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

Title: Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Content: 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...

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

Title: Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Content: 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...

Title: Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Content: 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...

Title: Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Content: 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!

Title: Right to carry arms Content: 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.

Title: The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. Content: 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!

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

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

Title: Right to carry arms Content: 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...

Title: Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms. Content: 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.

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

Title: All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights. Content: Since the instigator has made this debate five rounds, I would like to institute an organized round structure. Round 1: Acceptance/Greetings/Rules/WhatevsRound 2: Opening Arguments (Neither opponent can respond to what is said in Round 2)Round 3: Rebuttals of Opening ArgumentsRound 4: Counter-Rebuttals/Defend Opening ArgumentsRound 5: Concluding remarks (no new evidence or arguments, merely conclude what has already been said. I will be arguing in this debate that The United States should institute a nationwide gun ban of all firearms, meaning that no citizen is allowed to possess a firearm of any kind (handgun, rifle, assualt rifle, shotgun, all of them) except for Law Enforcement and Military (SWAT Team, Police, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, Navy, Airforce, Army, etc. )The United States would institute this law and all citizens would be required to travel to a government building in which they will hand over their firearms to government officials. They will have a grace period of a couple months in which they must find the time to do so. After the grace period is over, any citizen found possessing a firearm will have their firearm repossessed and serve jail time. The United States would dispose of the firearms by disabling them, via incineration, dismantlement, etc. Since this debate is on whether or not the US should have gun rights, we should make this debate less about the whether all guns would be banned, or whether the law could be passed, we should make this about whether it should be banned. Thank you and I look forward to my opponent’s arguments.

Title: There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms Content: 1: all "small arms", http://dictionary.reference.com... anything an average adult male can carry on his person. The description is usually limited to revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, battle rifles, multiple barrel firearms, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, light machine guns, and sometimes hand grenades. Shotguns, general purpose machine guns, medium machine guns, and grenade launchers may be considered small arms or as support weapons, depending on the particular armed forces. 2: this implies there should be no controls on guns unless said guns / arms are used to harm people criminally. 3: I will defend self defense as inherent and universal and the right to bear arms as part of our inherent right to defense. 4: The BATFE in u.s., the senate, any group that makes or enforces laws regarding firearms. And I am referring for the purposes of this debate to u.s. adults, even tho i live in Canada. Also, less technicality, more debatey. ....

Title: Right to carry arms Content: 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.

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

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

Title: The individual should not have the right to possess a firearm. Content: And now to respond to my opponents 3rd round. >> "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. " - While this may be true, the article differentiated between shall-issue and may-issue states, with shall-issue states, which allow permits for concealed carry to be obtained more easily than in may-issue states. With easier access to permits for concealed carry, the crime rates in these states are lower. >> "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. " - Firstly my opponent cites a less than reliable forum poster as his source for his claims that Maryland and Fairfax's homicide rates dropped. Without any valid source for this I find this claim negligible. >> "You have given example of England where you say an increasing 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). " - And as I pointed out, the crime rates in the U.S. and England are converging [1].>> "Gun 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. " - Firstly, as I cited earlier, guns are used 5 times more in self-defence than criminals use them [1]. This would suggest that even if every gun owned by criminals was legally purchased, citizens use them more than criminals. Clearly freedom of access to guns benefits citizens more than it benefits criminals. >> "I 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... 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. " - My opponents point here is weak. If a person purchases a gun, they do so at the chance of being involved in an accident with said gun. If the accident is not their fault, they an sue the gun manufacturer or whoever is at fault. It is the individuals right to take this risk. 70,000 accidents doesn't stack up with the 2 millions times a year guns are used in self-defence annually. If my opponent is concerned with safety, perhaps he'd like to look at lawnmowers first, which cause 200,000+ injuries annually. [3] Overall, guns cause crime rates to drop and provide security to the individual. Guns are used more in defence than in crime annually and it's clear that gun control does nothing but harm individuals and their liberty. [1] = http://reason.com...[2] = http://www.roanoke.com...[3] = http://www.amputee-coalition.org...

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

Title: Conceal carry laws by private citizens Content: 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.

Title: Concealed Carry Laws Decrease Violent Crime Content: 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...

Title: Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates Content: 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.

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

Title: Gun Free Zone on College Campus Content: 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.

Title: Conceal to carry Content: 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.

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

Title: Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Content: 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...

Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: 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.

Title: Philosophical Debate (Look at round 1 argument) Content: In your round one you never, ever specified that the gun being used by the original murderer was a rifle. Nonetheless, two wrongs don't make a right and this statement is entirely false.The example you stated had a student, who shouldn't have any weapon on grounds, possessing a rifle, which is illegal even for adults, and murdering another human being. The CNN case you gave had a full grown adult using a valid handgun kept in their car for defence purposes not at all killing the perpetrator but instead chasing him with the gun until he tried to flee with the car (then an army officer who worked for the police had arrived in time to detain the boy).the boy was never killed and the weapons used was a handgun and it was used by a legal adult. It is entirely separate to the case of murder you offered and shouldn't be used as a comparison.

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

Title: I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind Content: 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.

Title: Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime Content: I would like to point out before I begin that it is the burden of the PRO to prove that ALL 50 fifty states should be allowed to carry a firearm and that by doing this, crime will effectively be reduce. Because my opponent has not provided any definitions for his or her debate it is safe to assume that the definitions I post in ROUND 1 will thereafter will referred to as the definitions of the debate. Definitions: 50 states: Implied by the PRO to be the United States of America. Right to carry a firearm: Commonly referred to as each individual allowed the right to carry or house a firearm. Firearm: A small arms weapon, such as a pistol or rifle. Crime: An action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. I would like to begin by refuting my opponents case. (1)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. First off, this does not support the resolution in any way. There is no evidence backing up his position. However, this is just a brief roadmap of my opponents contention. I will point out that U. S. citizens could easily receive guns. Once the gun is bought, there is no concrete way of tracking the gun. Making it easy for lets say, a person above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes, to purchase firearms and supply other people. I will save my arguement about decreasing crime rate for later. (2)"I would also argue that with correct instructions firearms can be very safe and recreational activities. " The fact of the matter is, a knowledgable thirteen-year-old can find his or her parent's firearm and easily turn off the safety mechanism and inflict damage upon themself or others. As seen in the Columbia School Shooting, it is already too easy for children to get guns if they wanted. Now with every household in the 50 states carrying a firearm, as my opponent is advocating, it will be even easier. Because my opponent has provided a small paragraph of information I will stop here. It is key to remember that my opponent must effectively support the claim that ALL 50 states be allowed to carry firearms because it reduces crime. I have not posted any sources yet, as I am allowing my opponent to first and because I am running out of personal time for this. Thank you for this debate.

