Question: Should Individuals Be Granted the Right to Conceal Carry a Firearm?

The Right to Concealed Carry

In this debate, I will argue in favor of the resolution that adults should have the right to carry a concealed handgun. I will present two main points to demonstrate why this right is beneficial for both individuals and society.

Firstly, the deterrent effect of concealed carry is significant. Criminals are less inclined to attack someone they suspect might be armed. This not only protects the individual carrying the handgun but also the general public, as criminals are uncertain about who might be armed. According to Dr. John Lott's study, "shall-issue" laws have led to a decrease in homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argues that if states that did not permit concealed carry in 1992 had allowed it in 1977, between 1977 and 1992, 1,570 murders, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies could have been prevented. While these figures may seem small, they represent significant losses for the affected families.

Secondly, concerns about the public's ability to handle the responsibility of a gun are unfounded. The majority of adults who own concealed handguns are law-abiding citizens. This is supported by a report from engineering statistician William Sturdevant, published on the Texas Concealed Handgun Association website. According to the report, the general public is now 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses compared to before. This data refutes any argument suggesting that the public is not capable of handling the responsibilities of gun ownership.

In conclusion, the right to carry a concealed handgun benefits individuals by providing a deterrent against crime and protects the general public by reducing crime rates. The majority of concealed handgun owners are responsible and law-abiding citizens, further supporting the argument for the right to concealed carry.

Gun control, defined as the banning of fire arms, is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment clearly states that it is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they inserted this into the Bill of Rights. We need to be able to legally defend ourselves. People who feel that they are above the law, essentially criminals, will go to any means to see their goals come to pass. That could mean obtaining guns on the Black Market, or finding their own means of violence. Stabbings, beatings, and bombs would simply become more common. There are already laws set in place to control violence, and if criminals don't follow these, it would be ridiculous to believe that they would follow the new potential laws.

A gun owner who haves a current CCW permit in his home state. Should have be liberty to travel through all States without the fear of prosecution .

FYI)I must admit, I was laughing when you said the word karate. There are variety of martial art. So I guess the counter that... Rebuttal 1) "Gun owners own weapons for personal protection in many cases" Thieve...rape......etc.... There is a reason why there's CCTV (The security camera), police, and law. I'll keep this short since it's a weak rebuttal. 2)"One untrained person trying to do the right thing and neutralize the shooter would actually make the situation worse" The Pros mention the school. Ok. The teacher is not allowed to carry guns to schools, nor the student. So they're basically defenceless. So what do you want them to do? Surrender and get shot? Or get a lucky hit by throwing a scissor at the shooter? 3) "The state security is directly linked to the people's right to keep and bear arms." Security has nothing to do with the people's right. 4) ".....Not very comforting in a world...." I thought we're talking about America? 5) "I would also propose that having a society where everyone carries knives......around does not seem like a satisfying alternative" Better than nothing. Nothing else to say. GD

My question to con would be, what does power have to do with politeness. Con has compared power to being well mannered, are civil. This is an argument that has little to do with the initial subject. one can have power and still be polite. If The power argument is to be taken into account, then one must understand that if all are armed the power is then shared. In retrospect, there have been many of people with power that were very polite. Just check history. Mafia bosses are a great example.

R1: Acceptance, Opening Position* R2: Argumentation R3: Rebuttal, Argumentation R4: Rebuttal, Argumentation R5: Closing Statements, No Rebuttals, Summary of your Argument** *Opening Position: This is a short explanation as to why people should want to take your view. It is not your main argument but think of it like a thesis statement. **Summary of your Argument: This is an encompassing view of your argument. Basically if a person didn't want to read the rounds your argument should be clearly stated and easily grasped in this statement. It will make it easier for the readers as it's comprehensive and ignores the verbal jousting. -------------------- If one accepts this debate they agree to use this rendition of the 2nd 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.", and while this may be interpreted no other form of this particular passage can be used in this debate. Opening Statement: I affirm that all citizens, within sound limitations, have the right to bear arms as a means to maintain the peace of the State in case of marshal law or the failure of the State to provide adequate means to protect. I affirm that "well regulated" should be interpreted as community oriented and not governmental no different than a neighborhood watch. I affirm that any laws that would detract from the right to protect the sovereignty of the individual and their neighbors is an infringement against the Constitution.

