Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?

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...

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...

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!

Dude I am debating to have 18 years allowed to get a handgun with papers legally. So when the cop does pull you over you have the papers to show that you can Own a handgun.

18 year olds with concealed handguns

Why don't you want a concealed handgun permit so you can carry and be able to protect yourself. There are many cases in which a 18 year old can save their life or somebody else's if they have a concealed handgun. But because of the law they can't have one and said 18 year old dies gets injured or other person dies or gets injured. SO my question is why wouldn't you want 18 year olds to have handguns?

18 year olds with concealed handguns

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...

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.

Concealed Carry on College Campuses

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.

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

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.

Right to carry arms

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.

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

18 year olds with concealed handguns

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.

Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime

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.

I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

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 the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed.

In this debate we will begin by talking about open carry. Open carry is the practice of carrying a weapon in plain view, not concealed, for personal safety. I am for this. I feel that if you can pass the background check to buy a firearm legally, you should be able to carry a weapon as the Second Amendment gives us the rights to bear arms to protect ourselves from an oppressive government and those who seek to do us harm. Here is Ky policy on open carry. This statement statement is about what is justified to use deadly force by the Louisville Metro Police. This is basically outlining when someone would need to use their weapon. Also we will talk about what carrying guns in places could have prevented in our nation. 9.1.2 DEFINITIONS (CONTINUED) Deadly force: Force, which the officer knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury. Head, neck, throat or clavicle injuries caused by an impact weapon of any sort can lead to death or serious physical injury. Reasonable belief: When facts or circumstances the officer knows, or should know, are such to cause an ordinary and prudent officer to act or think in a similar way under similar circumstances. Active aggression: A threat or overt act of an assault (through physical or verbal means), coupled with the present ability to carry out the threat or assault, which reasonably indicates that an assault or injury to any person is imminent. Serious physical injury: A bodily injury that: =623; Creates a substantial risk of death to the victim. =623; Creates a prolonged impairment of health or prolonged disfigurement. =623; Creates a prolonged loss or impairment of a bodily organ.

Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free.

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.

Everyone over 21 has the right to have a firearm.

My position is that colleges should determine the rules for carrying weapons on their campuses and the government should not be involved. The government does not have the moral authority to impose its rules on others. I am speaking of private colleges of course, I do not believe public universities should exist at all.

should the United States government allow concealed guns within campus (college)

I believe concealed-carry should be legal, And for law-abiding citizens, They should be able to own a gun. This is to protect themselves in public, Home-defense, And protecting against a potential tyrannical government. You have mentioned stricter gun laws and an "assault weapons" ban. Feel free to try and change my mind if you have convincing arguments.

I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

I oppose the resolution, "Resolved: 18 year olds should be able to purchase firearms and have concealed weapons licenses." First, an eighteen year-old (or anyone for that matter) can use another means to protect themselves other than firearms, such as pepper spray. This would a.) reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries and b.) prevent firearms from being stolen by others and used for criminal purposes. Second, a firearm in the wrong hands can result in injury and death. Examples of eighteen year-olds killing others with firearms include the Jokela school shooting in which nine people died (including the perpetrator) and the St. Pius X High School shooting, where one person was killed and five others were injured. Due to the number of risks, and other ways for eighteen year-olds to defend themselves, I oppose the resolution that eighteen year-olds should be able to purchase firearms and have concealed weapons licenses.

Should 18 year olds be able to purchase fire arms and have conceild weapons lcences

Ya but what if you dont have the papers and you get pulled over thats what i said yesterday but it is useless if you get it anyways. Why do you want it any ways? Its just to get a holster for the gun, and you have to pay extra for the gun anyways. so my question is why

18 year olds with concealed handguns

For clarification, we are not talking about inside secured government property, or the right of property owners to disallow weapons on their property.

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.

Should teachers be allowed to carry concealed weapons in school

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.

Gun Free Zone on College Campus

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.

Teachers should be able to carry concealed Guns at School

I think anyone who carries a firearm whether you are a private purchaser, security guard, military or a Police officer should be subject to strict rules. Firstly anyone wishing to own or carry a firearm should be subject to quarterly drug testing (including alcohol and prescription medication), psychological screening and profiling. Secondly anyone with a serious violent criminal history should undertake even stricter scrutiny and controls but I don't think the carry conceal laws are the problem. Crazy people are generally the problem, people who are violent and officials who are violent and think they are beyond the law. Killing whether by breaking the law or loosely in the name of the law are equally detestable and indictable. In my opinion i genuinely feel that prevention should be more prevalent in gun control. If more scrutiny was given to these areas there would be less gun killings. Thirdly automatic weapons and high calibre spec weapons should only be issued to the armed forces and not the general public or the police its unecessary for home protection. The amount of weapons that anyone individual should also be scrutanised this would also bring down gun killings.

Conceal carry laws by private citizens

Thats true but theres a slimchance of that happening. What if a cop pulls you over and you don't have the papers for your gun? Jail for you son.

18 year olds with concealed handguns

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...

States/local municipalities should have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens

I accept, and look forward to this debate. Just so no time is wasted in asking for clarifications in the first and second rounds, could you please be very specific on terms of importance. For instance "infringed." Thank you!

