Question: Should Individuals Be Granted the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns?

CCW holders should have the right to carry firearms at colleges and universities. Immediate dangerIn the second round, the opponent argued, "It's acceptable for a university to ban guns if the educators don't perceive an immediate threat, and thus, there's no justification for students and staff to carry guns." However, in the subsequent round, they contend, "How can students be warned of danger? If a criminal brings a gun onto campus, they have only a few minutes to respond. They don't receive a 24-hour notice." This is contradictory. If educators believe there is no immediate threat, they can ban guns, leaving students and staff unarmed on campus. In the event of an immediate threat, it would be impractical for everyone to leave campus, arm themselves, and return. Instead, they should evacuate. A college campus is not a war zone; law enforcement should handle immediate threats.Low crime rates on campusThe opponent has cited numerous instances where students have used guns to threaten, injure, and kill others. However, none of these incidents occurred on campus, making them irrelevant to the current discussion. For example, college campuses are less likely to experience road rage incidents than highways. The opponent's source confirms that college campuses have significantly lower crime rates than the rest of the United States (1). Thus, off-campus crime is not a valid example of what could happen on campus.Legal gun ownersIt's true that it would be ideal to ban all guns from college campuses, and the opponent is correct that some people may still smuggle guns even when there is a ban. Unfortunately, illegal activities will occur. Legislation forcing universities to allow permit holders to bring guns onto campus will not prevent illegal guns, but it will increase the total number of weapons on campus. In one of the examples provided by the opponent, students "overpowered a man and took away his firearm." This could potentially happen to any permit-holding, gun-wielding student as well: they could be overpowered and their firearm taken away. ConclusionMost college students and staff oppose guns on campus. This is evident from the fact that in states where colleges have the authority to make their own decisions, they overwhelmingly choose to ban guns on campus. Even the opponent agrees that this is appropriate when there is no immediate threat, and their sources confirm that campuses have relatively low crime rates. The opponent has not provided a compelling reason to deviate from the current policy.(1) http://concealedcampus.org...;

To let everybody know I’m against gun control, so I’m for the right to bear arms. “Good chance that the criminal won't harm anyone until the police arrive”No, criminals will shoot you no matter what. They are not going to stay and wait for the police. “Robberies would nearly cease: imagine a man trying to rob a bank with baseball bat.”Once again robbers are criminals; criminals do not follow the law. Now these are the point’s I’m going to debate in the next following rounds.1. What are the pros of owning guns?2. Second amendment.3. Criminals?4. How effective has some states have been with gun control?5. Comparing to other countries.6. No guns?Thank you for challenging me to this debate. As this is my first round, I shall only post the attack of my opponent’s argument and the points I will be debating. I will also attack my opponent’s points and arguments along the way. Good luck!

But we still don't have the right to bear arms? I would appreciate it if you weren't such a poaching advocate. Ok the NRA leader (Charles Heston) believes all these guns problems are because we have a more mixed ethnicity in the United States. Let me go over the reason you should vote con. I don't support poaching, and I am not racist. One quote pro said was this. " there is a deeper meaning behind the bullets" Are you on acid? I would just like to say to you mghee188, that there are places to help people like you. Poaching is a curable problem, but stupidity isn't. Guess you will have to live with that. Around 4:40 is where Charles Heston makes the NRA sound so great. http://www.youtube.com...

Ban: Confiscate and outlaw, while placing penalties on owning said product, (in this case, guns.) Freedom & Law The confiscation, outlawing, & penalization of the ownership of guns. That is what your definition presented means. That means confiscating people of their weapons, making it illegal to own one, & if anyone that slipped through the cracks & caught later then they will be charged with a crime. The resolution is the US should ban guns, not the US government should ban certain people of having guns. As you also stated in your previous round "the Due Process clause in the constitution, meaning that everyone has these unalienable rights unless proven guilty of a crime worthy of having those rights taken away," The 2nd amendment is an individual right, an expert on the English language [1] [2] [3] as well as a much newer Supreme Court cases states it to be the case. [4] [5] State constitutions calling it as such. [6] The meaning come even more clear when you also look at the intent of the Founders. Essentially an overturned court case hold no importance at all. Even if it did, assault weapons most definitely would fall under such arguments and therefore shouldn't result in banning them. However this argument regards all guns. "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." " Samuel Adams. [7] In order for the government to deny everyone's right to bear arms, they can't make the case of the 'greater good of the general welfare', they must make the case for each individual has committed a crime grave enough to warrant that person's right be restricted for the 'greater good', cause due process. This can't be done for 99.99% majority hasn't committed a crime "I already brought up the fact that over 1 million children live in a home with an unlocked or loaded weapon," I've already brought up laws already established that penalizes negligence & child endangerment, if that law can't be enforced with only 2 million guilty. There is no way humanly possible to enforce a law on 100-150 million people whom are against such a thing and has already act in defiance of such things. Estimated crime with the use of a gun is at 500,000, the number of cases in defense of a crime is considerably more. Since there already laws established under due process to restrict people convicted of a crime grave enough to warrant a restriction. There are not among the debate like the 10s of millions innocent who are accident, homicide, or suicide free, that would be affected by the definition presented. A person convicted of a crime results in their rights be restricted, not everyone's right. That is due process So again from the aspect of freedom & legality, this argument is done. Suicides Suicide is a victim less 'crime', ultimately the peoples' right to do so. A person has a right to their own, hence their right to end it if they wish. Therefore, the act of voluntarily taking ones own life as a reason to remove the vast majority of the peoples' right to defend theirs should be dropped & ignored. In my last round I showed that a large % of criminals was scared off before completion of a crime & even prevented a crime from taking place. This mindset for anyone that values their self preservation will exist anywhere in the world, including Australia. After the gun ban in Australia, more people became victims cause they, the criminals, were emboldened, less afraid of their life being taken. From pro's source "It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States." Why? Cause the American people in vast numbers refuse to follow suit with such things as buybacks & registering. The mindset of Australians & Americans are different. There is historic evidence that Americans won't rid themselves the right to bear arms cause a fraction of 1% of the population use their gun illegally & irresponsibly. You think the defiance would cease in the face of forced confiscation? That's wishful thinking. "This proves that the CDC is basically required to promote the gun owning population, or suffer from lawsuits if their data proves differently." Wild assertion, if that was the case, the US government, whom is actively bent on gun control, wouldn't have funded it. My opponents attempt to rebut the facts that despite predictions of Kennesaw becoming a war zone after the law passed didn't come to light. Crime rates reduced across the board after the law was passed, just as crime rates increased in other parts of the the US & world following bans including Australia. The only difference in crime rates before and after the ban in Australia, UK, Jamaica, ext was the ban, [8] so logic dictates that gun ownership is a major factor in the crime rates. Mexico, strict gun control is in a major war with their armed citizens whom are possession of them. [8] The United Kingdom, strict gun laws, regarded my dangerous nation in Europe, worse then the United States. [8] Gun ownership is considered an important crime deterrent. The police force in the United States doesn't prevent crime, they just catch the criminals that commit the crime. Officers arrive after the fact, people must be able to protect themselves when those seconds matter then report the crime afterwards. There are 100s 1000s of animal attacks a year, millions of criminals committing crimes,without a gun every year, government abuse, I've seen in person, and increase risk of invasion. America's superpower status is waning, China status of becoming a thing, as well as Russia. Tensions rising in world, America's natural defenses of distance and geographic position is null in modern times. It may not happen within the nest 50 years but America wasn't always the most powerful & its not logical to assume that we will away be most powerful. The right to bear arms was also established so that a foreign nation can't invade & subject us to the types of harshness that the Nazis placed on those lands they occupied as well as against their own people. Or Japan's Nanking Rape where national armies abandon the city leaving the people there with no means of defense. America is not immune to tyranny or invasion, the British ruled, they were pushed out but slavery existed, then gun control measures existed to prevent blacks from rising up and dealing with this tyranny. [9] The economic toll on America & whole states would be negatively affected. 300,000+ people would take a hit which can itself result in a desperate act of criminal activity. The voters need to place the affects of banning or not banning on a set of scales. This isn't just a save lives measure cause there are aspects of American life that will be affected. Therefore any legit discussion involves all that would be involved. The people positively affected of gun ownership & people affected negatively. Looking at the facts, you'll see that the positively affected outweighs the negative. The rights of 318 million Americans would be violated, cause of 500,000-1 million whom abuse their right. The former outweighs this here. Gun ownership is undeniably a crime deterrent, criminals will be criminals, removing the innocence ability to use the most efficient means of defense will result in increase crime. This will not protect the 'general welfare' of the people. The economic toll on the US economy that is already $19 trillion in debt would severely hurt our ability to get out of debt faster, our already unemployment problem would get much worse. And peoples' ability to provide for their loved ones being negatively affected would result in desperate measure, not in the best interest of the United States or the general welfare of the people. The consequence of a government program to forcibly confiscate weapons from Americans would result in a vast defiance from the people. People would refuse to surrender their arms, as their historic counterparts had done in the past, & any attempt to put the people & the government into at odd in such a situation would, highly likely, result in the death of Americans both citizen & law enforcement in government. This is again, not in the best interest of the US government or the general welfare. [1] http://articles.latimes.com... [2] http://www.constitution.org... [3] [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www2.law.ucla.edu... [7] http://www.whiteoutpress.com... [8] http://www.gunfacts.info... [9] http://www.washingtonsblog.com... [10] [11]