Title: All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights. Content: I will be arguing that all law-abiding citizens should be able to obtain a gun license. Con will be arguing that citizens should not have access to guns unless their job requires it. Burden of proof is shared.

Title: Gun Control Content: To begin, I'd like to make the distinguishment between gun control and gun rights. I support the right to own firearms, but in a very limited manner. The primary reason to own a firearm in today's society is for self-defence. When defending oneself with a gun, shooting should always be a last resort, and killing the attacker should be avoided if possible. Knowing that larger weapons, such as assault rifles or automatic weapons, are more efficient at killing people, our goal should be to prevent dangerous people from obtaining weapons and using them to harm others, while allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with weapons. So here is my preposition. Allow licensed adults to purchase basic firearms, such as handguns. If their goal is self-defence, then they don't need weapons with lots of ammunition or anything automatic. If basic weapons are readily available, then citizens will be able to defend themselves against attackers. On the other hand, larger and more potent weapons should be banned, and the government should do everything in their power to make sure that people don't get ahold of them. There is no need for a machine gun unless you are in the military. Of course, criminals will get ahold of illegal weapons regardless of the law, but citizens will have a defense against them this way. I also think that extra precautions should be taken to make sure that all people who own guns own them legally. All firearms must have a unique serial code registered with the federal government, and any person caught with a firearm without a registered serial code will have their rights to own firearms revoked, and will be fined or jailed. In addition, the government should regulate where firearms can be sold. All merchants who sell weapons should be registered with the government, and the number of shops should be limited. I also expect the issue of hunting weapons to come up. This is an OK thing, since hunting weapons are large and difficult to conceal. Few murders are done with hunting weapons. My opponent also mentioned the city of Chicago. I ask my To begin, I'd like to make the distinguishment between gun control and gun rights. I support the right to own firearms, but in a very limited manner. The primary reason to own a firearm in today's society is for self-defence. When defending oneself with a gun, shooting should always be a last resort, and killing the attacker should be avoided if possible. Knowing that larger weapons, such as assault rifles or automatic weapons, are more efficient at killing people, our goal should be to prevent dangerous people from obtaining weapons and using them to harm others, while allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with weapons. So here is my preposition. Allow licensed adults to purchase basic firearms, such as handguns. If their goal is self-defence, then they don't need weapons with lots of ammunition or anything automatic. If basic weapons are readily available, then citizens will be able to defend themselves against attackers. On the other hand, larger and more potent weapons should be banned, and the government should do everything in their power to make sure that people don't get ahold of them. There is no need for a machine gun unless you are in the military. Of course, criminals will get ahold of illegal weapons regardless of the law, but citizens will have a defense against them this way. I also think that extra precautions should be taken to make sure that all people who own guns own them legally. All firearms must have a unique serial code registered with the federal government, and any person caught with a firearm without a registered serial code will have their rights to own firearms revoked, and will be fined or jailed. In addition, the government should regulate where firearms can be sold. All merchants who sell weapons should be registered with the government, and the number of shops should be limited. I also expect the issue of hunting weapons to come up. This is an OK thing, since hunting weapons are large and difficult to conceal. Few murders are done with hunting weapons. My opponent also mentioned the city of Chicago. In this case, we first need to determine whether or not the increased murders in Chicago are CAUSED by the increased gun control. There are many other factors that distinguish Chicago from other cities in the US, such as culture, the urban environment, the closeness of facilities to each other, etc. It is also a possibility that the strict gun laws were created BECAUSE the murder rate was high, not the other way around. I ask my opponent to demonstrate that this is a causation, not just a correlation or coincidence. This concludes my argument. Thank you.

Title: Concealed carry laws decrease crime Content: 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

Title: We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed Content: 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.

Title: Philosophical Debate (Look at round 1 argument) Content: It is perfectly legal inmost states to keep a handgun, for an adult, in the seat cabinet of their car. The stated CNN case, where the teacher who chased the killer with his handgun was not even fired nor was he punished in any form whatsoever as everything he did was legal. He was to his car and got he gun from the driver's cabinet (where it is legal to keep a handgun for safety) and then chased the student away with it, in no way killing them or even harming them. The situation posted in round one is different entirely.The notion that the student who used an illegal weapon to kill the shooter didn't murder him could be valid if we see that killing in direct defence is not illegal. Nonetheless, the student, unlike police officers, had no special training on aiming long distance and easily could have missed the killer and murdered a student or teacher while doing so. Additionally the weapon he had in his car (I wonder why a student had a ca unless he was an adult) was an illegal one to possess nation-wide and in and of itself deserved expulsion from the school. Absolutely nothing he did was warranted or valid. He should have warned the killer that he had a gun and told him to drop the gun and run or something similar before shooting. Either way the possession of a rifle in USA is illegal in almost all states (I think all but am not sure)."If somebody was in a school that you intend[attend], or a school where your child were to attend, would you rather have the shooter killed by a student before they could kill you or your child, or would you rather they have several minutes of uninterrupted shooting where they could claim dozens of victims, possibly including yourself or your child?"I don't think you realise that the error here is with the killer. Whatever happens may happen and whatever expulsions must occur as a result will occur. This, unfortunately has to happen for the upholding of laws. I would indeed appreciate the illegal murder of this insane killer but would not legally, in any way, condone the murder in and of itself.

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

Title: gun control Content: Alright you have the right to bear arms yes. But there is no reason why we need access to every weapon available. Should we be allowed to own a shotgun yes, a pistol yes, a rifle, yes even a sniper sure, but why do you need a .50 caliber sniper rifle that marines use or why do you need ak-47s or ar-15s. You don't go hunting with those guns. Those guns are designed to kill people. And for the purpose of protection based on your states open carry laws or concealed weapon laws a pistol does the job as well. As for when your at home a shotgun will do just fine. I'm ok with gun control in the fact of not needing every weapon. Would you like a nuclear weapon as well. how about c4 is it ok if I can go down the street and buy c4. We need stricter laws on guns but not total control. We need to put in place harder background checks, mental health issues, age, and morality. Guns don't kill people kill and that is the problem. We can't trust people.