" Whether a police officer let's for argument sake on a night shift approaches old Mrs Jones from the grocery store..... In between discussing the price of a twinkie he suddenly feels threatened by old Mrs Jones who is acting suspiciouslly and he suddenly remembers that she may have a perfectly legal concealed weapon on her person. Mrs Jones later was found by paramedics dead grasping a carrot...please.... Do officers really go into a shift thinking "oh someone may have a legally concealed weapon" Really? I'm not so sure.. " It seems you are arguing my point for me lol If Mrs Jones is carrying a LEGAL concealed weapon she is most likely white and an older women which by virtue of her age and color is most likely not gonna arouse an officers suspicions unless she was clutching at her chest and he suspected she was having a heart attack lol A black person or any minority is less likely to openly carry a weapon much less conceal it even if it is legal and they are the lawful owner cause of the majority white police force who, by training or by belief, have a prejudice against minorities that if they do have a gun, it is most likely illegal and so they are in danger.

Conceal carry laws by private citizens

Well, I understand everything that you're saying, and it makes sense. I just don't think that allowing more concealed weapons by non-professionals in colleges is the solution. There is definitely a problem with the fact that pointless violence is occurring at campuses, but I believe there's only been about 9 campus shootings in the past 40 years. Every life counts, but I don't think the situation is so severe that concealed weapons should be allowed on colleges. I agree that a vast majority of CC permit holders will be acting defensively and responsibly with their weapon, but there is just too much room for more problems when guns are allowed legally. This whole CC permit business makes guns more available anyways, because people are able to legally buy and sell the guns and carry them. This makes it easier for potential criminals to get a hold of a gun. I know that they could get a hold of one anyways, but the fact that it is easier when there are more guns going around means that someone that may not have gone through the trouble if guns were really rare may be able to obtain one easily and use it. I think there are other solutions that could work alternatively to the CC permit. There could be increased security, so that if a student starts shooting then there will be a trained, professional security guard nearby. Also, there could be metal detectors/x rays or some other precaution before students are able to enter the campus.

Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses

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...

Concealed Carry Laws Decrease Violent Crime

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

I find it interesting that my opponent has used a Supreme Court case as evidence of the "individual right" the Second Amendment affords to American Citizens. The case referred to, District of Columbia v. Heller, does indeed assert the individual right of citizens to possess a handgun for self defense; however, it is equally as important to note that this case was not decided unanimously. In a 5-4 decision, which the Court used textual and historical evidence to decide the original application of the Second Amendment, Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer all applied the same textual and historical examination of the Second Amendment, but came to a very different conclusion than the majority. This case does not prove any conclusive evidence for the original intent of the Second Amendment, it was only the interpretations of the nine Justices on the Supreme Court at the time. I realize that decision by the Supreme Court have the binding ability of law, or the "correct" interpretation of the Constitution, but it is also true that the entire Judicial Review power of the Supreme Court is not found in the Constitution; it was a product of the Courts decisions in Marbury v. Madison, and Cooper v. Aaron. I included the chart on the Washington post's website to respond to my opponents argument "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," which shows that there is no higher gun ownership than the United States. The debate to crime differences overall must be omitted, being that the chart only provides information about gun violence and crime. But since my opponent spent a large part of their rebuttal giving examples and comparisons based upon this data, I will respond to it as well. Being that I find a fundamental flaw in the examples and comparisons given, I will address the comparisons as a whole, instead of responding to them individually. The overall objection I have is the incompatibility of the countries that are being compared as examples. I will use the resource "democracyranking.org" as evidence of the generally accepted rankings and theoretical approach to calculating the "quality of Democracy = (freedom & other characteristics of the political system) & (performance of the non-political dimensions)." The website lays out its ranking system as such "all indicators are transformed to a value range of 1 to 100, where "1 represents the weakest (poorest) and 100 the strongest (best) value." If you look at the rankings, a few interesting factors arise. First, Sierra Leon is not on the list. This is because this website only uses countries that are categorized by Freedom House as either "free" or "partly free." Is this not a telling indication that the comparison of Sierra Leon and the United States may not be the best? The United States is categorized by Freedom house as completely free, with a "democracy score" of 76.9; where as Sierra Leon is not even included because it isn't a "free" or "partly free state." This has to be taken into account when comparing the gun homicides in each country. The Brazil comparison is indeed a better one, but is still in the "medium 2/3" of all countries on the democracy ranking site. Would it not be more advantageous to compare apple with apples? When looking at the top 10 on the democracy rating compared to the United States on the Washington Post website, the U.S. is number one in gun ownership as previously stated, and Switzerland is third. Although Switzerland has a higher total gun homicide rate of 72.2 compared to the U.S. 67.5, the total number of gun homicides in each becomes relevant to examine. This is where the biggest jump in data between the top 10 "democracies" and the United States happens. Switzerland had a total of 57 homicides by gun, compared to the United States at 9,960. Of the top 10 "democracies" on the democracy ranking website, the next highest number besides the U.S. is Germany with 158. We have to travel over 30 spots on the total homicides by guns to reach our first top 10 "democracy." There is a 9,802 difference between the United States and Germany of total homicides by gun. This cannot be due to nothing. In summary, there is a heck of a lot of data to sift through and attempt to determine what is important and what is not. The statistical significance of these categories would take far to much time and effort to exert for this debate, so I present all this information only to illuminate the inconsistencies in comparisons and other possible factors leading to the numbers presented on the Washington Post. I don't not contest the necessity of citizens protecting themselves by the use of guns, but to say that they are used only for this purpose would be absurd, that is evidenced by the number of homicides by guns in the U.S. on the Washington Post's website. Keeping and bearing arms for the soul purpose to defend against tyrannical governments or over oppressive governments may indeed be necessary, but that would suggest a cynical view of our government, and the assumption that this tyrannical government will arise at some point. There are plenty of people in Congress that share the views of my opponent, and I would highly doubt they would allow for a tyrannical government to take hold of our country. If we have no faith in our government and its ability to protect and provide for its citizens, then we are having the wrong debate. https://freedomhouse.org... http://democracyranking.org... http://www.washingtonpost.com...