As the new provision in Georgia allowing guns in the terminals at airports may by unsettling to many, I believe it to be comforting. The government is giving each citizen their right to self-defense and personal protection. This falls under the right to bear arms and if anything they are providing us with the freedom we should have already had. Those who bear arms had to go through the process to license a gun. Therefore, the more trained individuals that obtain guns, the safer everyone will be. "While residents can carry guns inside airport terminals in Georgia, they cannot take their weapons through security to the gates." (1) This is fair, because before security we are still have the right to self defense. After we transport through security towards the gates we are under the security of the airport and government legislation. Airport's are some of the most dangerous places in America and it's important that every individual has the right to protection at all times. 1.Johnson, P. (2014, April 23). Georgia adopts law allowing guns at airports, bars, most other places ( video). Retrieved April 27, 2015, from http://www.csmonitor.com...

Rebutalls R1: Correlation is not Causation I’m not sure what Pro is trying to say here. When I compared Hawaii and New Hampshire, I made sure that other variables such as poverty, income was very similar to each other so that when I compared both of the states. So In my opinion, me comparing the two states made sense. R2: Hawaii vs New Hampshire This comes to my other point. Since Hawaii’s homicide rate is higher than New Hampshire, it proves that gun control didn’t prevent overall crime from happening, because criminals resorted to other methods. Lets look at more in depth look at how many people were actually killed by guns in Hawaii. Out of the 24 murders that occurred in 2010, guns did only 7 of them. If I compare that to New Hampshire, it had a total of 13 murders in 2010, and 5 were committed by guns. So, yes if I look at it by %, You’re less likely to be killed by a gun, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t be killed at all. Remember, I’m trying to prove that gun control did not reduce crime, not gun crime. I’d like my opponent to know that I didn’t try to nitpick a bad example, as Hawaii’s has to lowest homicide rate, among states with strict gun control. So I feel like this was a good comparison. R3: Psychopaths by Nature Lack Empathy/Fear Pro is saying that the right to self-defense should be revoked, because we have law enforcement to deal with the threat. My point wasn’t to say that we should get rid of police, but rather to take measures to reduce causalities as much as possible. If CCW owners were allowed to carry guns, there could have been a chance to reduce the causalities. To address the Fort Hood and Naval Yard shootings, my job was to prove that gun control did not reduce crime, and in these cases it didn’t. Pro however conceded that gun control failed in this case, and is insisting that had gun control gone further, there might have been a chance to stop the shooter. The problem with this argument is that Pro never specified how gun control could have gone further. In the Naval Yard shootings, Alexis was deemed mentally fit to wield a gun. If Pro is insisting that the gun seller or the employer should have done a better job, there is no way people could regulate that, because gun sellers who are assessing buyers are indeed human, and humans cannot be 100% perfect. R4: Lawlessness in Society, and Bad Gun Ownership So I said I would refute Pro’s argument so here it is. According to this source, High gun ownershi

Apologies in advance; I am not well-versed with the structure and style of Lincoln-Douglas debates. Hopefully you will be fine with me simply responding to your arguments one by one.Contrary to your statement, the people of the United States have a moral obligation to defend and uphold gun rights.I will define moral as that which is conducive to the life of a rational, productive human being -- as such, that which is good, or moral, provides positive value to human life, and that which is evil threatens the basic requirements of human life. This is self-evident as morality provides a set of values necessary for life -- and living to the fullest extent is the ultimate purpose of morality. Further, I will define rights as "freedoms protecting an individual's right to choose a given course of action." As such, the fundamental purpose of a right is to uphold the requirements of every individual's proper survival.As such, individuals must have a right to uphold their life through the use of reason, as opposed to coercion and force. Put simply, coercion is based on the use of fear -- a coercer violently seizes property from another man if he fails to comply with the coercer.A coercer exits the realm of reason and voluntary trade, threatening the lives of rational, law-abiding citizens. As such, others have a right to use force against this coercer in order to uphold their own lives -- every individual has a fundamental right to self-defense.It follows that if an individual has the right to use retaliatory force to preserve his own life, he must have the right to choose the optimal means of doing so. By restricting gun ownership, the government essentially infringes upon individuals' right to choose the best means of defending their life -- and this is profoundly immoral.Now that I have defined these fundamental terms, I will address your arguments.First, you claim that guns promote domestic violence, and violence in general. This claim is based on a kernel of truth -- guns are a means to an end: the harm of another individual. But harming others is not inherently immoral; as I have shown above, harming others in retaliation is perfectly justifiable. Furthermore, the suppression of gun rights, beyond being fundamentally immoral, does nothing to inhibit violence in the long run. Violent criminals, by definition, abstain from following the law. As such, a ban on guns or any other restriction on gun rights will not be obeyed by criminals truly bent upon destruction -- as is easily shown by the rise of homemade weapons, the massive illegal arms trade, and the black market for weapons. For instance, after a 1996 ban on handguns in the UK, gun crime more than doubled (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...). A ban on guns does, however, violate the rights of law-abiding, innocent citizens. By stopping individuals from defending themselves to the fullest extent, we leave them completely vulnerable to the actions of violent, ruthless criminals. This is inexcusable and undoubtedly immoral.Second, you claim that guns assist suicide. This relationship is not consistent and definite -- and there most certainly is not a causal relationship between gun ownership and suicide. A 2007 analysis (http://www.law.harvard.edu...) of international evidence found that "there is simply no relationship evident between the extent of suicide and the extent of gun ownership." They provide ample evidence for this claim: "Sweden, with over twice as much gun ownership as neighboring Germany and a third more gun suicide, nevertheless has the lower overall suicide rate. Greece has nearly three times more gun ownership than the Czech Republic and somewhat more gun suicide, yet the overall Czech suicide rate is over 175% higher than the Greek rate. Spain has over 12 times more gun ownership than Poland, yet the latter's overall suicide rate is more than double the former’s. Tragically, Finland has over 14 times more gun ownership than neighboring Estonia, and a great deal more gunR08;related suicide. Estonia, however, turns out to have a much higher suicide rate than Finland overall." Furthremore, as Jacob Sullum writes, "Japan, with a gun ownership rate of 0.6 per 100 people, compared to 88.8 in the United States, has a suicide rate nearly twice as high as high. China and South Korea likewise have much lower rates of civilian gun ownership but much higher rates of suicide. The relationship between gun ownership and suicide clearly is neither consistent nor straightforward."Clearly, there is nearly no relationship between gun ownership and suicide -- and thus, this argument is no justification for the violation of gun rights.

