And don't you think that the person who is attacking you might not just knock you on the head, but they may shoot you full of lead because they believe you to be heavily armed? And that's because people are irresponsible. You might be a safe gun owner, but many people are not. And if we dramatically cut the production of guns in the United States, people in the inner cities would find them harder to get. Your everyday criminal would find it much harder to get guns. The hardened criminal would probably still be able to find a way to get guns, but then again in today's world, how much defense is a handgun against a hardened criminal? Most people will not know how to use their guns properly.

Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free. I'll take this up. I await your opening arguments.

The Right to Own , Keep, and Bear Arms Firstly, Pro would like to simply state that, without the right to own weaponry, the United States would not exist simply due to the fact that a motley crew of farmers and small business owners would be marching on the British Army with pitchforks. Secondly, the very fact that the Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment into the Constitution shows that they believed it to be a right. And Thirdly, as to self defense, Pro would like to point out that states and cites that allow the private ownership of firearms are much safer than those states and cities who either heavily regulate or outright ban it. Statistics on this can be found in the book "More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott, Jr. For statistics and stories of how civilians who exercise the Second Amendment are benefited, Pro suggests reading articles from the publication "America's First Freedom". As for law enforcement officers, they not everywhere that they are needed, and are only able to respond to incidents once they are notified. Whereas, a well armed citizenry is everywhere and is able to respond as the incident takes place. Finally, in response to the viscous cycle argument. If I am a law abiding citizen (civilian), and if I kill someone that is trying to kill me or otherwise cause unrest in society through violent means, then I have successfully stopped the cycle of violence because I won, and the aggressor is dead. Any other issues or comments regarding firearms are nothing more than scare tactics an ad hom fallacies.

Resolved: certified teachers must have the right to carry handgun to school. I wish her well in this debate. I will presume the debate is in the context of the United States. I will start with some rebuttal. ===CON:=== >>Rather than a protective figure the teachers will become an overpower and feared figure to students. << ===REBUTTAL:=== I fail to see how this would ultimatley have a net negative effect. Firstly, it will root out any teachers who aren't mentally stable enough to be allowed to teach. It thus shows flaws in the application system for teaching, and therefore countermeasures to prevent such instances are brought in. Secondly, most teachers don't even raise their fists to a student, let alone point a gun at them. ===CON:=== >>Not to say that as many cases before unexpected teachers might use the weapon to intimidate, and impose power over a student. << ===REBUTTAL:=== I would like my opponent to give proof of such acts. Until then, it has no weight upon the case. ===CON:=== >>My second argument is the economic aspect of this act. Allowing school teachers to carry guns, will lead tot he School Board having to pay for the license, ammunition, and the gun. << ===REBUTTAL:=== The resolution doesn't imply the state would be obliged to fund the purchase of a handgun for teachers. It states they should have the right to do so. If they have the right, they would be allowed use their firearm in an event of an attack. The idea isn't that all teachers are given a gun. ===CON:=== >>Asides form that will have to reenforce safety like where to store the gun and high explosive ammunitions. << ===REBUTTAL:=== The gun would obviously have to be kept on the person of the teacher at all times, holstered (They must carry it, as the resolution states). In terms of story "high explosive ammunitions", a teacher wouldn't be allowed more than one magazine (The one in the gun) and only standard ammunition, as special ammunition types would not be needed, therefore diminishing the risk of highly explosive ammunition. Now, onto my points: ===PRO ARGUMENT #1: SAFETY OF STUDENTS AND THE TEACHERS:=== Over the years, there have been many school shootings. Here is a map of school shootings in the U. S. : . http://www.schoolshooting.org.... The truth of the matter with these shootings is that the police are rarely unable to stop the deaths. There have been cases where the students and/or the teachers top the assailant before excessive harm is done. Such an example is Yitzhak Dadon, at the Mercaz HaRav Massacre (. http://www.jpost.com...). He, a student, utilised his handgun to stop the attacker in this scenario. Furthermore, Yitzhak is a 40 year old man, which places him closer to the roel of teacher than student. In the Pearl High School shooting, the assistant principal used his handgun to subdue an attacker who killed 2 and injured 7. However, it took him 5 minutes to reach his car to get his gun because of the Gun Free Zone in the school (. http://www.cnn.com...). The above cases support my case that giving teachers the right to have handguns in school is more beneficial than negative.

18 year olds with concealed handguns Alright the first thing I notice about 18 year olds is that they can join the army, get their hands in tons of dangerous weapons. But if there not in the army they can still own a rifle and a shotgun which do even more damage so what's so bad about a concealed handgun for self protection? What if some crazy guy attacks them then what shall they do beat them with a stick? well if they had a concealed weapon this would not be a problem.

Should teachers be allowed to carry concealed weapons in school I believe teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons in school because it can lower the risk of casualties of school shootings and can make students and staff feel safer. Yes teachers would need to go through a background check and a fire arm training class before hand, as well as a test for mental stability. In the long run it would help save students lives around the world.