High school teachers with a concealed weapon license, should be allowed to carry a loaded gun while inside the school in order to provide extra protection for students, and themselves. Security guards are a great for ensuring a comfortable state of security in the hallways, but very seldom are they actually inside the classroom. Teachers however, are.

High school teachers should be able to be armed inside the school.

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.

Your second sentence says you would "feel very unsafe" should students be allowed to carry their concealed weapons. The problem with this statement is that there is a huge difference in feeling safe and being safe. I'm sure the students at Virginia Tech felt very safe knowing that guns were not allowed on their campus; however, the fact is that no one was able to fight back when that maniac attacked. To clarify my 25% statistic, it is that 25% of all reported crimes on a college campus are rapes, not that 25% of women are raped. Furthermore, your point that rape does not justify murder depends on your moral standards. For example, I would rather a woman shoot and kill an immoral man in self-defense than that immoral man sexually harm her. Prevention of rape is certainly a justified reason for killing. "There isn't enough crime on college campuses to support gun ownership." Any crime that causes harm to an innocent person should be prevented any way possible. Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean that person has to use it. There are strict guidelines as to when a person can be justified for using a weapon. As for your point about college students being shot should campus carry be legalized, since Utah first legalized campus carry in 2004, six states have since followed suit. In all that time on over 150 college campuses, there have been only 3 negligent discharges, all of which could have been prevented. Two occurred because the weapon was being carried without a holster and one was because a teacher was showing her new weapon to a coworker. None of these resulted in serious injuries. Many places require that weapons be holstered or cased to prevent things like this from happening. In Point 3, you fail to realize that the "8,275 criminal gun-related homicides" says nothing about cases of unjustified self-defense. Instead, it shows that while 8,275 people committed a criminal act of murder, 230 people were able to defend themselves from harm and put the bad guy six feet under. If you take away concealed carry, you will decrease the number of justified shootings, but would leave those people defenseless in the face of criminals. Now here are some statistics for you. "At the 2013 homicide rate, roughly one in every 285 Americans will be murdered. A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found: " 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives " 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime " 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once" [1] How's that for enough crime to justify concealed carry? When you get to talking about college campuses, there is nothing that will lead a logical person to believe that just because he or she walks onto a campus, that person will not be exposed to criminal activity. While college campuses usually have lower crime rates, they are not crime free. A person who is permitted to carry weapons almost anywhere should not be prevented from doing the same on a college campus where crime is still possible. Here are some more statistics: "A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found: " 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" " 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" " 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim""[1] Responsibly carrying concealed weapons gives people an effective way to defend themselves. The only reason left to deny a person the right to carry is the very small possibility that someone else will be harmed, and it is not permissible to deny someone a right just because it is accompanied with a minor risk that can be reduced with simple preventative measures. [1]http://www.justfacts.com...

Concealed Carry on College Campuses

Recently in Texas, as well as in other states, legislation has been put forward that would allow students and faculty at most public and some private universities to carry a firearm concealed while on campus. This past year the debate arrived at my school in the form of a public lecture and increased my interest in the matter. If anyone has any questions about definitions or any other part of the debate, please feel free to PM me or comment before accepting.

On Campus Concealed Carry

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

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.

I stand in negation of this act, taking in mind that the safety and well being of students will be unbalanced. Rather than a protective figure the teachers will become an overpower and feared figure to students. Not to say that as many cases before unexpected teachers might use the weapon to intimidate, and impose power over a student. 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. Asides form that will have to reenforce safety like where to store the gun and high explosive ammunitions.

Resolved: certified teachers must have the right to carry handgun to school.