There should be more gun laws enacted in the U.S! Armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are more likely to make dangerous situations, including mass shootings, more deadly. The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation. According to the Los Angeles times, author Patt Morrison states in his article that was posted on August 2, 2017 that Americans who carry "heat" increase the rate of violent crime. After reviewing these articles and doing research it is clear to me that armed civilians are more likely to cause dangerous situations rather than protecting theirselves or others. 1.) Jeffrey Voccola, "Why I Don't Want Guns in My Classroom," www.chronicle.com, Oct. 14, 2014 2.) Does carrying a gun make you safer? No. In fact, right-to-carry laws ... http://www.latimes.com...

Guns save more lives than take them Gun bans do not decrease murder rates Concealed-carry holders are 14% more law-abiding than police officers If someone shoots up a school or at you or someone else in public, You have to respond immediately. You can't call 911 and patiently wait for police top come. The average time the police take to arrive is 7 minutes, The possibility between life death. Please do not copy and paste arguments from websites like you do on other debates.

But sir, if everyone were get guns, even more shootings would happen. I can agree with you that African Americans are the root of this- recently Trayvon got shot (He was black) and, yes, left and right, reports of black people being shot or shooting are flooding the TV. However, we cannot afford to give guns to everyone. I don't think any guns, even handguns, should be allowed. Maybe that 3d printed handgun that is single fire could be ok, but otherwise, it's too dangerous. Now, don't get me wrong. If you were to get some sort of permit from the government, you have every right to get a gun. In fact, less shootings would happen if you were to confiscate the gun from people. Without guns to shoot with, nobody would need self defense guns. Please note that this does not apply to guns in schools.

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...


Question: Should Individuals Be Granted the Right to Concealed Carry?

The debate between concealed carry and open carry gun laws. Open carry serves as a deterrent; the majority of criminals are rational decision-makers.

**Question**: Is social media beneficial for mental health?

**Documents**: Social media can be detrimental to mental health
The constant comparison to others on social media can lead to feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem.

**Similar Documents**: Social media may have negative impacts on mental health. The ongoing comparison to others on social media platforms can result in feelings of inadequacy and decreased self-esteem.

**Question**: Should college education be free?

**Documents**: The benefits of free college education
Free college education can lead to a more educated workforce and a stronger economy.

**Similar Documents**: The advantages of free college education. Providing free college education can contribute to a more educated workforce and a stronger economy.

**Question**: Should the voting age be lowered to 16?

**Documents**: Lowering the voting age to 16
Sixteen-year-olds are mature enough to make informed decisions and should be given the right to vote.

**Similar Documents**: The proposal to lower the voting age to 16. Sixteen-year-olds are capable of making informed decisions and should be granted the right to vote.

I thank Con for their response. I was expecting to debate a Pro-gun person who favors unlimited application of the Second Amendment. I did not wish for this to be a strict guns vs. no guns debate. That is my fault for not structuring the debate properly. I still disagree with my opponent's position though, so I will continue with my rebuttal and conclusion. First, Con suggests that the Second Amendment was meant keep states safe and is now obsolete. As an example, Con explains that 18th Century America required a rapidly deployable citizen army for its defense, which is no longer needed now that we have the US Military. Con overlooks the fact that 18th Century America had an established Army, Navy, and Marines (obviously no Air Force) at the time the Constitution was drafted. Early America did have armies and navies to protect it, yet the founding fathers still saw it necessary to protect the right of the people to bear arms. As part of this argument, Con suggests that the US is no longer threatened by attack as it once was, and therefore the Second Amendment is obsolete. This is untrue. America faces just as many, if not more dangers than it did in 1787. There is neither room nor time to describe them all here. Even if my opponent's claim was true and the US faced no danger, that is still no reason to surrender your rights. The NSA used a similar argument to justify their wire tapping operations - "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear from us monitoring your cell phone." Con's argument can plug along the same line - "If you have no reason to defend yourself, then you have nothing to fear by abolishing the Second Amendment." Rights exist to protect us in unanticipated circumstances. Just because you have no reason to protect yourself now does not mean you won't 5, 10, or 50 years later. Just because you have nothing to protest right now doesn't mean you should forever surrender your right to assembly. I propose therefore that Con's first argument does not make a convincing case why the Second Amendment is obsolete, nor does it accurately represent modern threat levels. It also does not convincingly explain why we should abolish this right, even if it was no longer immediately necessary. Second, Con suggests that the text of the Second Amendment applies to the security of the state, not individual people. I propose the correct interpretation of the text is that a state's security is directly linked to the people's right to keep and bear arms. It therefore follows that a state's security is at risk if its people cannot keep arms. For that very reason, I advocate mandating proper training and qualification for all citizens who choose to bear arms, which is what this whole debate is supposed to be about. Finally, my opponent suggests that if we really need to defend ourselves we should just carry knives or use karate. The problem with this is that knives and karate will not protect you against a bad guy with a gun. If the right to own guns is abolished, bad people will still find ways to carry them. Telling citizens to protect themselves with martial arts is not very comforting in a world where bad guys still have easy access to illegal guns. I would also propose that having a society where everyone carries knives, daggers, and swords around does not seem like a satisfying alternative. In conclusion, this was not meant to be a debate about whether people should own guns. It was meant to be about whether people who choose to own them should be required to undergo stricter training and qualifications. Nevertheless, I believe my rebuttals have successfully addressed and countered all of Con's arguments. Thank you.

Opponent's Overview: The issue I have with this is that the constitution is a law. It is not written to be subjectively interpreted to fit the times. The founder's intent tells us what the law means, so if the founders wrote an amendment to give the individual the right to bear arms, we have to uphold that right, no matter what the times are, it's the law. If you believe that the Constitution is a "living" document, you must show why it is "alive." Support this claim, and then we can talk about what the right to bear arms should be like in today's world. Contention 1: Grammar i) The reason the founders included the phrase "well regulated militia" was to show that the reason we need the right to bear is arms is so that we can form militias. in short, it is saying that Danny Minuteman and his buddies can all have rifles so that they can form an effective militia to defend themselves and their families. Militia, meaning armed civilians. ii) Yes, it is saying that we have the right to bear arms so that we can defend ourselves. That's what I said, the right to bear arms is an individual right, so that the individual can serve in the protection of himself and others. iii) Firstly, in this draft, the right to bear arms is not in the ablative, so your ablative flip is wrong, it is an independent clause, with again, the militia part being a dependent clause, this time as an appositive, and the conscientious objector clause being another independent clause. This however does not change the meaning I have argued for. It is saying that the individual can have an arm, so that he can defend himself and his buddies, and you can't force him to defend himself and his buddies if he has a religious objection. in short, we have the right so that we can form militias, but we cannot be forced to form militias if we have religious qualms in doing so. It is still an individual right, closely related to, but not dependent on militia service. Contention 2: First, we're going to have to extend this contention, because you didn't actually address my point that the word "people" is used, rather than militia in the second clause. But, addressing your point about the first clause, I again say this: The right to bear arms is related to but not dependent on militia service, that is, I have the right so I can join or form a militia, but I don't have to use the weapon to join or form a militia. Nowhere does it say that the right to keep and bear arms is revoked if one is not in the militia. Contention 3: Historical situation i) Well, a law is a law, no matter the historical situation. I used historical situation to show the founder's intent. ii) The militias at Concord and Lexington were not state sanctioned militias, they were civilian vigilantes, so what this shows us is that people have the right to keep that shotgun under their bed so that when the British come to take over Massachusetts, civilians can fight back. Militias were pretty much EVERYONE, or at least everyone capable of bearing arms (besides women). iii) First point- He was the one who actually wrote the amendment, so his intent is most important. Second Point- If pioneers can be considered militias, than Suburban Joe can be a militia as well, defending his home from burglars, murderers, and thugs. Contention 4: Founder's intent i) Here's some quotes from framers: "The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.) "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.) "The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.) Here are quotes from early commentators, note that many refer to Blackstone: "And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." -St. George Tucker, Chief Justice of Virginia Supreme Court, publisher of 1803 edition of Blacktone, annotated to American Law, followed (William) Blackstone's citation on the common law right "of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law" with this quote referring to the Second Amendment William Rawle's "View of the Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment: "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." The Jefferson papers in the LOC show that both Tucker and Rawles were correspondents of Jefferson, and that their views were shared by Jefferson, Madison, and many others. "the palladium of the liberties of the republic" -Joseph Story in "Commentaries on the Constitution" This entire subsection is sourced to http://www.constitution.org... PS I just showed framer's intent, and as I have said, the meaning of a law does not change with the times. You can try to prove me wrong. ii) These commentators were contemporaries of these "long dead framers" iii) Specifically, they admired his views on the right to bear arms (Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov...) For that source, go to Justice Scalia's second question to Dellinger. iv) Above I have provided much more than a single opinion, and if pressed could likely find an opinion from the majority of the framers of the second amendment. v) I don't, seeing as the vast majority of legal professionals use his law dictionary, so I think it is safe to say he was widely admired. Ending overview of opponent: The law that gives us the right to bear arms was written 220 years ago, so the intent of of that law is what is important, as that shows us what the law means.