Open carry is an opportunity to express individual rights. Expressing one's rights openly to the public is an uplifting experience for a citizen. Carrying a gun openly is a valuable opportunity for law-abiding citizens to express their right to carry a weapon, connect more viscerally with their broader rights and the laws that enshrine them, and inform others of those rights.

In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. In the United States, people are able to carry handguns. This is because handguns are there to protect the owner from danger. However, there are lots of crimes that involve guns. The first reason why people should not be allowed to carry guns is because nobody can tell who is going to kill someone with his or her gun. There is no guarentee that you will not get shot. To reduce the number of crimes, private ownership of handguns ought be banned.

Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Law-abiding citizens carrying openly makes people feel safer.

THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom. I agree with the definitions except a concealed weapon will be a licensed weapon that is concealed appropriately WITH necessary training. My contentions rebut my opponents arguments. Contention 1As stated with my disagreement of definition of concealed weapon. The teachers should have adequate training before being able to carry a concealed weapon on campus. Many scenarios require violence to combat violence. This is a cold hard truth. The difference is, the school teachers would be combating IMMORAL violence with MORAL violence. For example, if a school shooter came into a school with the intention to kill 20 innocent people in the school. Perhaps this school shooter makes it in the school and starts shooting, he shoots 11 people, at that point a concealed weapons carrier fires and kills the shooter. In this example 12 people would be killed, but 20 were intended to be killed. In reality, the concealed weapons carrier killed one person but saved 9 lives. What is more moral, letting more people die without killing, or killing to save lives? The point is, if a mentally deranged person has an eager intent to shoot up a school, they'll probably do it, the teachers should have help in saving as many lives as possible. Contention 2There are also teachers with psychological problems. Firstly, I would suggest that all teachers who are legible for carrying a concealed weapon on campus would be subject to a psychological test. Secondly, it is possible even after the psychological test the teacher still has some problem. So one day in an extreme and unlikely scenario they do pull a gun on one or several students and start shooting. Easily near by teachers can come and shoot the out of control teacher before more innocent lives are taking, thus saving lives of the innocent. Contention 3Our governments do not have enough police officers to have multiple officers per campus. The average amount of police officers per capita is 265.7 per 100,000 people. (1) With a low amount of police officers they will not be able to take out the offender and save lives quick enough since they'll have to cover a lot of ground on campus. If most of the teachers on campus had a concealed weapon and were trained accordingly they could save more lives from being taken from the offender as opposed to a few police per each campus. Enforcing security gates more closely will help prevent but will not be a 100% guarantee of prevention. My opponent has also stated 3 in 4 gunmen turn on their own community and claims it from TIME magazine but doesn't give link to the article. I can't be sure if its true but if it is, as I stated earlier in Contention 2, if a teacher turned on the students, there would be enough sane teachers to take out the out of control teacher. My opponent has stated we should have rehabilitation for the suspect in question. I agree with this if we know the suspected offender potentially has plans of having a shooting spree in a school. However, we can't always know if somebody has this terrible plan of killing innocent people in school. So when such a person comes along into a school without notice, the teachers should have to potential to save as many lives as possible. My opponents concludes by stating we should not add another aspect of violence. I have already differentiated the difference between immoral (unnecessary) violence and moral (necessary) violence. Moral violence saves lives more than it takes. (1) . http://www.nationmaster.com...