"The case AGAINST open carry firearms." OMFG Alaska. April 27th, 2010: "I support our second amendment, but I am against people feeling empowered to carry their legally permitted weapons openly and here is why: many aren't trained to retain total control of their own weapons and there may come a time when somebody is able to grab it away from them and use it against innocent bystanders. Americans are used to seeing police openly carrying firearms. But because they are uniformed and easily identifiable and their position in society still commands some level of respect from most of society, most would never dream of overpowering or subduing a police officer in an attempt to grab their weapon away from them and then use it against innocents. Not so for some schlub picking his nose in a Def Leppard t-shirt, who may or may not have had the proper training in order to maintain control of their own weapon. Some crazy asshole may get it in his head that Mr. Nose Picker doesn't look all that tough and that he could probably wrest Mr. N. P.'s crappy little 9mm away from him and then use it to cause some righteous anarchy. And that is it in a nutshell. Gun control in this case means maintaining control of who is in possession of ones own weapon. I am not convinced that the majority of Americans are wholly prepared to do exactly that, which is why I'd prefer that those who choose to carry a legally registered firearm keep it concealed."

Open carry is vulnerable to attacker trying to take weapon

I don't believe teachers should not carry concealed weapons (I'm assuming you're talking about guns as you said teachers would need to go through fire arm training class) because not everyone has the nerve and skill to shoot accurately even with a training class. How many years do the police spend training for shooting guns? Certainly not a short class. Guns may also be used in inappropriate circumstances if the teacher isn't fully stable as even with mental checks not all murderers have a previous record. If a student got their hands on a weapon the results could be disastrous the shootings at Columbine High School in April 1999 and Virginia Tech University in April 2007 were both caused by armed students shooting other students. With easier access to these weapons due to staff carrying them these cases could go up. Guns may also go off accidentally as it already happened in 2014 http://archive.sltrib.com... With guns, students may not trust the teachers as much as they are dangerous. I, as a student certainly wouldn't trust a teacher with a gun and I'm sure other students would agree.

Paul Hager. "Why I Carry. Concealed versus open carry." November 19th, 2000: "One concern I have about concealed versus open carry is a purely political and psychological one. Given all of the anti-gun propaganda, coupled with the fact that the average person is unaware of how many friends and neighbors carry a concealed handgun, the right to carry for self-defense becomes ripe for a "counter-reformation" to roll back the gains that have been made. [...] Prejudice is based upon ignorance and fear, and stereotypes are impervious to everything except confrontation with reality."

Open carry helps educate public about guns

There are many, many school shootings nowadays and I believe that students attending these schools should have some sort of protection. Sometimes these shootings are carried out by more than one person and students will need more protection than the helpless, defenseless teachers and faculty. A lot of schools are out of the way and far from the nearest police station. For example, my school is a good 20 minutes away from the nearest station. If someone shot up our school, I'd like to know that there were some students certified and licensed to have a firearm on campus to protect fellow peers. The certification will include a two-week course with local tactical defense specialists (Police). The process will be very thorough and will be tedious, but worth it. The course will be like a CHL Course (Concealed Handgun License) (1). In 31 states, it is legal to carry a concealed handgun on your person. Although, you cannot carry on school grounds. This license will allow students to carry a small HANDGUN on campus, if it is concealed properly. All students in the school (even non-carriers) will have to wear a name badge while on the campus and the licensed kids will have a special "carrier" emblem on the badge. The students will not be allowed to interact with the weapons unless the school goes under actual lock-down. Only then will the students be able to interact with the weapon.

Possessing small, compact firearms on school grounds with a license.

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.

Attacks such as the one at Virginia Tech in 2007 would have ended more quickly, or even been thwarted, had Cho's fellow students been armed with and trained to handle handguns. If a prospective gunman (or woman) knew beforehand that a large portion of the population they are considering attacking is armed, it reasons to believe that they might reconsider their anticipated actions. Most university students are old enough to carry and should be permitted to do so. http://opencarry.com...

Permitting university students to carry handguns on campus would reduce campus violence.

Individuals Should Not Have the Right to Bear Arms in DC

ban handguns in Washington D.C.

Teachers will have the guns locked up i don't think the kids will be able to steal the gun and use it. ESPECIALLY when the gun is not loaded when it is locked up. The can be anywhere else like the teachers coat, or there bags or there locked drawers. They cant take a gun if they don't know the key code to the cabinet. You say there should not be killings at schools. Gun's aren't going to shoot on their own. Also its not like the teachers are going to shoot the students. Its for like lock downs, where a actual person who is considered a threat comes into the school and attacks. The gun also does not need to be used for shooting it can be used as intimidation against the threat. Intimidating the threat makes it put its weapons down if it has one. Also if you are distracting the threat with a gun it helps officials get to your location and while the gun is being a distraction the kids can attack the threat from behind and pin it to the ground. Go Kindergarten Kids you just Pinned Down the Bad Guys. :)

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.

Conceal to carry

Well, I do not know of an instance where a concealed handgun stopped a shooter either. However, I do know of mass killings where a concealed handgun would have stopped a shooter, if they had one. It's not only that, but it is also that the criminal knows no one will have a gun, which means he can do it wherever, whenever he wants (if no one could conceal a handgun). He knows no one could stop him. However, if we are allowed to have handguns, then he does not know who could or couldn't have a handgun.

Citizens should have guns

There is still no reason to use guns instead of tasers or a police officer even if a student cannot reach the gun. I have a few reasons as to why. 1. Pulling a taser off of a belt is way easier and faster than trying to find the key that unlocks the cabinet and loading the gun I gtg but I will post the rest in the comments when i get back.