Thank you, here we go again.Firstly, I offered my opponent (in the comment section) the chance to revamp his position if he decided to concede the first round in my favor. Being that he has revamped, I'm assuming that he has agreed to the terms. The score is now 1 round to my opponent's 0. Very brief side argument:"..a ten year old has no constitutional rights, so that comment at the end was completely irrelevant."~My opponentNonsense, it was to point out that he had 0 limitations on guns, a flawed premise. If my opponent didn't establish limits, he can't then pick at my argument that points out the flaw in his premise. Especially considering that it was a very important concern in regards to his initial (inevitable) stance. We are talking about the Constitution of the United States. Firstly, my opponent has set up a straw man in order to take him down and appear the clear victory; he is debating himself. I never made the claim that I wanted to abolish the 2nd amendment. But even then, he's run face first into a straw man he has accidentally made from brick..In this debate, my opponent is attempting to uphold the US constitution as someone would the bible--as if it is the infallible word of God. It isn't, and things can be changed and added when reason is sufficient. For example, we no longer follow the 3/5's compromise, nor the 18th amendment (in it's originality).He states: "And if you lose one amendment why not another? And another?"This is an obvious slippery slope fallacy. Did we lose amendments in domino fashion when we excluded the 3/5 compromise or prohibition? No, this argument is nonsense and a clear copout--I'm very aware of which amendment it is, we're to be talking about if it should be changed.The proposition of more control.As it stands, in Missouri (the state in which I reside) one does not have to go through an agency to sell his firearm to a private person after it has been purchased from the store. [1] In fact, it states, "It is unlawful to knowingly sell, lease, loan, give away or deliver a firearm or ammunition to any person who is not lawfully entitled to possess one." Problem is, there is no way for the average citizen to ensure that he is not selling to someone who is unlawful. Anyone can possess a fake ID that says they're overage, there are people with mental handicaps that can seem normal for a reasonable enough time to buy the gun from you, and every, and there is absolutely no way of knowing if a person is a felon or has any of the other disqualifying characteristics. This undermines the basic principle of safety. The reason for these steps (Background check, show driver's license, register the firearm, etc.) is to help prevent guns from being in the hands on criminals. Is it truly unreasonable to create a law that makes it mandatory for private sellers to sell to private parties through an FFL dealer? Of course not. Without these specific laws being followed, the sanctions currently on gun control are undermined. Missouri is not alone, there are only a select few that don't allowe an open sale of firearms between private parties. My opponent must stop with the baseless assertions. I have no interests in abolishing the 2nd amendment, I collect guns. Soldier are not dying specifically to protect our second amendment, they're dying to protect our free society-- something that exists with or without guns. [1]http://crime.about.com...

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

Please only make a brief introduction of your position. Just to make things clear on where I stand. I am against new gun control proposals. I believe that the right to own weapons is one of the most Important rights a man can have. Without the right to personal security all other rights are in jeopardy. Please, No foul language.

Con states- "The ban of assault rifles in our country is openly against the 2nd amendment"Demonstrates the extent of the illiteracy of the common folk! That our schools fail to properly teach the english language is self evident. I GIVE YOU THE The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. But it should not! It is plainly stated. It does not stipulate by definition and wording the authorization nor RIGHT of the PEOPLE to own WEAPONS OF WAR- save in the capacity of MILITIA!Read it again! "A well regulated Militia, being necessary/ the right of the people to keep and bear Armslet's look at that by defintion shall we?Definition;Militia noun: militia; plural noun: militias a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army. all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. Now for the REALLY DENSE- Organized militia. Each state has two mandatory forces, namely the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. Many states also have state defense forces and a naval militia, which assist, support and augment National Guard forces. (are we learning yet?) National Guard/Reserve (who HAVE tanks, and weapons of War!) but they CANNOT TAKE THEM HOME!You have a Right to bear arms- but NOT BEING MILITIA restricts in common sense and practicality, the rights of "THE PEOPLE" to OWN TANKS OR WEAPONS OF WAR! End of subject! Thank you for playing have we or have we NOT common sense!The reasoning powers of the founding fathers are obviously more suited to Patriots of State/Country. Being Mature Individuals, with a high degree of competence, fair play and equality of mind, these people set up a Nation. in essense more suited to thinking along the Line of myself and others of National interest above self gratification standards.and theose less than 21? Forget about it! Evidence of History- That NO CANNON WAS personally owned by individual persons in the entire Country, save Business concerns and even THEN sparingly ... like maybe 2 in the whole country! Demonstrates that weapons of War were OUTSIDE the RIGHT of ownership of the common man!so unless you can show evidence- like the kind just revealed to you above? Your just staing like everyone ELSE .... opinion. and opinion isn't evidence of TRUTH!Now THIS is an example of persons LYING to attempt to persuade others into BELIEVING their opinions .... no evidence mind you ... just opinion;Yes, private citizens were allowed to own cannons, and many did. It was very common for private merchant ships (for example) to be equipped with cannons. They were called "armed merchantmen" - so yes, "arms" definitely did include cannons.https://www.reddit.com...Now lets LOOK at this statement CAREFULLY with UNSHADED glasses. also note he states MANY but gives NO EVIDENCE of the many (NONE) , only militia (merchant ships)Yes, private citizens were allowed to own cannons ( notice this extremely biased opinion- opinion mind you- not evidence!)Now note the BIG EVIDENCE this misguided prejudiced fellow uses- private merchant ships (for example) to be equipped with cannons. They were called "armed merchantmen"Now let US LOOK at this statement a moment- PRIVATE? Merchant ships that transport Goods, are FAR from PRIVATE- they carry , Treasures, Stores, Humanity- being aware of course of Pirates which exist even today- those ... UHHHH supposed private Vessels REQUIRED protection ..... TODAY WE CALL THEM THE COAST GUARD! And Yes they HAVE weapons of war, they are tasked to protect the lanes of shipping which did not exist in this time but emerged later on! that however isn't proof of anything but self prejudice. Let them actually provide proof of common everyday folks owning cannons, not those who it just made sense that the need for security and protection was common sense necessity!Who owned a Cannon in antiquity to protect his home, outside royalty, Monarchs and such .... answer ZERO!so no proof other than opinion? FORGET ABOUT IT!So yes these prejudiced people spin yarns "higher than haman" but sadly ZERO evidence is ever forth coming! just opinion after opinion, with nothing to back up their assertions , yet History itself DEMONSTRATES the common folk did NOT have cannons! PERIOD! which were weapons of War!