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

Title: THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom. Content: I accept my opponent's altering of the definition. I will now proceed to protect my original arguments while piecing apart my opponent's arguments. CONTENTION 1 Yes, it is better to save the lives of, say, 5 children rather than none, yet it is far better to prevent the occurence of a shooting altogether. My opponent seems to almost accept the fact that there will be shootings regardless, and that all we can do is to minimize the effects. This is not true. It would be far more effective to invest into more police officers (I will expand upon this in the third contention), better security systems such as gates, and programs to help a potential shooter before the shooting actually occurs. Also, policemen nation-wide have a hit rate of about 34 percent of all bullets fired. This includes suicides among policemen. If policemen, who's entire careers revolve around enforcing laws using physical violence (if necessary), only have a 34 percent hit rate, then what will the accuracy be like of a teacher, who has little experience in an actual gun fight, is a nervous wreck, has heard shots already being fired down the hall, and is very emotionally attatched to the children she/he has suddenly been tasked to protect. If anything, the teacher might hit another student, or instigate even more shooting once the shooter come under fire. Think also of the availability of the weapon. It is unlikely that the teacher keep it on their person, because a gun holster or strap requires a blazer over it, which is highly unrealistic for hot weather. So the gun would most likely be placed in a locked drawer, which would be extremely difficult to access in the case of a shooting. I will expand upon cost issues and limited police force in the third contention. SECOND CONTENTION Given that a background check is required, many of these background checks are not effective, as my opponent admitted. "Easily near by teachers can come and shoot the out of control teacher " this is a complete logical falacy. First of all, the motion states that teachers have the right, not that it is a requirement, so not every teacher may have a gun. Also, how long does it realistically take to kill a room full of un-armed students? Too long for it to be stopped. And finally, if you did not arm teachers in the first place, this scenario would have no chance of occuring! Therefore, my opponent has in fact stated why teachers should not have guns, since they have stated a disastrous scenario in which a teacher posseses a weapon. THIRD CONTENTION I assume that there is a lack of policemen to secure the schools because of lack of funds. Yet if the guns are payed for by the individual teachers (and remember, not all will have it, for it is not required, only a right), very few will have one, for a gun, plus a concealed weapon liscence, as well as ammo and gun-checkups are very expensive relative to a teacher's generally low salary. If the govenrment is paying, then again, this will be of much cost for the govenrment, including background checks and periodical checks. These funds instead could be diverted to hiring more police officers to serve these schools, and increased security to stop the problem before it occurs, not while it already has happened. Also, if a rehabilitation program is offered in a more friendly, effective manner to the whole student body, troubled students may first consult with a counselor before any extreme measures are taken, or may be more easily identified with a more extensive, better funded program(s). Sources: I apologize for not posting the website about the gunmen, for I was reading a hard-copy of the article, and is only available for subscribers, yet a trial portion of the article is available: http://swampland.time.com... statistics about shooting ratios: http://www.nytimes.com...

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

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

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

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

Title: There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms Content: I will be arguing that self-defense is a basic human right, and that government and other power structures have no place ordering everyone to limit use of guns in a free society. I would like to see no government-issued permits for concealed or open carry, and no state-imposed limit on private use of guns ( apart from criminal prosecution if you commit a crime with them. ) Governments should be subservient to their people, and people should be free to achieve their potential by their own means, as long as they don't interfere in other people's business. You will be arguing against this, go. Bear in mind that government registration and confiscation of guns has preceded most mass slaughters in the last century.

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

Title: Citizens should have guns Content: But not knowing whether or not people have a concealed handgun has not stopped the shootings anyway.

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

Title: Gun rights Content: I'm so sorry con but your whole argument in round 2 is false as per you failed to cite any sources.My good friend a teacher would never have a gun on school grounds in the first place- this is only a privilege for principals. Teachers guns would be easily obtainable by children causing a risk. According to http://www.ijreview.com...:USA is 24th in murder rate of countries so we need to arm our citizens. Also John Lott, Jr. and Bill Landes say “States that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns enjoy a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack.” USA's Murder rate has decreased over %65 since 1973 in stride with many state's gaining gun rights.John Lott, Jr. Co-author with Bill Landes of “More Guns, Less Crime. says: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.” (Kates & Mauser, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2)There is a direct relationship that the more citizens have guns, the less the murder rate.Let's save our children and generation and give the the people of this world guns to protect themselves!

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

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

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

Title: ressolved:In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Content: I believe that in the united states private ownership of handguns ought to be banned Handguns can be easily concealed therefore they can easily used for crimes 323 people are shot every day by civilians with guns(the center for disease control and preventation) and 82% of guns used in mass shootings are obtained legally(Elizabeth Chuck CNN). Germany ,the country with the second most amount of mass shootings, has had three since 1997 while the united states has had 51 (source Ray Sanchez CNN)

Title: Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. Content: I have the right to not be shot by a mental patient.

Title: Gun Free Zone on College Campus Content: Sorry about that. I've been really busy with work/school/teaching. I would like to remind you the debate is specifically about whether or not non-law enforcement, but qualified individuals should be allowed to carry their concealed handguns on campus. As far as the 2nd amendment is concerned, at the end, it says the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. Not the militia. It implies that "we" are the militia whenever we have a tyrannical government(which was the purpose of the 2nd amendment). As far as some of my facts statistics are concerned, first off, many people who oppose everyone from being allowed to carry their firearm will cite their evidence as "Schools are statistically safer." There is less crime on campus in general. I have no doubt that that is true, but what amazes me is that they think that the gun free zone is the reason for this. Anybody with some knowledge of statistics should know that correlation does not imply causation, and considering the fact that College is a very different environment than the cities, it doesn't surprise me that crime rates are lower by comparison, but honestly, it has almost nothing to do with the gun free zone. When you compare a campus/university environment to that of an urban environment, it is common knowledge that urban environments just tend to have a lot of crime. It is also important to note that there are different kinds of crimes. You have murders; robbers/thieves; rapists; mass shooter. etc. Typically urban environment is where you will see a lot of robberies/thieves and murders. College campus, however, is where rapes and mass shootings usually take place. Mostly because college is full of beautiful young women, as well as a place where you can expect to have massive amounts of people in buildings. I tend to joke in a non-serious manner, that you never see muggers on campus, because all the students are broke from paying tuition. For the purpose of identifying what the cause is of the gun-free zone, I find it would be much more reliable to compare non-gun free zone schools with gun free zone schools. That way, a lot of you variables in the experiment will be easier to keep constant, instead of comparing a gun free zone school to a non-gun free zone urban environment. And it just so happens, we actually can compare non-gun free zone schools with other gun free zone schools. Not everybody knows this, but there are currently 12 Universities in the entire country that have legalized concealed carry compared to that thousands of other universities that prohibit it. What's amazing about it is that between the 12 Universities and how long they have been legal, there's been a combines total of about 200 semesters so far. There hasn't been a single incident of gun violence/gun theft, nor an accidental/negligent discharge. And statistically, about 1% of the american population is licensed to carry. The fact that they've gone this long without any incident should be convincing of most people that the gun free zone really wasn't doing much in the first place. By the way, the Universities that did legalize, only legalized it for licensed carriers which is what I'm advocating for(not allow everybody). The biggest concern people have about a certain right is that they feel as if the right can be abused and that is the grounds they use to push their agenda to remove that right. But by only allowing the qualified individuals to carry, it's been shown that none of them are abusing this right so far. And if that's the case, then why is it illegal for them? As for the concerns teachers and students have of feeling uncomfortable knowing that someone may be carrying is little bit ridiculous. Most of these people go to places like the mall and the movies with their friends, and you don't see them expressing any kind of fear that someone may be carrying there, so how and why would school be any different? And why would teachers be afraid of people carrying legally when there actually might be people in the class who are already carrying illegally? When you break it down, these fears and anxious feelings are best described as being irrational. Many people seem to think that if we legalize, then all of the sudden, everyone on campus will be armed which is completely absurd. In reality, it may only be a small handful of people who start carrying because 99% of the population doesn't carry a gun on them anywhere outside of school either. And not sure if I have mentioned this yet or not, but you are 20 times more likely to be struck by lightning then to be killed by a licensed carrier, so many people ought to be more afraid of thunder than a law allowing permit holders to carry. And for my last point, accidental gun death are extremely rare. You are statistically 32 times more likely to accidentally kill yourself with poisoning than by accidentally killing yourself with a gun. And so I hope anyone reading this debate will ponder seriously about the issue as there are people who are affected by this.