My opponent appears to have forgotten his own resolution. "We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed". What this means is that he believes, that a society in which every adult( I'm assuming adult. He didn't specify but semantics aren't really my thing) is legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon on them at all times would be a safer society. I am not arguing against the right to carry a gun. I myself have two. I just don't believe a fully armed society is better for anyone. My opponent has not addressed any of my points so extend my argument into the next round. My opponent did not post the source of his information, but nevertheless I've found it. http://gunowners.org... Let the record show that I do NOT argue against most of his facts as they make my case for me. Our current stance on gun control is working. Like I stated before 10% of violent crimes don't involve guns. My opponent thinks the world operates like Grand Theft Auto and every criminal has a gun. The truth is 90% of them can't afford it. But see if you're arming everyone, that number goes through the roof. Even if you make the case to say that ex-cons won't be issued firearms, every murderer has a first kill.

We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed

Conceal-Carry is already legal in some places. Mentally ill people probably would not be able to pass a background check. There has been no increase of violent crime. Since 1990, As concealed-carry goes up by tens of thousands per year, Violent crime has gone down 50%. This includes murders and rapes. 90% of cases criminals get their guns illegally, Probably through a friend or the black market.

I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind

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.

Conceal Carry Laws reduce violent crime

First, thanks for accepting, and sorry this is a little short; I don't have a lot of time. :) I'd first like to address the contention of my opponent, who states that state and local governments should have the ability to regulate handgun ownership because if not, hand guns are likely to fall into the hands of someone who will commit a crime (i.e. ex-cons) or those who are mentally unqualified to carry a weapon. In response to this I'd like to ask my opponent, would giving the power to the federal government allow people who are mentally ill or an ex-convict to purchase a hand gun? Of course not; in fact, our government would ensure this would not happen. I'd also like to point out my opponent has provided no evidence to back up this claim. I'd now like to go on to my own arguments. -First, states should not have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens because this would restrict the liberties of only certain people, which violates the Constitution, whose Second Amendment clearly states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Next, it would be easier for the federal government to regulate hand guns, as everything would be uniform; there would be no uncertainty as to what is allowed where.

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.

Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime

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.

The individual should not have the right to possess a firearm.

Apparently you listened to nothing I said, first of all the idea that a homicidal man purchasing a weapon legally is absurd no one with a misdemeanor or any type of mental history or illness is capable of such a purchase. My argument is that we should tighten the gun purchasing and licensing like a better background search including yourself and family members, but those able to purchase one should have little to no restrictions. You give me one individual who went threw a background search and then used a concealed weapon illegally and your point will be valid until then your just spewing opinions. The problem with firearms is that guns are able to be purchased illegally easily. Tighten the gun selling but those able to buy one should have no restrictions on carrying it as long as its concealed. Also your point about the constitution being written in "different" times is also stupidity. The times we live in now are much much more violent and dangerous than when the declaration was written. Crime is so high in the United States because there is no capital punishment anymore. It is more important than ever for citizens (women especially) to be carrying a concealed weapon, with the Bush administration out of the white house soon and the democratic party taking over the threat of another terrorist attack is almost a probability. The truth is these times are much more dangerous to the citizen and the right to bear arms is a right that should and must be implied today.

Loosen gun control

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'm Pro Second Amendment: Change my Mind

Im Pro-Second Amendment: Change my Mind

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 by private citizens

I am fairly new to this site, i am not quite sure if i picked the right side so read this first, i believe teachers and/or students should be allowed to lawfully carry concealed weapons.

School's should arm and train teachers to use firearms

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited his round. I wish to remind everyone of the Fort Hood shooting that just occurred. How did it end? The shooter met armed resistance and killed himself. Unfortunately, since the armed resistance was from a police officer, the shooter had 15 minutes uncontested. Point being, the shooter could have been stopped much sooner if the military retained the right to keep and bear arms.

Lawful concealed carry is a good thing

Im Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

OK. Let's unpack some of the things you mentioned. You said longer waiting periods for certain assault rifles. Can you define assault rifle for me? Also, when you said 3-5 days for high-powered weapons- Can you define what a high powered weapon is? When you use the example of the fingerprint scanner- I think you have the right idea. I have not looked into the security of the guns too much but my first thoughts are the expensiveness to produce such things. I do agree about generally increasing security though-yes. For instance, I would like to see much better background checks. When you say America has an increase in mass shootings- that is what concealed carry is for. For example, in the Texas church shooting, the shooter got killed with an assault rifle by a civilian. This is also why teachers should have guns to prevent mass shootings in schools. But all in all, I completely agree with your premise. Guns should be allowed by law-abiding citizens, but there should restrictions to stop them from falling into he wrong hands. However, there will be some instances in which the shooter has not had any prior history or family history- so you simply can not prevent that, which is why i believe in teachers having guns and in concealed carry laws. I think we agree on the basic premise of your argument though-thoughts?

Im Pro-Second Amendment: Change my Mind

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.

THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom.