Here are a list of things we could ban that would save lives. That doesn't make it logical, rational, or reasonable. Let's take a peek. * -Cars -Planes -Fried foods -Unprotected sex -Walking out of your house -Swimming -Horseback riding -High cholesterol foods -All large dogs -Drinking pop -Eating anything loaded with salt or sugar -Crossing the street * The Secret Service, who protect government leaders are well armed and well trained. Why? To protect the government leaders from threats, of course. * http://youtu.be... * The 10th Amendment - "Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter: So help you God?" --- In theory, moles could infiltrate the country, give anti American citizen commands and use military force on us. Some people think moles have already infiltrated the U.S. government in an attempt to destroy the country. Do we have the right to weapons to combat them? Of course we do. We the people are more trustworthy than a group of crooks that have become so corrupt that they bailed out the banks and caused a Donald Trump revolution...If we can't have something, the government doesn't need to have access to it either. --- The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... --- Here is the amendment from being ratified by the states and authenticated by President Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State: "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." --- In real life, violent crime goes down when more people legally carry guns: "Right-to-carry laws" have been on the rise in the United States since the early 1990's. At the same time, violent crime rates have decreased. The number of privately owned guns has risen by aproximately 100 million. When criminals subconsciously wonder if each house is armed, each purse carrying woman is armed, or see a man with a gun on his hip, they logically think twice, or they are insane. If they are insane, I'd much prefer the option to be able to protect myself, friends, and loved ones against them. According to the NRA, “Through 2010, the nation’s murder rate has decreased 52 percent to a 47-year low, and the total violent crime rate has decreased 48 percent to a 37-year low.” --- Gun control laws don't make the U.S. a safer place. In Paris, France, which has some of the strictest anti-gun laws in the Western world, ISIS militants, who didn't care about the gun laws mowed down 130 unarmed civilians at a concert in the Bataclan Theatre. I think about my sister who does carry a gun in her purse, was in the military, and is highly trained in using it. What if someone like her, male or female, had been present? What if a handful of similar people had been present? 130 might have been 40, or 20, or 5. That's why it matters. Killers will ignore the laws no matter what the laws say. Thus, you do not disarm the innocent. --- With stricter and stricter gun laws, we get this equation: Innocent, law abiding civilians : no guns OR less powerful weaponry. Violent, non law abiding, criminal muderers: still the same amount and types of guns in their posession. Nothing changes for them, but we become disarmed. Scenario- So the violent criminal walks into my house with a semi automatic. I obeyed the law and am unarmed. He did not. Guess who dies today? Me. That doesn't logically work for me. Real Life 101- But in real life, if I notice an armed intruder, I get my weapon, I lie in wait, and he's the one that dies today. My choice is him or me and my friends/loved ones. I choose him. Call me crazy... --- Scenario- What if ISIS is here in the U.S. right now, right this second? They coordinate an attack on the American people. I'd like to be armed as opposed to beheaded, burned alive, or the females around me kidnapped and raped, as is their custom.---According to the New York Times most gun deaths are suicides, not actual attacks from one person exacted onto another.

First i will address my opponents argument. You use the constitution as your sole example for your con stance on this topic, but the amendment you used was written hundreds of years ago by people who couldn't even imagine weapons with modern day efficiency. The constitution can become outdated,which is the whole reason we have the amendment system set up. I have proved the current unrestricted amendment does more harm than good. And if we were to apply my opponents logic to a few other texts in the constitution African Americans would still be three fifths of a person and women couldn't vote. We have to change the law as our society advances. Besides that the resolution simply proposes a ban on handguns not guns altogether. The weapons we would need to "ensure a free state" are not infringed upon by the resolution. Now for my argument. My opponent has offered no counter argument, claim, or evidence (besides that bear picture) to negate my contentions, therefore all my arguments still stand. A. Injuries to children from firearms is largely a problem of the proliferation of handguns and the acceptance of handgun violence in our culture B. Handgun ownership proves to be associated with a culture of gun violence C. The Weapons Effect: the presence of handguns causes an increase of aggression.

Now, as I have previously stated, the burden of proof to a large extent lies with Con to irrefutably prove that a gun ban should not be instituted in the United States. So far, Con has merely postulated on a case of would-be scenarios that are commonly cited by firearm enthusiasts if the government banned guns. Yet such hypothetical justification seems irrelevant in the face of the US' continued string of firearm-related murders and massacres. The founding fathers were all very intelligent men, certainly, but to assume that they had the precognition to determine gun rights and control for the better part of 250 years? Absurd. The second amendment supposedly justifies your insurrectionist interpretation of the constitution. Disarming the citizens in other democratic countries such as Australia and the UK has not caused any tyrannical or totalitarian regimes, so why should we fear such an outcome here in the US? In the Land of the Free? Of course, you could mention Hitler's Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, yet taking away the guns was not the first step they made. Rather, it came as a result of years of dictatorial leadership that was begun with democratic voting. Unless Obama declares himself to be Supreme Ruler of the United States and we democratically elect him as such, the chances of the US developing into a tyrannical regime are negligible. Only madmen, one would think, can suppose that militias have a constitutional right to levy war against the United States, which, somewhat ironically, is treason by constitutional definition [1]. Yet now you interpret the Second Amendment as a well-regulated militia that is intended for action against the government. And how exactly, does this include an individual's right to bear arms? An amicus curiae submitted to the US Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, signed by fifteen eminent university professors of early American history, including Pauline Maier, Fred Anderson, and Pulitzer Prizes winners Jack Rakove and Alan Taylor concluded that: Historians are often asked what the Founders would think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this: that the authors of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms, which governments had always regulated when there was "real danger of public injury from individuals. " [2] Further expansion upon the Second Amendments legitimacy regarding individual right to bear arms is found in Justice John Paul Stevens dissenting opinion in the same case. Justice Stevens stated that "The Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons. .. . I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice. " [3] From these statements we can conclude that the Second Amendment does not constitutionally protect the individual right to bear arms nor does it limit the ability of the government to regulate firearms. Hiding behind the Founding Fathers does not provide a rock-solid explanation of why a gun should not be instituted in the US. My opponent makes reference to the black market, and the ease with which criminals would be able to obtain weapons to the detriment of a now unarmed society. Currently, it is much easier for a prospective criminal to obtain their weapons illegally and then use them for crime. However, if we were to ban guns outright, the criminal would be forced to 'chase' their guns on the black market and it would certainly much easier for a governing body to regulate and act against this illegal purchase of guns. Today, almost anyone can obtain a gun easily, primarily because guns are not only legal in the US, but commonplace. By instituting a federal, nation-wide ban on guns in the United States, we would greatly reduce the number of guns in the country, bring the ownership of guns down to a minimal rate, limit the ease with which criminals can obtain guns and crucially, lower overall gun crime. The very fact that a gun is illegal would deter many potential crooks from buying one in the first place. The fear that by taking away civilian use of guns we would be at the mercy of criminals is an irrational one, with no evidence being given by Con to support such a claim. So once again, I ask Con, why do we have guns? Because they're the ultimate self defense? While I'm sure some people believe that having a gun at their bedside will make them safer, they are wrong. This is not my opinion, and it's not a political or controversial statement. It is a fact. Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine [4]. Guns on the street make us less safe. For every justifiable handgun homicide, there are more than 50 handgun murders, according to the FBI [5]. The expanding right to carry concealed guns make us even less safe. So what right is being protected if it is not the right to be safe? The right to feel safe, at the expense of actual safety? Sources: [1] - . http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] - . http://www.newyorker.com... [3] - . http://www.nytimes.com...; [4] - Arthur Kellermann et. al. , "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091. [5] - . http://www.fbi.gov... This last source was used in my previous argument, but I forgot to reference it. Sorry about that. [6] -. http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com...