Title: Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. Content: Oh God, I picked up a troll. Let's feed you. I don't have gun rights due to neuropsychiatric diseases, but if you are mentally healthy, you do. Mental patients would just kill someone, but you would not, therefore, I support your gun rights.

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

Title: Gun control in America Content: Regulation of firearms is not the same thing as banning them. This nation already has many regulations on firearms at the federal, state and local levels. You won't see people dragging howitzers around behind the family station wagon or parking an Apache Gunship in their driveway. There are regulations on everything from the types of weapons that people can poses, how and where those weapons can be used, specifications to how weapons can be manufactured, to the types of ammunition that is available. Certain types of activities such as 'concealed carry' require special permits. Background checks and waiting periods are enforced at the point of purchase. The list of regulations go on. I am not against reasonable regulation of firearms, as long as such regulations are created and enforced within boundaries of the constitution and body of existing legal precedent, and with attention paid to the intent of the original bill of rights. Modifying the 2nd amendment is a separate debate. The issue you have stated for debate is:"The government should legislate a ban upon all firearms including, but not limited to: handguns, shotguns, assault rifles, and sub-machine guns." This goes well beyond reasonable regulation. The only logical outcome of such a ban would be confiscation en masse which would directly infringe upon right guaranteed in the 2nd amendment. Since you have not produced any evidence, or even reasons that you believe, that such a ban is worth of support, I will attack a couple of the more commonly used arguments employed by firearms ban supporters. Claim #1 - Banning firearms will reduce violent crimes, namely murder. My Response - There is no evidence for the preposterous claim that disarming ordinary, law abiding, citizens reduces the risk of violent crime. This study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, details in 43 riveting pages the baselessness of this argument. You can read it here: http://www.law.harvard.edu... If this isn't enough for you, look at this case study from the National Center for Policy Analysis. It contrasts crime statistics for Australia directly following their ban on firearms and compares it to the crime statistics for the United States in the corresponding time period. http://www.ncpa.org... There are plenty more studies like these if you want to do a little more research. Claim #2 " Banning all firearms will choke the supply of weapons and ammunition available to criminals. (This claim is related to the first one but separate.) My Response " Well lets check in on Britain to see how hard it is to get a firearm illegally in there. After all it has been more than a decade since Parliament passed the firearms act of 1998. With its outright ban and draconian enforcement measures, surely the supply of illegally obtained weapons must be constrained to near exhaustion there. http://www.theguardian.com... Apparently not. The following article shows that the UK has, in fact, suffered a staggering 89% increase in gun related violence over the decade after it disarmed its citizens. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... They must not be running out of bullets either. I think I can rest my case against banning all firearms as proposed in your opening remarks. It can be clearly seen that such a measure is not only unwarranted, contrary to the good of the public, and harmful to society at large, but is also very dangerous and irresponsible. If you want to attack the problem of violent crime you should go after its root causes, and not encumber the collective security if your neighbors. Your comparison of 18th century firearms to modern firearms is irrelevant to this debate. On the other hand take a look at what Pizaro was able to do at Cajamarca with only 12 15th Century firearms against an unarmed Inca public. https://en.wikipedia.org... More of a slaughter than a battle really, wouldn't you say? The point is that atrocity can happen when armed. bad people encounter unarmed populations, no matter how sophisticated or crude their firearms may be. I would wager that Pizaro would have thought twice if there were a few hundred javelin toting Inca Guards standing around. I will await the 3rd round to see if you can put forward any relevant evidence to support a ban of firearms.

Title: I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind Content: I believe in concealed carry self-defense, And the right to protect against a tyrannical government with firearms. If you have a convincing argument, Try to change my mind. If you are not going to finish rounds and forfeit, Please do not accept this debate. Hope this is a good one!

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

Title: A handgun is uniquely valuable in self defense in one's home Content: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled, "Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as 'functional firearms', by which they mean ones that could be 'readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary' for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms."[3]

Title: School's should arm and train teachers to use firearms Content: 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.

Title: Concealed carry laws decrease crime Content: I also shall abide by my opponents rules. I also find my opponents definitions to be enough for now. My opponent did not say anything regarding to quotes, so i shall exercise this right by providing a few. "Guns are neat little things, aren't they? They can kill extraordinary people with very little effort. " - John W. Hinckley, Jr. Since round one is for acceptance and no arguing, i shall close. Good luck to my opponent in his next round.

Title: Gun Rights Content: Con's Arguments: 1) If we allow people to carry guns, murder and crime will increase. ----> Actually it will DECREASE as I explained, cited and sourced in the last round. 2) The second-amendment shouldn't give people the right to bear arms. ----> Well... it does. And for many of the reasons I mentioned in the last round (unrefuted) including insurance against the tyranny of government, and adhering to the right of self-protection. 3) We should not allow citizens to purchase military weapons; only handguns. Unfortunately this was never specified in R1. Also, I don't see how it follows that one can only commit crimes or murders with machine guns. One could easily do the same with a handgun which is why I don't consider this to be relevant. Plus, some people prefer rifles or other guns to hunt with. Please extend all of my arguments from the last round.