Hi! This is my first debate, and I am looking forward to either being convinced by good counterpoints, or convincing someone else of my side. I will start off by saying how counter-intuitive the right is to any cohesive system. Why do you need to have a open carry license(to buy guns, yes, but you can also acquire these illegally) when the fact if you actually have said license or not can not be checked by any authority without your consent? Essentially this means that if you are a convicted felon for instance, and you have acquired a firearm, you are free to carry it openly as the fact that you are a convicted felon can not be uncovered without your consent, as they have no legal right to seize your weapon for check nor can they demand you to show identification. This seems like a god-awful flaw in the system to me. I can not find it in me to see this as reasonable on my own, and need help to see the other side so I can draw a conclusion on the matter.

Constitutional right to carry arms in the U.S

>>> 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.

The United States federal government should force states to allow citizens to carry guns.

I appreciate the clarification. First, the United States Constitution does state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," however, this is not the only statement made in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment actually beings with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," and then follows "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The interpretation of this Amendment is in no way settled, and it may in fact be more telling of what the framers intention was by the first half of the sentence and not the last. I don't find it necessary to address the second claim, as it is completely subjective. The next claim, "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," is simply incorrect. First, because the United States is has the highest gun ownership rate in the world by 34 % (http://www.washingtonpost.com...). Also, I find it worth noting that it seems my opponent is implying that the United States is a Tyranny, otherwise I don't see this statement to have any necessity. The United States is not a Tyranny. The utterance of this phrase in the last four years is nothing more than propaganda.

The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed.

This is for friendly debate practice and constructive criticism is much appreciated.

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.

Lawful concealed carry is a good thing

Yes but right now it is not legal so it scares some people from doing it since if they are caught they can be prosecuted. But if it's legal they have nothing to fear. And being the mentally I'll people they are we cannot trust them with the metal responsibility of carrying a concealed gun. Like you said they will take it off the black market and no one will question then on it.

I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind

You finally decided to take this 15 year old up on a debate. We do have SWAT, State Police, Local police, ATF, FBI, And US Marshalls. We do. The citizens who conceal carry in this country don't enforce the laws. They protect themselves. In 2016, Roughly 11 thousand people died to criminal use of guns. I don't have statistics from the same year, But nearly every national estimate states that anywhere from 500 thousand to 3 million lives are saved by concealed carriers in the US each year. Of course thorough background checks are necessary, But the outright ban of guns is foolish. You can make guns illegal, But crack is illegal and people still find a way around that. Cannabis is illegal, And people still find a way to get that. Prostitution is illegal, But people still do that. Moral of the story is, Regardless of whether guns are legal or not, People will get them. And with no citizens to defend against that, More innocent people will die at the hands of criminals with guns. You may say, "guns kill innocent people". Saying that guns kill people is like me blaming my pencil for failing my math test. It's all about the person carrying the gun.

Th 2'nd amendment should be abolished, Change my mind

So, people are paranoid because it's incredibly likely something will go down? I agree that not everyone should carry a weapon, and I think that if you do, you should know how to use it. The people with guns that aren't idiots aren't just paranoid morons, they're just ready to defend themselves. Now, having said that, your extreme example is still bad. People should be carrying a handgun as a weapon, not something so big they could use it as a weapon if it ran out of ammo. People should be allowed to carry guns, and they should be required to know how to use them if they do. But they should also be able to without being judged as "weak" by people that don't agree with them. How would you know how Ted Cruz is with a gun? My bets are pretty high you haven't seen him use one. And nothing against Bob Dole, but I think Cruz would be able to take the old man if(for some reason) it came to blows.

Conceal/open carry laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paraniod.

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.

Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms.

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.

Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free.

I accept.

True, the teachers could sneak a gun into the school, but they shouldn't have to. They should be allowed to have them there, and i'm not talking about all the teachers, only the ones with a concealed weapon license. In order to obtain this license, you have to pay(in Dallas at least), a $200 charge for the class, be a minimal age of 21, and be responsible enough to handle a gun. It won't be an irresponsible, trigger happy, murderer who is handling these weapons, they will be educated, responsible, educators who have an extra security for the worst of situations. If teachers were allowed to carry weapons inside the school, there would be no doubt that there would still be students that would have them as well, but there would probably be less if they knew that if they pulled a gun, there will be teachers that would defend the other students, as well as themselves. It wouldn't create a "wild west" scenario, it would create an area of increased safety precautions to make a better learning environment for students

High school teachers should be able to be armed inside the school.

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.

In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

Garry E. Harvey. "Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry." Pennsylvania Open Carry.: "The second of the two concerns the CRIMINAL successfully taking the weapon from the holster before the ARMED CITIZEN can react. This has happened to police officers and so it could happen to the ARMED CITIZEN as well but consider this following difference. In all but a minority of cases, the CRIMINAL took the officer's weapon once being confronted by the officer or while being placed under arrest. The act was one of desperation as the reward of escape outweighed the risk of taking the weapon from the officer. Assuming the weapon is properly holstered in a professional manner, the ARMED CITIZEN would only pose a threat to the CRIMINAL within a self-defense situation; the risk to the CRIMINAL would be overwhelming in attempting to steal the weapon as this act would trigger the self defense reaction from the ARMED CITIZEN."