Constitution: It appears you do not like the constitution. So I will ignore this as your arguments need not be constitutional. Crime rates: In every single case in which restrictive gun control or bans have been brought into place, crime rates have gone up. It doesn't matter how low the end crime rate may be, as it may be quite low. But It was lower still prior to the bans. [1] This is due to a simple phenomenon. I call it the sitting duck argument. Criminals will always get guns. They are simple pieces of machinery and criminals have gotten them illegally in the past. [2] If guns are banned, civilians turn them in. This leads to defenseless civilians. So the criminals, who do not turn in their illegal guns, attack more and more people because they know that the civilian, who obeys the law, will not be able to protect themselves by shooting the criminal. Source 1 includes this fact. Also, it has been shown that mass shooters routinely attack "gun free zones", because they know that no one there will be able to defend themselves with a firearm. For example, james holmes chose the one movie theater out of the 7 that were within 20 minutes of his home that banned concealed carry of handguns. It was not the closest, or the biggest.[3] I wonder why. To be simple, why do places with strict gun control, like chicago, have the highest crime rates, and places where many civilians are armed, there is so little crime? [3] Criminals following only some laws: If you are a criminal committing crimes, why would you turn in your gun to comply with some other law? I can't see into the minds of criminals, but this is very simple logic. Self defense: Most attacks on the streets do not occur with firearms.[4] People need a gun to defend themselves because you are much more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun.[4] And banning guns does not just remove them from the streets. If it did, I'd be for banning guns. But it doesn't, as it hasn't in chicago, DC, and a host of other cities. It is similar to my next point, Guns vs. Drugs We banned alcohol in the 1920's and what happened? More illegal bars and alcohol.[5] We banned cocaine and other illegal drugs, but there is still a lot of cocaine on the streets. Why? Because criminals don't comply with these bans. If they don't work, why would a gun ban work? Police officers: Police officers do not need their guns because there are guns on the streets. They need them for the defense of themselves and others from all forms of threat. If you attack a police officer with a knife, he will draw his gun. Why? Because a gun is an effective method of defense. Sources: 1. http://www.gunfacts.info... 2. http://www.gunfacts.info... 3. http://www.foxnews.com... 4. http://www.gunfacts.info... 5. http://www.pbs.org...


Question: Should Individuals Be Granted the Right to Carry Concealed Firearms?

The privilege of concealed carry effectively safeguards the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is completely preserved through concealed carry legislation. The US Constitution doesn't outline specific firearms or carrying techniques that are legal. It merely states that "bearing" is a right. Thus, a regulation that bans open carry while permitting concealed carry is entirely in line with the US Constitution's provision for the right to bear arms.

Thanks for the debate, Pro. =Neg case=I. Ban PistolsPro makes no good responses here. His only arguments rely upon the idea that robbers would carry around easily visible long guns before committing crimes. This is untrue because, contrary to Pro's claims, criminals do not prefer handguns because they are cheaper. They aren't cheaper than many long guns (military surplus Mosin Nagants run at around $100 each, far less than the cost of an average pistol). Criminals prefer handguns because they are easy to carry and conceal. If gun control works, we would be heavily damaging the power criminals have by preventing them from obtaining their favored weapon. If it does not work, there's no reason to affirm the resolution anyway. Pro's position is just self evidently absurd. He wants to ban the weapons that are hardly ever used in crimes, even bolt action rifles and muskets, while wanting to permit the ones that are commonly used by criminals. He has literally no warrant for why people couldn't have long guns in their places of business for defense (they do in the status quo) if we ban handguns so his self defense advantge falls apart. Again, if you buy that gun control works vote Con because gun control advocates should use their political capital to push for a handgun ban, not a ban on long guns. If you don't buy that gun control works, the resolution is negated for obvious reasons. Pro attempts to salvage his concession on the hunting argument by arguing that people going out into the woods to shoot squirrels or deer somehow count as a professional group tantamount to the military and should not be viewed as civilians. I think this illustrates the mental gymnastics one would have to do to vote Pro at this point--Pro conceded that people should be sold long guns to hunt in some circumstances, so he loses the debate. It's as simple as that. Pro's only response is that civilians should run should an invasion occur. What he's failed to negate is that, historically, an armed popualce *deters* invasion. Disarming the citizenry has no benefit to the federal government. Pro's position is quite frankly ridiculous. He wants to ban guns that he admits have literally no negative utility, such as muskets, simply due to their barrel length. Hardly a basis for sound policy. II. Second amendment Pro totally dropped my legitimacy argument throughout the entire debate. This point vastly outweighs *everything* else in the debate by several orders of magnitude. Affirming the resolution would more or less destroy the federal government. Pro makes literally no response. You can stop reading and vote Con right here. Pro accuses me of being inconsistent but, as the negative, I don't have to be consistent. I just have to show that the resolution is false. My case shows that if gun control works you negate, and if it doesn't work you negate. My case is consistent in that it highlights the inherent absurdity of the resolution. Pro concedes that gun control doesn't work. Once again, you can stop reading and sign the ballot. His only argument is that long guns increase the potential threat of a person "exponentially", and yet, statistically, the vast majority of gun deaths occur due to handguns. Pro just has no ground here. Pro drops the point that democide is about 20x more common than homicide from fellow civilians. Even if you grant him limited homicide mitigation, the reduced risk of democide outweighs this. Pro characterizes the idea of an armed population deterring genocide as "naive". Kates and Polsby note[1]:"..not one of the principal genocides of the 20th century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed. Nor should this be altogether surprising. An armed population is simply more difficult to exterminate than one that is defenceless." It's simply logical that an armed population is going to be a tougher nut to crack for oppressive governments than an unarmed one. This is why the Nazi's did all in their power to disarm the populace. As Hitler noted[2]: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."III. Guns and crime Pro tries to make excuses for his lack of empirical evidence by stating he is not American, but this is just a cop out. At the end of the day, his nationality has no effect on his affirmation of the resolution. Granting him any leniency here would be discrimination, you have to judge the debate based on who did better, not by giving one side a blank check to spout opinions without the backing of statistics or sources. Pro realizes he's lost the debate on the practical front so he attempts to shift the goal posts by now arguing for an ideal. He made no response to my critique of idealism that if we're arguing for an ideal society, there would be no crime. Don't let him get away with having the debate judged on an idealistic plane--the resolution is a matter of policy. Even if you buy that he can make idealistic arguments, since all of his points rely on practicality as well you can ignore this paradigm. Since he's conceded that gun control wouldn't work because the populace is "stubborn" you can vote Con. Pro says he wants a society where the more lethal weapons are harder to get. Since pistols are about seven times more lethal in terms of death toll than long guns you can negate the resolution under my first contention. Pro argues that my statistics are useless because they don't address long guns specifically, but this is just absurd. He's given no reason, no reason at all, to think that more handguns would lead to less crime but more long guns would not. I don't know what else to say here--this point certainly stands. More guns means less crime, so banning the weapon kinds that constitute the majority of civilian owned arms is a terrible idea. The resolution has been negated several times. =Aff case=False dichotomyPro tries to shift the goal posts again. As I noted in my last round, he heavily implied in round 4 that these types of guns could still be sold to civilians as long as they had some kind of liscensing. As it stands, the fact that Pro wants to ban guns that he admits have no negative utility just because he wants a "clear" law is beyond asinine. If there's no reason to ban something, we shouldn't ban it and we should negate the resolution for being too broad. Easier for criminals Pro's argument lays in shambles because criminals simply do not buy weapons from stores. At this point given that he's already conceded gun control doesn't work, he gains no advantage from this or any other contention. Pro makes some strange responses to my argument about the Koreans defending their stores with long guns, but at the end of the day all that matters is his response here: "and in this sole case Koreans have used the assault weapons in the only correct way that exists". Thus he concedes that assault weapons (let alone all long guns) have some practical application in civilian hands. Therefore I've won the debate. Easier to solveAt long last, we come to the final point of contention. Pro once again tries to frame the resolution as an ethical question when it is quite clearly a matter of policy. Neither the resolution nor Pro's opening round make any mention of ethics or ideals, but rather a statement of policy that long guns should not be sold to citizens. This is pretty much all Pro says to this point but remember, even if you buy that this debate should be one of ideals since we've both argued pragmatism you have to vote on that. The judge is, after all, bound to the arguments the debaters make in round. Vote Con. Sources:1. http://www.theguardian.com...2. http://www.stephenhalbrook.com...