Title: The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. Content: "The United States is not a tyranny."I agree, and never said it was. I was stating that it is my easier for an armed populace to overthrow a tyrannical government, and that our founders knew that. Furthermore, at the time of the writing of the Constitution the "Militia" referred to all males old enough to fight.[2]The 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to arms.[1][2]A closer examination of the chart my opponent referenced[3] actually works for my argument. For instance, Sierra Leone, at the time the data for this chart was collected, civilians were prohibited from owning firearms. Yet, Sierra Leone had 2.28 Gun Homicides per 100,000 people, only slightly lower than the United States. Furthermore, with guns in Sierra Leone numbering 0.6 per 100 people, guns were used to commit 87.7% of the homicides.When ranked by the number of gun homicides per capita, the United States doesn't even make the top 25. In the top 25 gun homicide per capita nations, not a single one has a number of guns greater than 25 per 100 citizens.In Brazil, a nation with a population roughly 2/3 that of the United States, and ranked 75th in gun ownership, has about three and a half times more gun homicides and and ranks first in percentage of homicides by gun.In fact, when ranked by total number of homicides by gun, the US ranks 5th. The top for all have populations lower than the US, and not one of them has a gun ownership rate above 15 per 100 citizens. The ownership rate in the US is 88.8 per 100 citizens.What does all of this show? First, a nation where private ownership of guns was banned had a massive percentage of their homicides committed with guns. They saw the error of their ways a legalized private ownership about two years after the data in the chart was collected.[4] The only country that had a higher rate of their homicides involve a gun was Leichtenstein at 100%, but to be fair that was the only murder in the country all year. References1. http://www.constitution.org...2. District of Columbia v. Heller 554 US 5703. http://www.washingtonpost.com...4. http://www.africareview.com...

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

Title: Resolved: certified teachers must have the right to carry handgun to school. Content: I have refuted my opponents argument, and my argument stands untouched. I urge PRO vote. And just to say: ………………….._,,-~'ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½'~-,, ………………..,-‘' ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;'-,…………………………….._,,,---,,_ ……………….,' ; ; ;,-‘ , , , , , ‘-, ; ;'-,,,,---~~'~--,,,_…..,,-~' ; ; ; ;__;'-, ……………….| ; ; ;,' , , , _,,-~' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ï¿½'~'-,,_ ,,-~' , , ‘, ;', ……………….', ; ; ‘-, ,-~' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'-, , , , , ,' ; | …………………', ; ;,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'-, , ,-‘ ;,-‘ ………………….,'-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'-‘ ;,,-‘ ………………..,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;__ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,' ………………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘'ï¿½: : '-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ;', ……………..,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : : ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘'ï¿½: ï¿½'-, ; ; ;', FORFEITS AREN'T FUN!!! …………….,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,_: : _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : : ; ; ; | ……………,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ï¿½ï¿½ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'-,,_ : :,-‘ ; ; ; ;| …………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~' , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;ï¿½ï¿½ ; ; ; ; ;| ..…………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,' , , , , , , ,( : : : : , , , ,'-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| ……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;', , , , , , , , ,'~---~' , , , , , ,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;', …….,-‘' ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘'~-,,,,--~~'ï¿½'~-,,_ , ,_,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ….,-‘'-~',-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,'; ,'ï¿½ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,_ ; ‘-, ……….,' ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ;', . . . . .,' ;,' ; ; ; ;, ; ; ;,'-, ………,'-~' ,-‘-~' ‘, ,-‘ ‘, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ‘~-,,,-‘' ; ,' ; ; ; ; ‘, ;,-‘' ; ‘, ,-‘, ……….,-‘' ; ; ; ; ; ‘' ; ; ;' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘'-,,_ ; ; ; _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ;'-‘' ; ; ; ‘' ; ;'-, ……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;ï¿½ï¿½'ï¿½ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'-, ……,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-, …..,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|..'-,_ ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ….,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,'…….',-~' ; ; ; ; ; ,' …,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'~-,,,,,--~~'~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,'…..,-~' ; ; ; ; ; ; ,- …| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,'…,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘ …', ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,'….', ; ; ; ; _,,-‘' ….', ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,'…….'~~'ï¿½ …..'-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;_,,-‘' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘ ………'~-,,_ ; ; ; ; _,,,-~' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘ ………..| ; ; ;ï¿½ï¿½'ï¿½ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘ ………..', ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘ …………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| …………', ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ~-,,___ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;', ………….', ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘….'-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ………..,' ‘- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘'……….'-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ……….,' ; ;' ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-‘…………….', ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;', ………,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘'…………………'-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ……..,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘………………………', ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,'…………………………,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,' ……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,'………………………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,' ……..| ; ; ; ; ; ;,'……………………….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘ ……..',_ , ; , ;,'……………………….,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘ ………',,',ï¿½,','|……………………….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘--,, ………….ï¿½…'………………………..'-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'~,, ……………………………………………'-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'~-,, ………………………………………………..'-, ; ; ; ; ; ,,_ ; ;'-,'-, …………………………………………………..', ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,__,--. ……………………………………………………'-, ; ; ;,,-~' , ,|, | ………………………………………………………'~-‘'_ , , ,,',_/--‘