Okay. Let's dance. You seem to put a bit too much faith in the legal authorities and their ability to respond in a timely manner. The problem is that when seconds count, they're only minutes away at best. (First, you have to be able to physically dial 911, then it's the "Hello, 911. Police are being dispatched." *Police are called up and a patrol car deployed*, *Distance and traffic*) The sudden attacks would still happen, but the police can be somewhat lax in arriving quickly, because they're going to spend more time identifying the bodies than securing the perimeter, because the people that did have guns and didn't get shot are going to be shooting the idiot. Also, individual establishments are entirely free to say "Keep your guns holstered/sheathed," or make patrons check them at the door. Here's a trick, though. Were we to let the arms industry in fully, someone would take them aside and point out that maybe they should include an instruction manual that has the words "Don't be an idiot" in big bold letters printed somewhere on it. Protip: Fictionland is always being threatened by its neighbors that covet its wide tracts of land. Sure, they're at peace right now, but what of the moment after the next? You are assuming that the gun is going to be used for self-defense. There are some that use it more often as a fashion accessory, which says to the people around them. "I am armed and know how to use it." This has a side-effect of deterring the common gain-motivated criminals, who upon realizing that at least one person in the area is armed, will stop to reconsider their plan to rob the place. Who said it had to be a psycho planning on killing things? Seeing as most common criminals rely on intimidation to do their dirty work, having another gun pointed at them is a blow to their plans on the level of "We can't do it now." Would YOU go into a building with at least two guns you know of with their wielders having more than enough justification to shoot you?

I completely understand where you're coming from with the firearm definition.The other clarification that I would like to make is campus is High, Middle, and Elementary Schools.Constructive SpeechContention 1: InherencySchool shootings are tragic occurrences that have become far too common in our culture today by many standards. In light of some of the most recent events involving school shootings in Philadelphia, New Mexico and Colorado, as well as the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, some state legislators are considering a new approach to the problem: licenses that allow educators to carry concealed weapons onto campus. The first known school district to institute such a policy was the Harrold Independent School District in Harrold, Texas, but numerous other districts have followed suit in recent years, with other districts considering the possibility rather seriously. Contention 2: HarmsAccording to [1] since 2000 there have been 179 school shootings in the United States of America. The fact of the matter is that we as a country are allowing these killers to enter school and kill students. This harm is completely unacceptable. As a country we need to develop a plan that reduces these crimes. The Affirmative Plan Solves this.Plan:Plank 1: Madate: The United States should implement a plan in which all High School, Middle School, and Elementary School teachers will be required to know how to use and operate a handgun. This plan should also implement teachers taking a firearm saftey course.Plank 2: Mechanism: The United States will implement this plan by requiring all teachers to learn how to operate a handgun. This will require a handgun saftey course. Plank 3: Funding: The funding for this plan will occur through a 1 penny increase on gas. According to think progress [2] raising gas 1 penny will transfer to a 5.8 billion dollar payday for the government. By requiring the Government to implement a gas tax, we can make enough money to pay for a handgun. On average, the typical handgun cost's between 500-800 dollars [3]. Plank 4: Enforcement: This plan will be enforced through the United States Department of Education, then transfered down the Each and Every School District to enforce this plan.Contention 3: SolvencyThe plan solves school shootings.This plan, will increase the amount of firepower that is on school grounds. Countries like Switzerland [4] that require all citizens to own a handgun have the lowest crime rate of all counties in the world. As John Czarnecki PhD of Forensics at the University of Colorado Boulder once said, (2014) "The threat in public of law abiding citizens having weapons, and the training to do so, will always deter shooters not to follow through with what they plan on doing." Switzerland requiring all citizens to own a handgun deters the threat of violence.School requiring teachers to have a handgun with them in class, will show shooters that there is more teachers with weapons to protect the students than him/her. This will deter them from ever stepping onto school grounds with the thought of killing students.In the end, having proposed a thorough plan, and 3 contentions to back up this plan of the need for teachers to have firearms, I arge an affirmative ballot in today's debate. Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://thinkprogress.org...[3] http://www.cabelas.com...[4] http://www.elist10.com...