R1: Correlation is not Causation My opponent agrees that correlation is not causation in his R3. Yet it continues to be argued that a statistically significant relationship exists, but the factors between the two states that differentiate one another remain unaccounted for. Again, correlation is not causation. The information is anecdotal in nature. That's awesome that we can compare two states, but what makes them similar enough, minus the one variable that needs to be changed (in this case gun laws) to be able to compare them? It seems as though the two states compared are cherry-picked, rather than done to control the other variables (poverty for instance) to show a relationship. R2: Hawaii vs New Hampshire My opponent compares these two states, and claims that homicide rates differ: the tighter gun regulated state has more homicides than the non-gun regulated one. Except, with all due respect to my opponent, again this is anecdotal. Homicides can be committed with a wide variety of tools. Knives, vehicles, fists, etc... can all be used in a homicide. Even if we take this relationship at face value, it does not show that gun-related crimes are somehow more desirable in a more gun friendly state than vice-verse. Again, correlation is not causation. R3: Psychopaths by Nature Lack Empathy/Fear My opponent cites response times in the Virginia Tech Shooting as justification for a more armed populace. Fair enough, however even if the school had armed guards, it would not have mattered. That's because psychopaths, literally by virtue of being a psycho, lack empathy and fear by their actions. That's part of the purpose of being diagnosed with being a psychopath in the first place. Furthermore, my opponents argument means taking the actions of a shooter, and making vigilante justice happen. While police are certainly not perfect, the police by nature are suppose to enforce the law. The very purpose of their being. The claim that police cannot always help ignores the fact that no one can ever be somewhere in an emergency fast enough, and that the argument itself is a slippery slope to lawlessness. If police are never fast enough, why even have a police force? As for my claims, I showed with two cases (Fort Hood and Naval Yard) that if background checks (a form of gun control) went farther, those shootings could have been prevented. When a shooter is able to legally purchase a gun, even though he thought microwaves could talk to him, we have a serious issue here. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... R4: Source Issues For some weird reason, DDO coding is not giving my opponent the proper coding to see the sources. I'll repost them here: http://smartgunlaws.org... https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu... As for my Harvard Health source, it actually does link each study in a peer-reviwed journal showing without question causation links between gun crimes and relaxed gun control laws. The main reason behind it is simple: guns are emotionally empowering. When guns are used in a “self defence” claim, the Harvard Journals pointed out that most folks used them ended up escalating violence instead of stopping it. Worse yet, it almost always was done illegally in the first place. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... Even in cases where one claims self defence, how do we know? No one actually wants to go to jail (unless they do not care of consequences) ergo we must look ourselves with an objective eye. What we see...isn't good. Its rather frightening. Furthermore, my opponent claims it only shows higher rates of suicide. That isn't true. It clearly shows higher rates of both suicide and homicide. Otherwise, here is another study proving my point further: https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu... R5: CasesHere my opponent conceeds that if background checks (a form of gun regulation) were to have been furthered, both the Fort Hood Shooting and Naval Yard Shooting would have been prevented. In fact, he almost furthers my case: Hasan had people investigating him, same with Alexis. The failure of the military and FBI to deem them unfit for weapons carry results in them gaining and utilizing their arms. Other factors were an issue here (personal psychology) however, in both cases, both were displaying troubling behaviour, which caught attention, and no one decided to act on it. This argument highlights why gun control needs to go further. They both had guns, and should not have been able to aquire them, and if they were unable to have posessed those weapons in the first place, the crisis could have been averted. Worse yet, personally, I cannot think of a more bold move than having a shooting right where the military is. Literally, the most armed group one can find. If the logic of my opponent was correct, this would never have happened, as the military is most heavily armed. It still happened regardless. In particularly bold fashion too for both cases. R6: CausationI just wanted to remind everyone reading his, that causation can be established through several methods when statistical significance is shown. If we were to roll dice over 100 times, we would have an equitable distribution among numbers, meaning no statistical significance is shown (its falling where its suppose to with chance). If thew dice were loaded, then statistical significance would appear, thus showing something is up with the data, the distribution isn't being hit, and thus we have to examine the dice. My Harvard studies show statistical significance with gun control. Its pretty clear: less guns, less crime. http://en.wikipedia.org... Meta analysis on the issue: http://jonathanstray.com...; And for your comedic pleasure. Please enjoy this (funny) comedian take on gun control. Cheers guys! (source: ) Over to my opponent

The government should not infringe on the Second Amendment Obama is far from the solution on Gun Control. Why should people tell me what to use to protect my family. if it's an AR-15 or a double barreled shotgun that I use, it should be fine. The NRA is closer to the solution than the Liberals are on Capitol Hill are. The 2nd Amendment says 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 person with a gun is a lot faster in dealing with an intruder than the police.An average time for police to respond to a 911 call is about 4 minutes and a private citizen response is about 30 seconds. Which one is faster and gets the job done quicker?

Your statements, though well thought out and very well put, have a lot of holes. A Militia is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.”. The last time I checked, the people in America are ordinary citizens. How is what I said distorting the spirit of the 2nd Amendment? Just curious. Secondly you discuss the Brady Bill. How again does the Brady Bill make people safer? 600,000 gun purchases have been blocked since 1993. So what? The fact of the matter is people get denied by the Brady Bill for stupid reasons. The “Mental Issues” you talk about can be as simple as being prescribed Prozac once in your past. Why can’t felon’s get fire arms legally? Think about it. They go to prison for their crime, they pay their debt to society, and we still treat them like criminals? Our prison system is set up so you do your time, get out on probation, complete your probation, then you begin life anew as a regular citizen again. At the very least we would know they have the guns! I would rather a ex-con have a gun and I know about it rather than not knowing. The violent criminals that get denied a gun, you think that will stop them from killing somebody, or even getting a gun? I have never seen a Crypt or a blood standing in line at Sports Man’s Warehouse. Drugs are illegal, yet it is easier for me to buy drugs than to renew my driver’s license. I am a citizen in good standing with the law and I can probably buy a gun cheaper and easier illegally than legally! I know you have heard the old saying: “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” It rings true today. The Brady Bill stops people from owning guns that are being judged by the worst thing they have done in their life. What is the point of the justice system if we don’t rehabilitate anyone? Every felony should result in the death penalty if you think that way? If you believe in the American justice system then you are against the Brady Bill, bottom line. Do you want to be like Germany in the 1930s? How about Russia under Stalin? Firearm bans are one of the steps to a totalitarian state under governmental (military) rule. Private ownership of firearms tends to keep government in check. Denying anyone a gun is criminal. Gun control laws protect governments, not people. Boston put a 18-month minimum sentence for possessing an unlawful firearm in 2006, stabbings jumped up 10 percent. Shootings declined 12%, but the number of violent attacks didn’t drop. That didn’t work. Murderers and violent criminals will find a way. Rather than restrict guns, we need harsher punishments for violent crimes. But the same people who don’t want you to own a gun, don’t want to kill killers. We shouldn’t have people on death row for over a decade, we shouldn’t have them on death row for over a month! How is the death penalty a deterrent? It isn’t anymore. Rather than keep guns from private citizens we should look to prevent the crime in the first place!

I believe gun control should not be a thing because there are numerous ways to get guns. 1. Make it yourself 2. Buy it Illegally 3. Become a police officer There's probably even more. So if a guy decided that he wanted to have a gun for recreational purposes he would go through the background check after he got a gun license. Like all licenses it needs to be renewed. Now on the off chance he became angry or started having criminal thoughts he might rely on his already registered and purchased firearm. so it would be easier to find out who's gun it actually is. now when he decided to do this since guns you can freely carry around a bystander who is closer than the police who figures this out can respond except for the fact you can't go inside anywhere with a gun just stand on public state property, a firing range and legally be able to shoot it or your own property. so if they were banned but someone illegally got their hands on a gun it would be like handing a stick of supreme power over any innocent bystander.