Title: No one has the right to own guns except memberes of the police and military Content: I will use this argument to rebut my opponent's points, and, in doing so, highlight my own. I will also argue on the assumption that the Topic of Debate is that no one SHOULD have the right to own guns except for members of the police and military. Obviously, the second amendment can be taken as evidence for the fact that everyone does have this right. 1)"Our first reason is protection and defense." The next line of this section is "Private citizens have a constitutional right to live without fear in their own home." However, this constitutional right is used as its own argument; it cannot be both evidence for an argument and an argument itself (as evidence, it must be fact, and as an argument, it must be opinion/theory). But this is not the only problem with this argument; the facts simply do not add up: "Also, a recent poll showed that 71% of adults who own handguns only own them for protection." 1-Where is this poll? Without a link of some sort, we cannot assume that such a poll truly exists. 2-More importantly, of COURSE gun owners will say that it is for protection (or hunting). That a) does not mean that they were telling the truth and b) does not mean that it ACTUALLY protects them. They just think it does/will. "As it is, 82% of American adults believe crime is a serious problem." And the rest...are criminals? "According to the NRA, privately owned firearms are used to stop crime attack between 2 and 2.5 million times every year." This means nothing, simply because it comes from the NRA. If Target says that 2 to 2.5 million of its products are of better quality than similar items at Wal-Mart, would you believe them? 2)Hunting is no reason to keep guns legal. Why do we want to encourage killing for enjoyment? Also, people hunted in the Ice Age out of necessity. My opponent even states that "Hunting was how the Native Americans survived." They needed to kill the animals. It was not for sport; they considered animals to be their brothers and tried to use every single part of the dead animal so as not to waste any life. All of this aside, Native Americans and people of the Ice Age did not even use guns to hunt. "Taking away guns would not only take away sport but American tradition." Just because something is a tradition does not make it right. The United States had a tradition of segragation until the Civil Rights Movement. So Jim Crowe Laws should have remained legal? 3)"banning guns wouldn't stop crime and violence. If guns were banned, it would be hard for the government to enforce that everyone gets rid of their gun" How does a challenge for the government mean that crime would not be stopped? "If guns were banned, then murderers and criminals would use the next most convenient weapon. Instead of guns, knives, axes, clubs or other weapons would be used." Which would make mass murders next to impossible. A person can only hold so many knives at once, and they need to be in close range. If they throw them they 1) have to know how to do it in a manner such that the tip of the blade, not the side or handle, hits the target and 2) will run out. And how many school massacres would happen? Any? It doesn't seem to feasible for a student to lug an axe into school so that they can maybe hack one student up (but is murder ever really feasible?) before being seen and stopped. This statement ("If guns were banned...other weapons would be used") also undermines the argument that guns are used mainly for protection. Allow me to explain: 1)Assume that 71% of adults that own handguns really do own them for protection. 2)This means that hunting, target shooting and crime make up the other 29%; crime can only be a small part of this (according the my opponent's argument). 3)Now the few crimes that are committed will be committed with less lethal weapons, meaning fewer homicides. As stated above, bladed weapons work only in close range and can kill very few people in one instant. It also contradicts another vital part of my opponent's argument: the fact that guns prevent deaths. Why couldn't other weapons, in the "right" hands, do the same? 4)"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A well-regulated militia. Not "for the purposes of sport and hunting," not for "personal protection and safety." For a "well-regulated militia." Citizen soldiers. Is this amendment not saying that the purpose of owning a firearm is to protect one's state from an oppressive government (domestic or foreign)? In other words, people can carry guns to protect themselves from potentially violent governments. The only problem with this is that today, the governemnt has so much more "firepower" on its side than it did at the time of the Constitution. No militia could stand up to a powerful government army of today. This argument goes to support the broader rebuttal of "These laws have been working for around 218 years then they are good laws for our country." Slavery existed in America for centuries. That does not mean it was good. The length of a law (or anything) does not prove its value. 5)To rebut the employment of the gun industry, I must once again refer to slavery. I'm sure many slave traders lost their jobs when slavery was made illegal. Everyone in the slave industry was affected. And the country still moved on. In fact, all the former slaves needed jobs as well. And the economy did not collapse. Thank you.

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

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

Title: Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses Content: 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.

Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: 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.

Title: I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind Content: What is not legal right now? The right to bear arms is legal, And concealed-carry permits are legal in some places. " Like you said they will take it off the black market and no one will question then on it. " The black market will stay there even if guns are banned. Look at drugs like cocaine. It is banned but has it ever gone off the black market? No. You didn't answer any of my questions from before. I would appreciate if you did. If guns are banned, How will I be able to protect myself in public? Also, How will I be able to protect against a tyrannical government? Guns save far more lives than take them. There are 2. 5 Million defensive gun uses per year. This majorly outweighs the 10, 000 gun murders per year. Gun bans have proven not to be effective. In England, They banned guns, But murder rates spiked up and then went down to be the same before the gun ban. Gun bans in cities have not worked as well. Take for example, Chicago and Washington D. C. There murder rates did not go down after gun bans. Please rebuttal to these points, As you have not done so earlier.

Title: Gun Control Content: Hello all. This debate is part of the current Debate Tournament. I will be contending that gun regulation should be minimal and only in the forms of background checks to purchase a gun. If my opponent wishes for a different resolution, I hope he comments on it before accepting it. Contention 1: Guns protect people If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, which actually increased crime rates. States with right-to-carry laws tend to have lower crime rates than those without [1]. It makes logical sense that criminals, when deciding their targets, will be less inclined to rob from somebody who may be armed with a gun. When people are allowed to conceal their guns, they create a positive externality on society, protecting the non-gun owners with criminal’s fear of assaulting somebody who can fight back. When the criminal knows that the victim is unarmed and not dangerous, he is much more inclined to infringe on their other rights, such as property and life. Criminologist Gary Kleck concluded that “handguns are used for protection nearly 2 million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes” [2]. Guns can be used, without being fired, to intimidate a criminal to stop committing a crime and flee, thus protecting everybody. Also, a large number of potential crimes never even occur because the potential criminal is too scared of the possibility of confronting somebody with a weapon. The clear power of guns in the law abiding civilization, in addition to the general inability of the government to completely enforce its idealistic gun restrictions, make the notion that banning guns would do anybody any good somewhat ridiculous. In Washington D.C., the homicide rate tripled between 1976 and 1991, during which it banned hand guns, while the national rate only rose 12 percent [2]. This would logically result from the fact that law abiding citizens gave up their guns, leaving a full 100% of the guns in the hands of people with the clear intention of breaking the law. Criminals, now knowing that their victims are completely defenseless, are all the more keen to use their guns to rob, steal, and murder. The individual citizens are much better at defending themselves than the police force, which is unable to give constant protection at all times like a gun can. Guns give regular citizens a much better fight against criminals, deterring them from even trying. That shall be all for now. [1] http://www.cato.org... [2] http://www.roanoke.com...

Title: Concealed weapons can be very comfortable. Content: This is particularly true with the right set-up. Often, concealing a weapon means that you can use the same hip holster as someone who is openly carrying, but that you simply must wear a lengthy or baggy vest or coat to ensure that the gun is concealed. There are also chest holsters that hold the gun at around the left or right rib cage, and which are very comfortable (perhaps even more comfortable than a hip holster) and which need only be concealed by a vest. Comfort, therefore, is not a good enough reason to open carry