New Member Tournament: Gun Rights Debate Thanks JMRTC = Right to Carry ARGUMENTS1) Increases risk and fearThe individual right to carry guns does not make people feel safe. A study done by Harvard shows that 59% of American citizens felt less safe if more people in their community were allowed to carry guns, 24% felt the same, and only 12% felt more safe [1]. About 90% thought that citizens should not be allowed to bring their guns into restaurants, bars, and college campuses [1]. It can be seen that people don't feel safer but are more worried about who might have a gun when they are sitting in a bar, or going to college. Their fears are not unfounded. Incidents like the highly publicized Virginia Tech massacre have been occuring every few years since 1990 [2]. More guns floating in society not only increases risk to individuals, but also increases their fear making us a more fearful society overall. Suicide attempts are impulsive. From a study by the New England Journal of Medicine, 24% of people who attempted suicide took less than 5 min from the decision to kill themsleves from the actual attempt while 70% took less than an hour [10]. The easy access to guns makes them highly dangerous. If guns weren't available, people will have more time to rethink. 2) Criminals obtain guns easilyPro says that criminals will break the law to get a gun. Let's consider how criminals get their guns: 46% of criminals in the US get them through a process known as "straw purchasing" [3]. The process is simple. A convict gets someone else to buy a gun for him [3]. It is difficult, almost impossible to catch. The criminal's friend or family member will simply buy a gun and give it to him. That is a disadvantage of the right to carry (RTC): people can buy guns for others by bending the law. Without an RTC, people who can legally buy guns cannot just buy a gun and pass it onto their friend who will then use it to commit a crime. 3) Increased domestic violence Pro says that there are training programs that help people use guns safely. But are they mandatory? Would everyone in the house have had the training? It is more likely that a gun kept in the house would fall into the hands of an untrained person who would either accidentally shoot their own family, or from whom the burglar can immediately snatch the gun away. 30% of victims were murdered by people known to the victim, 13% by family members, and only 12% by strangers [4]. This shows that it is over 3 times more likely for a victim to be murdered by someone they know and has access to their house. So the harmss of having a gun in the house outweigh the benefits of a small possibility that it could be used defensively against an intruder. A study conducted by UCLA involving over 9000 subjects concluded that having a gun at home is a risk for adults to be shot fatally or commit suicide with a firearm at a ratio of 1.41 [7]. This means a gun at home makes you about 41% more likely to be a victim of homicide or suicide. A separate study conducted by the University of Tennessee, Memphis concludes that "rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance" [8]. REBUTTALS1) Self Defense from PolicePro says "anything is possible." The question is: Is it likely? Likelihood is more important that possiblity when doing a comparison of benefits and harms. Pro also says that cops might abuse their power. Pointing a gun at them isn't going to help. The solution is to call 911, get other cops at the scene. It is far less likely that the entire department is corrupt. Cops are much better trained than the average citizen to use their guns so actually shooting a cop is out of the question. If Pro only advocates waving the gun at the corrupt cop hoping he will go away, the suspect will be taken into custody for pointing a firearm at a cop. This is absolutely not a benefit of the RTC as Pro tries to argue. If anything, it is a disadvantage. 2) Self Defense from Criminals(A) 534,000 cases of self-defense? That is 0.001% of the US population. Quite small. Guns are not likely to be successfully used for self-defense. The American Journal of Public Health conducted a study in Philadelphia and concluded that on average, guns did not protect their owners from assualt [6]. This is because attacks are often surprise attacks and the victim has no time to draw his weapon. A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise avoidable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Gun owners also increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them [6]. The study concluded that a person with a gun is four times more likely to be shot in an assault than one without a gun [6]. (B) Police protectionPro says that police can't guarantee the safety of citizens. But as I have shown, neither can guns.Warren v DC only stated that police had no special responsibility to protect any individual. It upheld that police did have a responsibility to protect the public at large. The ruling was in response to a victim suing the police for not checking the backdoor of the house even though the police had arrived at the front door. Instead of suing the police on a small technicality, the victims should have helped prosecute the criminals. The average police response time was 8 minutes in 1995 [9]. This is steadily decreasing [9]. It is better to wait for the police rather than use a gun and get shot in the process. 3) Crime DeterrentPro says that people feel safer. This isn't true. 59% of people felt less safe with more guns in the community, only 12% felt more safe. Pro's argument relies on the assertion that once criminals know that a person is armed, they are more likely to retreat. However, the criminal is just as likely to shoot the person if they think that they will be shot. Pro relies on the assumption that gun users are safe, responsible people with good training on how to use a gun. There is no way to guarantee this. Pro cites John Lott to say that crime decreases with right to carry. I don't have John Lott's book but I have evidence showing that Lott used fraudulent data. The Washigton Monthly reports that Lott produced a statistical model "Model 1", that showed that significant crime decreases when guns were banned. Errors were discovered in Lott's work. Lott admitted the errors and posted a new table with new results. However, his new results were similar to his old ones [12]. This was bcause, since Lott had no choice but to use the corrected data, and the corrected data erased his results, he decided to invent a different model ("Model 2") for use in this new table without disclosing the fact that he had switched to a new model specifically constructed to keep his results intact [12]. Lott then quitely removed the old model from his website and put the new model in. He used the new model with the old data as well as the new data to make it seem like he used the new model all along [12]. Lott also misrepresented the findings of the FBI [13]. John Lott has been discredited, he was caught using falsified data. RTC does not decrease crime.A study published in the Journal of the American Institute for Economic Research shows that RTC actually increases instances of aggravated assault [11]. 4) Sport Pro says shooting sports are safe. I disagree and negated his stats. He still asserts that shooting sports are safe with no new evidence. Shooting sports are not only dangerous, but what does it even matter whether or not they are safe? By itself, it is not a real benefit of the individual RTC. People could do target practice with replica guns and bullets. Just the fact that people want to play with real guns is no reason to allow people to carry guns while at home or in the community. Sources http://bit.ly...

I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind concealed carry is only legal in some places/states. It is concealed on their body, So people wouldn't know that they had it in the first place, And you can generally tell someone who is suspicious. "Sure, There are some citizens that would use it correctly. But there are also a lot who wouldn't. " Concealed-carry holders are the most law-abiding group in the country. So much that they actually commit crimes 16% less than POLICE OFFICERS! This shows how law-abiding they are. They frequently go to ranges and safety classes and know how to properly operate and when to use their gun. So let me get your position straight: You think concealed-carry shouldn't be legal, But do you think owning a gun should be legal, Or what further procedures/restrictions/bans would you like on certain guns? Please explain your position.

Individuals should have the right to own a gun in the United States. My opponent has argued from an entirely constitutional standpoint without factoring in the obvious increase in homicides that have resulted from gun ownership. and has not considered how old, and outdated the constitution is. My opponent genuinely believes a armed civilian force with no government oversight should run the country, is this really the type of person we could trust to keep us safe? .