I thank Con for their response. I was expecting to debate a Pro-gun person who favors unlimited application of the Second Amendment. I did not wish for this to be a strict guns vs. no guns debate. That is my fault for not structuring the debate properly. I still disagree with my opponent's position though, so I will continue with my rebuttal and conclusion. First, Con suggests that the Second Amendment was meant keep states safe and is now obsolete. As an example, Con explains that 18th Century America required a rapidly deployable citizen army for its defense, which is no longer needed now that we have the US Military. Con overlooks the fact that 18th Century America had an established Army, Navy, and Marines (obviously no Air Force) at the time the Constitution was drafted. Early America did have armies and navies to protect it, yet the founding fathers still saw it necessary to protect the right of the people to bear arms. As part of this argument, Con suggests that the US is no longer threatened by attack as it once was, and therefore the Second Amendment is obsolete. This is untrue. America faces just as many, if not more dangers than it did in 1787. There is neither room nor time to describe them all here. Even if my opponent's claim was true and the US faced no danger, that is still no reason to surrender your rights. The NSA used a similar argument to justify their wire tapping operations - "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear from us monitoring your cell phone." Con's argument can plug along the same line - "If you have no reason to defend yourself, then you have nothing to fear by abolishing the Second Amendment." Rights exist to protect us in unanticipated circumstances. Just because you have no reason to protect yourself now does not mean you won't 5, 10, or 50 years later. Just because you have nothing to protest right now doesn't mean you should forever surrender your right to assembly. I propose therefore that Con's first argument does not make a convincing case why the Second Amendment is obsolete, nor does it accurately represent modern threat levels. It also does not convincingly explain why we should abolish this right, even if it was no longer immediately necessary. Second, Con suggests that the text of the Second Amendment applies to the security of the state, not individual people. I propose the correct interpretation of the text is that a state's security is directly linked to the people's right to keep and bear arms. It therefore follows that a state's security is at risk if its people cannot keep arms. For that very reason, I advocate mandating proper training and qualification for all citizens who choose to bear arms, which is what this whole debate is supposed to be about. Finally, my opponent suggests that if we really need to defend ourselves we should just carry knives or use karate. The problem with this is that knives and karate will not protect you against a bad guy with a gun. If the right to own guns is abolished, bad people will still find ways to carry them. Telling citizens to protect themselves with martial arts is not very comforting in a world where bad guys still have easy access to illegal guns. I would also propose that having a society where everyone carries knives, daggers, and swords around does not seem like a satisfying alternative. In conclusion, this was not meant to be a debate about whether people should own guns. It was meant to be about whether people who choose to own them should be required to undergo stricter training and qualifications. Nevertheless, I believe my rebuttals have successfully addressed and countered all of Con's arguments. Thank you.

Now, as the affirmation on this argument, i normally would be fighting the uphill battle against the current laws and precedents set by the courts of the United States of America. The Second amendment, is quite possibly the most controversial guaranteed privilege in the entirety of the Constitution. It's exact wording, is as follows,"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. " However, as we are debating whether or not to ban guns, rather than the more common, whether or not banning guns is legal, I am freed of any arguments on the legal side, i therefore may shift this debate to philosophy and morals, rather than a debate centralized on judicial precedent, and legal wording. Now, what is a gun? A gun as defined by Webster's dictionary is: "a weapon that shoots bullets or shells. " Well, how do we define a weapon then? A weapon is defined as follows, "something (such as a gun, knife, club, or bomb) that is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you. " We suddenly can derive a very clear picture from a philosophical vantage point. A gun is either a weapon that we would use to attack someone, which is bad to do, or as a tool to defend ourselves. Now, any gun advocate or supporter would tell you the merits possessing a gun in a defensive situation, yet, the opposite appears to be true. A study conducted by the CDC found that with gun usage, simply possessing a firearm would increase the risk of death three-fold and the risk of accidental death, and or suicide by a tenfold increase. Any increase in death, is certainly not good and as guns seem to increase the chance of death of the actual owner, does gun ownership really keep responsible people safe? Furthermore, if hypothetically we could were to remove every gun off of the street, we would not need a gun to defend ourselves with. And this would drastically drop the risk of homicide as a disturbing study revealed that one in ten people with sever anger issue has access to a gun, and up to 20% of those people, are armed at all times. To conclude, we simply do not live in a society that requires everyone on the street to be armed, and the truth is, as long as people have access to dangerous weapons such as guns, no-one is safe. Armed or not. Thank-you con for the opportunity to debate, and i wish good luck in the next round Sources: . http://www.pri.org... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://wellness.gwinnettmedicalcenter.org...

My opponent has slandered my argument as incomplete and fundamentally flawed. This is a misguided attack, and voting pro still means you support coercive laws that threaten the lives of ordinary citizens. My alternate solution is simple: restore everyone's right to defend themselves to the fullest extent. As I showed, gun restrictions do not deter criminals -- but the threat of being shot in retaliation often does. Furthermore, guns do stop crime -- conservative estimates are in the tens of thousands, and generous estimates are in the millions (. http://rense.com...). By restricting gun ownership, you would condemn thousands, if not millions, of innocent people to death and violence. Ultimately, the right to self-defense is a basic requirement of human flourishing. The right to self-defense reqiuires the right to choose the best means of defending onself. By violating this fundamental right, gun control measures threaten the lives and prosperity of millions of innocents -- and this is profoundly immoral.

"It is true that if someone came up to a school with a semi-automatic, the school would probably be notified and a lock down would be held. However, holding a lock down does not necessarily mean that the school has a high enough advantage to prevent the shooting. This was grimly shown in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012, when Adam Lanza, armed with three semi-automatic firearms, killed twenty first-grade students, four teachers, the school principal, and the school psychologist at Sandy Hook Elementary. He killed his mother earlier and himself when the police arrived, bringing the total death count to 28." Right- that's why the teachers and principle should own guns, because simply locking down the school and hiding unarmed in a dark room with a bunch of kids isn't going to be as effective as say- shooting the intruder. "Also, why would a totalitarian government arise from our own? A president could become corrupt, but without the approval of the Congress, he would not have any tyrannical power. Besides, a dictatorship rising from a democratic first-world country would obviously attract attention from other countries." Yeah because when Obama used an executive order to grant legal status to 5 million undocumented immigrants, congress stopped him. Oh no wait- they didn't? You do know that our own goveronment ALREADY IS tyrannical right? It's already here, immident domain, NSA spying, Obamacare, we are living under the tyranmny right now man. "Third, the military and government already have much more advanced guns than citizens. The military had access to machine guns the 20th Century, and citizens still don't have access to fully automatic rifles. The government will most likely always have more advanced weaponry than the citizenry."That's why we need the citizens to have absolute right to gun ownership. "Finally, most adults (Even most gun owners) agree that there should be extensive background checks for private gun sales. 40% of gun sales are private party gun sales that do not require background checks: Someone who is mentally ill or has a criminal record (Even a felon) could get ahold of a gun. 90% of gun owners approve of laws that prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns. 79% of gun owners also approve of background checks for private party gun sales."Almost no one is going to disagree that mentally ill people shouldn't own firearms, but no one sits down and wonders about the implications or specifics. For example- who decides who is mentally ill? The goveronment? It is very clear that this could be misused, and thus we sould base backround checks on a principle called "right to chose." Meaning, if the goveronment makes public records available to gun salesmen, and they as individuels bacround check someone, and find that they are a felon or a chitsophrinic maniac, then they have the right to chose not to sell him a gun.

I think the right to own guns should be abolished. Let me cite the Second Amendment. "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." The security of a free state, not the security of a person. Back in the day when USA was a young country, they were constantly under threat of other European superpowers, such as Spain and Great Britain. So owning a gun was a great idea during that time. Why? When a foreign country invade America, they could gather the militia, form an army, and defend their land. Now we have US army, USAF, US marine, US Navy, etc. So what's the point of owning a gun when we have the armies protect us? Now to the security of a person. There's many evil people out there who like to do evil stuff, such as rape, stealing, killing, etc. You can defend yourself without a gun. Ever heard of knife? You can get those at Walmart. Even if you don't have a knife, why not just go to the martial art class?