Title: In order to solve school/campus shootings, we should allow more people to carry guns Content: The dictionary define "vigilante" as "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate". My opponent states that he was not eluding to arming people with more guns, but someone trained.... see his comment: "Who I do say should be in the room with a gun is a trained individual of either in law enforcement, or someone trained to handle the job. Either that or allowing an adult to be able to carry a concealed handgun.". Or maybe his comment at the end.........."or allowing an adult to be able to carry a concealed handgun". For what purpose? To protect himself, or others. Vigilante as defined by the dictionary, is exactly applicable. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this debate. People feel the protection is inadequate and want to protect themselves and others in a way they see fit. To make this debate fun, I offer a well thought out article called" Batman and the Problem With Vigilante Justice: A Love Story" http://the-artifice.com...; Dont' all spiritual warriors have a little batman inside of them? After all, guns represent power. And Batman is POWERFul. Probem is, its a comic strip. The article contends that : "Batman is a character that takes matters into his own hands. He does not wait for approval and effectively answers to no one. When a problem arises, he rises to the occasion and remedies the situation, often times to the chagrin of the local authorities. Lastly, and most importantly, Batman is problematic to the government because he gives the people back their power. The citizens of Gotham feel as if they have been completely stripped of all of their power, of their voice, to stand up against the injustices committed against them both by criminals and the government itself. Batman’s public display of vigilante justice provides an outlet for the public to understand that they do not have to hide in the shadows and feel as if they are perpetual victims of an impotent system that fails to protect them". I offer to my opponent that there are many statistics about gun deaths, shootings, etc - none of which are more credicble than the next. So I will purposefully, not reply to his cited statiistics. We can go back and forth all day about who's stats are right. Isn't that what the people are doing now? It's getting us no where in terms of progressive solutions to move us forward. Everyone has natural fear. But our fear is growing daily, as each massacare and world political war stage becomes more and more violent. Kids, and teens, angry because they don't have a girlfriend (Oregon shooter "I will die a virgin and without a girlfriend", (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...). Children die, and adults respond with "more guns!". What the heck? These are reactions of emotional people driven by frustration and hate for something, someone, somewhere. No well-adjusted person is filled with rage and unaffected by the loss of human life (at least seemingly so by either failure to address it, or give it much relevance). And you want to put a gun in the hands of more frustrated people?

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

Title: I'm Pro-Gun: Change my Mind Content: Claim: "Exactly, any gun can be used. But with guns like AR-15's there can be a lot more killings." Rebuttal: Actually, like I already said, the majority of gun murders are committed with handguns. In 2016, Over 7,000 are committed with handguns. 374 were committed by any type of rifle. This means 95% are done with handguns! Claim: "Either way, it's guaranteed that if the attackers had knives, a huge amount would still be alive." Rebuttal: 1,600 knife murders happened. That means they happen more than 4 more times than rifle murders. [1] Claim: "Also, that's another reason why we need background checks and if you are going to own a gun it needs to be concealed on your person with a license or locked away from children." Rebuttal: We already have background checks. There have been several illegal gun uses by mass murderers or red flags that should have warranted a police action. That's the only way you can conceal and carry: If you have a license. Yes, parents need to be responsible by teaching their children about gun safety and keeping them safe. Statistical evidence from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that in places guns were banned, such as England, Ireland, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., homicides went up or stayed the same.[2] 1. http://dailycaller.com... 2. https://crimeresearch.org...

Title: Citizens should have guns Content: 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.

Title: Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Content: 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.

Title: Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. Content: I'm very moderate on guns. I will never use or own a gun for any reason, but I support some level of gun rights for mentally healthy adults to use for lawful reasons. Self defense is a right.

Title: Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. Content: I promise you I am not trolling. The mentally ill make up a very real and fairly large part of the usa, and as such their rights should be protected. Just as it is wrong and illegal to kill a person fighting mental illness due to their protected right to live.The mentally ill are far more likely to be attacked than to attack anyone, and the vast majority of the time are not violent in any way.I do deal with mental illness, actually. So you don't support my right to own a gun.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org...https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Title: States/local municipalities should have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens Content: 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.

Title: Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime Content: I am NOT saying the law itself reduces crime, but its outcome does. The reasoning here is clear. If I see any semantics on this point you automatically lose. If there is any semantics with the title, you automatically lose. If you use semantics on the following definition, or this sentence, you lose: "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... The definition on conceal carry handgun laws is common knowledge, so no trolling. Rules: No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FF No trolling, sorry imabench ;) [or the real trolls] If you do auto FF 1st round acceptance, if you fail to do this I get conduct. 1st round definitions, rule making (by instigator) and other things, no arguments. __________________________ I have debated this a lot recently, but my opponents have FF'd. If needed it is no conduct or rule violation for an external source page: (http://www.debate.org...) Violent crime: rape, murder, assault, robbery BOP even. I need to prove 3/4 of the things above, and that definition expanded as long as it is actually considered violent crime. Neither side must prove 100% decrease or increase. But voters, look in who makes it more convincing. Good luck!!

Title: Conceal Carry Laws reduce violent crime Content: 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.

Title: Open carry helps educate public about guns Content: 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."

Title: Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. Content: My argument is that the right to defend one's self shouldn't depend on mental health. After all, a right is not a right if it is denied to 1 in 5 people. Not to mention an attack on veterans, who often experience mental illness after active service. 31 Percent of them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.nami.org... https://www.rand.org...

Title: Firearm bans are unconstitutional and not effective. Content: I've sold firearms for almost two years now, in Texas. We started our right to carry option after a massacre at a Luby's restaurant in 1991. Since then we have seen less violence than other states with regard to firearms in "gun free" zones. I find it ludicrous that schools should be "gun free" when that makes them obvious targets to psycho dissidents. On a second note, AR-15 (ArmaLite-15) style rifles are just semi-automatic rifles, no different from any other rifle except cosmetics are demonized. I find this repulsive, as they are used WIDELY in Texas for hog hunting and 3-gun shooting competition, among other shooting sports. They are just like any other gun, and if Adam Lanza couldn't get one, he'd have used the much more powerful Glock 20 (10mm) or Sig Sauer of undefined specs to do the same damage. Why are we bullying the rifle when the handguns are just as capable? Why are we bullying any gun when anybody is capable? If guns are responsible for murder, then forks are responsible for obesity and cars are responsible for accidents, as well as governments are responsible for wars (snap!)

Title: Gun Rights for law abiding citizens should be protected. Content: 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."

Title: I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind Content: I believe in the right to protect myself through concealed-carry and to protect against a tyrannical government. NO FORFEITS PLEASE!

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

Title: Resolved: certified teachers must have the right to carry handgun to school. Content: My opponent forfeits her round, extend arguments.

Title: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Content: You are absolutely correct my opponent. People can own handguns because of the Human rights. If you have a stranger in your house with a weapon such as a knife, you can get killed without even fighting. What my opponent said is that guns allow their owners to use them for protection. In this case, guns are necessary. However, think about this. If that stranger in that house had a gun pointing at you, would you still have a chance to shoot him and still be alive? There is only about less than 1% chance that you can shoot the stranger. The cause of this scenario is the law that allows people to have guns. Handguns depend on how the owner uses it, and in these days, people use them in bad ways. The ironic part of the law that allows people to own guns is that people are using them in bad ways, and police officers always have a hard time taking control of crimes that include gun shooting. People who own handguns always say this: People should be able to defend themselves from danger. However, people can use knives or other weapons to protect themselves. Allowing people to own handguns is only making it harder for people to defend themselves from danger.