Attacker is unlikely to try to take openly carried gun

The idea that openly carrying a weapon is about brandishing it and intimidating other people is misinformed. It relies on a prejudiced view of the intent of gun owners and those that choose to carry weapons openly, ignoring the fact that they are probably attempting to a. deter and prevent crimes against themselves and other citizens, b. carry their weapon comfortably if they are intent on carrying, c. offer easier access to a weapon in case of need, d. express one's second amendment rights, along with other reasons offered in this article. If people take the time to try to understand these reasons, instead of passing judgment, then they should not feel intimidated.

Open carrying need not be seen as intimidating.

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...

Lawful concealed carry is a good thing

I am certainly not saying that everyone will be required to carry a fire arms. However, I am saying that we would be safer if all people of sound mind was armed. sound mind clarification- any person having any mental problem that threatens or might threaten their ability to make sound reasoned decisions should be banned from carrying a gun. criminals will buy and carry guns whether its legal or illegal We would all be safer if everyone has a gun, because the bad guy will always be out numbered. There are always more law abiding citizens than there are criminals. The criminal will be less likely to pull out a gun if he knows that the other person is armed as well. The criminal will be less likely to strike in broad day light, any place where there are a great number of people located at or anytime that it is two or more people. Even if its a gang of criminals, there would be nothing stopping average citizens from stopping their cars and pulling out their fire arms. The criminals have the advantage right now. They don't care about the law so that carry concealed weapons that might be used against any of us law abiding citizens. I want that advantage taken from them immediately.

We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed

I think that guns should not be outlawed, but outlawed for certain people. People who don't have an criminal records shouldn't be allowed to have a gun AT ALL, but civilians who don't have anything on their record should be able to. People who don't have any criminal records may need to protect themselves; possibly if another posses a weapon, they might need to defend themselves and their family from the attacker, and without a gun they could have possibly been hurt, sent to the hospital, or in the worst case, killed.

Handguns and Automatic Guns Should be Outlawed for Civilian Use in the US

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.

I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

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

Nikil Arora. "If US states allow open-carry of guns, why not Britain?" Christian Science Monitor. March 16th, 2010: "The BBC news on Thursday night featured a report on the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Chicago gun ban; litigation launched after the successful case of DC v Heller, which overturned a similar outright prohibition on handguns in Washington DC. [...] the BBC’s report was worth watching. It largely focussed on the effect of laws already in force in Wisconsin, which allow the open-carry, but not concealed-carry, of handguns. It showed how responsible, law-abiding citizens carrying guns openly leads to people both feeling and being safer."

Law-abiding citizens carrying openly makes people feel safer.

but we do not need to possess these weapons security checks and insanity checks to get your right to bear arms are never perfect for example if a 20 year old buys a powerful weapon who is to say he wont go insane three years later mental illnesses usually show up in late teen early adulthood so it can happen anytime .22 isn't a combat round. why would we need a combat round for SELF DEFENSE what else would you need a weapon for? combat≠ defense

should weapons stronger than a standard handgun be available to the public

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

Concealed carry laws decrease crime

I think that they should bring tasers that must only be able to charge if the teacher enters a code or uses a key or something. A gun can be taken by a student if left for only a second and students would be capable of using it. A gun can KILL people. A taser can STUN people. There should not be killings at schools. We dont even need tasers! We just need ONE police officer with guns AND tasers and your fine! If that is not enough protection we can give the teachers devices that can page the police officer silently. Then the police officer(s) can come to where they are at. We could also have multiple police officers if that is not enough. Boom.

Teachers should be able to carry concealed Guns at School

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

On Campus Concealed Carry

Schools such as those in the county of Harrold, TX [1] have already introduced laws allowing teachers to carry pistols, but largely in a concealed fashion. This therefore leaves children unawares and thus not distracted by seeing teachers prominently carrying guns. Furthermore, with teachers carrying concealed arms, any would-be attackers would be thrown by not knowing who to shoot first, which would not be the case if police officers were the first on the scene. [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/29texas.html?_r=2

Children are impressionable

Well, here is my letter of acceptance. Very eager to hear your arguments on the subject.

Faculty and Staff of schools should not be allowed to conceal carry a firearm in any US state.