Title: U,S citizens should be allowed to carry weopons freely. Content: Um, first of all, I need to inform you that you need to right your rebuttals in the 3rd round. But instead, you just wrote in the 2nd round. So why don't you counter rebutt in the 3rd round? Rebuttal: You said that U.S citizens being allowed to carry guns is a protected right, thus, they are already allowed to carry weapons. First of all, I know it is one of your rights (and I wouldn't want to infringe it alright), and that is the reason why I had opened this debate. I think it's time to change that point. If only that law changes there will be no more accidents I have told you. Secondly, the reason why that right is wrong is it doesn't describe the punishment according to assasinating other citizens. If that punishment is described, there will be no coincidence like above. Counter rebuttal: 1. Before talking about my sources, let's talk about yours. Your wikipedia source shows that America has moderate rate of intentional homicide, alright. But it also doesn't show that there are only little bit. And, intentional homicide. There are not-intentional homicides occuring because of the carriage of guns, right? what happened to those? 2. http://dc4korean.com... http://ko.wikipedia.org... http://news.donga.com... http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr... Look, this is all kinds of sources. 3. We should respect the minority, too. You know why? What if people come to those places and make large gun fights? People, would die, and who should their families blame? the government?

Title: Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Content: A right unexercised is a right lost.

Title: Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. Content: How is it extreme for people to have equal rights? If the mentally ill are not given the same rights, especially seeing how common mental illnesses are, then it is no right. Either that or you are denying them their basic rights.As you can see from my last argument, the mentally ill are far more likely to be the victim of violence than to inflict it.A right cannot be something given only to some people, over something they have no control.Not to mention they need to be able to protect themselves, and the government has historically mistreated the mentally ill.The euginics movement for instance was primarly focused on the mentally ill and developmentally disabled.Also, abusive mental institutions were common for much of us history, where the mentally ill were often outright forgotten about.Lobotomies were used to treat patients with PTSD as well as many other mental illnesses.Society has shown itself to be a much bigger threat to the mentally ill than the other way around. Mental illness isn't a crime, and they are human.Regardless, the mentally ill that seek treatment are by far the least likely to be violant, and restricting access to guns may for some be a factor to not seek treatment.To conclude, the mentally ill are not dangerus. The mentally ill seeking treatment are even less likely to be violant than those not, and such restrictions only affect those seeking treatment also becoming a deterrent to proper treatment.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.uniteforsight.org...http://www.bbc.com...

Title: Faculty and Staff of schools should not be allowed to conceal carry a firearm in any US state. Content: Thank you MandatoryAccount for accepting! Again, correct me if/when I do something incorrect with respect to formatting or otherwise. For the information of all, I am in all honesty a biased participant of this argument, as I am a holder of a permit to Conceal Carry a Weapon (I will refer to said permit as a CCW) and an English Language Learner teacher at my local elementary school. I live in a state that allows CCW holders to carry concealed in schools, and I conceal carry every day. Additional disclaimer: I am not taking my time as much as I should with respect to my arguments, so please correct me if I misspell, or if I fail to cite a source. I feel the best way to evaluate the validity or lack thereof of this topic would be through which side has the greatest benefit to society while mitigating the consequences. I see 3 primary benefits to allowing Faculty to conceal carry on school property: 1. The potential to save lives in the event of a school shooting. The preservation of life and limiting tragedies is an extremely powerful motivator in this argument, as I'm sure my opponent will agree. I argue an important part of any anti-school shooting plan would be a trained, armed protector of possible victims (IE, the children). It is increasingly popular among law enforcement agencies to have a School Resource Officer (SRO) at the school to serve in this function, however that can put strain on already stretched thin law enforcement agencies, especially in rural communities and communities with many schools in a small area. Also, as was evident in the recent Parkland Florida schools shooting, even trained school resource officers aren't perfect and can fail. (source 1) in order to supplement existing school resource officers and act as an additional safeguard of the lives of youth, allowing trained faculty and staff to conceal in schools is valuable. 2. Respecting the constitutional rights of the educators. The second amendment explicitly states "to keep and bear arms". Not allowing educators to bear their arms if they choose to do so would be taking away their rights. However, limiting of rights is a standard practice in any employed position (IE, an educator must teach the curriculum and it could be argued that their freedom of speech is limited by that, educators can't actively practice religious beliefs in many districts) Or it could be argued that they are asked, and required to use their freedom of speech to cover certain topics. In the same way it is appropriate and I would even argue necessary to limit 2nd amendment rights in much the same way. Specifically requiring an instructor to have a CCW to carry a weapon on school grounds, or mandating that the weapon be carried on the body of the educator, and not in a purse or another form of off-body carry. However, instructors should be able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights in schools. 3. The possibility of increasing training to teachers that conceal carry. As of the time of writing this, approximately 18 states allow educators to carry a weapon on school grounds (source 2), many of which require written permission from the school board, or principle. In the event that all educators across the nation are allowed to carry on school grounds, the probability of concealed carry increases among teachers of all states, it is highly likely that training and the process for concealed weapon permits in general will improve. This would mean higher requirements to have safer CCW holders. Because of these potential benefits, it is clear to me that allowing concealed carry for educators would be a far more beneficial influence than the costs that could take place. Thanks again, and don't forget to save your rebuttals for the 3rd round! Source 1: https://www.nbcnews.com... Source 2: https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Title: Everyone over 21 has the right to have a firearm. Content: 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.

Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: "Gun bans in cities have not been effective." Did they ban all guns? People still can use other guns you know? "If you think concealed carry holders can change into an attacker, I guess police will turn into attackers too." You arent wrong considering the fact that officers have attacked civilians before:https://www.google.com.sg... "They commit crimes less than police." Which means they still do. If you mean they dont commit crimes as compared to officers then just say something like:concealed gun holders do not commit crimes as compared to officers. "Don't strip people of their rights." Im not,just limiting. If you dont want that to happen,name me one right which is unlimited. Conclusion:In conclusion ladies and gentlemen,guns should never have been allowed judging by the mass murders we have heard of globally. When we only ban certain guns, there will still be homicide cases as my opponent showed. We need to ban all guns in order to prevent such homicide cases and with the following points in all 5 rounds, I conclude why guns should be banned.