My goal with this argument has been to show that violent crimes occur on college campuses and that allowing permit holding students to carry firearms while on campus, just like they do elsewhere, can help prevent those crimes from happening. Throughout this argument, my opponent has twisted facts in an attempt to win this argument, and to take his words at face value may prove to be a dangerous mistake. In Point 3 of Round 1, my opponent gives this statistic: "Compared to criminal homicides using guns, the VPC data shows justifiable homicide with a gun in 2010 was a tiny fraction: 230 of them compared to 8,275 criminal gun-related homicides." He tries to twist these words to say that the 8,275 criminal homicides were committed by concealed carry permit holders when the statistic says no such thing. In 2010, there were 8275 criminal murders that involved a gun. In that same year, 230 people defended themselves with a gun. This statistic says absolutely nothing about concealed carry. CON claims that I believe the consequence of sexual assault should be death. I simply believe that if a woman is being attacked, she should be able to defend herself with a gun. That does not mean that she has to shoot anyone. In fact, simply seeing a gun will scare away many criminals as seen from my statistic in Round 2. If it comes down to the woman having to shoot her attacker, I believe that she has the right to do so in defense of herself and the law would agree with me. "To be legally justified in killing an attacker, a rape victim must reasonably believe that the rapist intends to kill or grievously injure her. In many rape situations, the threat of severe physical harm is clear; the rapist is armed or threatens death or grievous injury. Situations where a rapist does not explicitly or implicitly threaten physical harm beyond forcible intercourse are less clear regarding the victim's right to use deadly force against the rapist. Current law does not clearly articulate a basis for the right to use deadly self-defense when a person reasonably believes that harm will be limited to forcible intercourse. One factor which can justify the use of deadly force against a rapist who does not threaten the victim with death or grievous physical harm is the high frequency of murder and serious injury incident to rape. This could properly lead any rape victim to assume that her life and health are in serious danger. A second factor that could justify the use of deadly force is the high rate of physical injury and psychological trauma attending rape. The threat of venereal disease, an unwanted pregnancy, and psychological debilitation can be taken together as a threat of serious harm. Overall, rape can be viewed as a grievous physical and psychological attack that may be resisted by any and all means"[1] While the citation for CON's argument against the validity of rape statistics leads nowhere, I would still like to address his idea that one woman being able to defend herself against a rapist should be prohibited due to his fear of guns. My 25% statistic was a completely different statistic than the one he tried to disprove. My statistic said nothing about 1 in 4 women being raped throughout her lifetime and did not come from a feminist. My source was the US Department of Education and it said that if there are 100 crimes on a college campus, it is likely that 25 of them will be rapes. He is trying to discredit a statistic that I did not provide. Now let's look at violent crimes on college campuses. College campuses are not immune to crime. Just last year, Florida State University was attacked by an armed man. Here are some numbers provided by the FBI about crimes in schools (not just colleges). Between 2000 and 2005, there were 67,597 violent "crimes against persons" to include assault, rape, and murder. [2] According to collegeparents.org, "Students aged 18 to 24 report about 526,000 violent crimes each year, according to the Violent Victimization of College Students report. Of those, 128,000 'involved a weapon or serious injury to the victim.'" The same site provides that 5.8% of female students had reported being raped between 2003 and 2004.[3] It is clear that violent crimes do occur on college campuses, but can concealed carry stop them? "Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home." "States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%." [4] Here are some instances of concealed carry permit holders defending themselves: "Arizona, October 16, 2008 A University of Arizona student shoots two intruders in self-defense. South Carolina, August 9, 2008 A Citadel military school student successfully scares off a bat-wielding road rage driver by brandishing a handgun in self-defense. Michigan, January 20, 2008 A University of Michigan student shoots and kills two intruders in self-defense. Utah, September 18, 2007 A Utah Valley State College licensed to carry a concealed weapon shot a pit bull that was attacking him. The animal survived the shooting, and at the student"s request, no charges were filed against the dog"s owner. California, April 25, 2007 University of Southern California students overpowered a man, taking away his firearm and holding him at gunpoint for police. The man had become violent and threatening towards a female at a student party and refused to leave. Ohio, April 24, 2007 After a man demanded entry to a University of Akron student"s apartment and threatened him with a gun, the student returned fire with a roommate"s gun. The suspect then fled the scene. Texas, January 25, 2007 A Texas Tech student with a concealed carry permit grabbed his gun and hid when he heard someone trying to break in to his house. When the perpetrators successfully gained entry, the student took aim at the intruders. One fled, the other was detained for police. Texas, January 24, 2007 A Texas Tech student with a concealed carry permit returned home to find his car and home broken into, with the perpetrators still inside the house. The student fired two warning shots, causing the would-be thieves to flee. Florida, September 8, 2006 Two South Florida Community College students were attacked outside their apartment, but one used a .45 handgun to shoot one of the attackers in the chest. The other fled. Virginia, December 10, 2005 A Virginia Commonwealth University student was initially charged with murder after shooting an armed gang member in a confrontation outside a coin laundry business, but was cleared by authorities two months later when it was learned he acted in self-defense. Georgia, September 19, 2005 After dialing 911, a Mercer University School of Law student shot and killed a man that had broken into his home. Kentucky, May 2, 2005 A University of Kentucky student was cleared of wrongdoing after shooting a Louisville man who was robbing him outside a Lexington apartment complex." [5] If any doubt still exists, examine this article from Students for Concealed Carry http://concealedcampus.org... I hope that I have been able to accurately present the need to allow students to carry concealed weapons while on campus. This is truly an important concept to consider. Will concealed carry allow students to defend themselves in the face of a violent criminal? [1]https://www.ncjrs.gov... [2]http://www.fbi.gov... [3]http://www.collegeparents.org... [4]http://www.gunowners.org... [5]http://concealedcampus.org...

Concealed Carry on College Campuses

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.

Private Citizens should be armed in public

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."

Gun Rights for law abiding citizens should be protected.

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.

Handguns should be banned due to their uniquely dangerous concealability.

DC handgun ban

The 2'nd amendment needs to be abolished, Here is why