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.

Alrighty then. Let's get started. First of all, I'm going to ask a question. What is a gun? Well, it is a weapon. Technically speaking the very discharge of a firearm is a violent act, even if no living organism is harmed In the process. But, guns can be used for purposes which either harm an organism or do not harm an organism. Guns can, thus, be thought of as a physical manifestation of power. The idea behind gun control is that human beings, who have violent tendencies, should not be entrusted with this power, which can be used to hurt or kill one another. While human beings are violent, we can be restrained through factors such as the development of a sense of morality, religious belief, fear of legal repercussion, the fear of the other guy shooting back, etc. Thus, the statement that humans are violent isn't necessarily true under all circumstances. Likewise, this power can be used to protect ourselves and others from those who seek to harm us. In this way, power is a double-edged sword, one that need not be feared in the hands of the majority as long as the majority of people are "good". Also, removing this power from the populace is problematic, because the Government that put such a restriction in place still possesses guns, and more sophisticated weaponry. What results is a power imbalance; the Government has power and the populace does not. As long as the Government is benevolent, this is okay. However, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. What if, after 2,000 years of being a "good" Government it suddenly corrupts and turns on the populace? What then? Because Governments also have a potential for evil which cannot be wholly eliminated, there is no logical reason to trust solely the Government with power. It makes about as much sense as the U.S. Federal Government eliminating its own checks and balances so that power may be concentrated in the hands of one branch. Because neither the populace nor the Government can be trusted entirely, there should be a system of check-and-balance between the populace and the Government. That is, the Government would be powerful enough to handle a minority, but not the majority. The majority will remain good as long as that which society endorses, values, expects, teaches, and enforces is good. In a moral society the majority will be moral. If the majority of people are good, then a minority group of "bad" people will be few in number whenever attempting something bad. Being few in number, bad people can be suppressed by the Government. Likewise, when the Government turns bad, the majority will turn on the Government. Since the Government would not have the power to defeat the majority, it would be defeated and the majority could re-establish a good Government in the place of the corrupted one. However, the populace's power would rely upon them possessing not only weaponry, but every instrument used by militaries to increase power. This includes logistics, communications, mobility, and the likes. Thus, I argue that not only do gun laws need to be weakened, but that civilians should have access to much more powerful weaponry than they do. Civilians should have access to assault rifles, rocket launchers, armored vehicles, tanks, fighter and reconnaissance aircraft, advanced communication, armed drones, secure bunkers, advanced early warning systems, and the likes. An important balance must be preserved between the populace and the Government, with the populace having the upper hand at all times. It is the democratization of power, and it is good. Thank you.

Extend all arguments. I have refuted my opponent's claims by showing that the Fourth Amendment was made for public usage of firearms. Therefore, there is no general right to bear arms as my opponent makes the claim. My opponent made the claim for private usage of firearms and I have refuted that claim.


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

On Campus Concealed Carry: The Case Against

Concealed weapons on campus are unnecessary and may even increase crime, detracting from the educational environment and potentially causing confusion during emergencies.

1. Campus Safety: Contrary to popular belief, college campuses are generally safer than surrounding areas. According to a 2002 Justice Department report, crime on campus is 20% lower than the national average for individuals of the same age as college students, and 93% of violence against students occurs off campus (Source: <http://www.bradycampaign.org...>). This demonstrates that concealed carry laws are not needed on campus, as crime rates are already low.

2. Mental Stability and Gun Ownership: Students who own guns are more likely to be mentally unstable and engage in risky behaviors. Studies show that students with guns are more prone to binge drinking, drug use, DUIs, vandalism, and clashes with the police (Source: <http://www.bradycampaign.org...>). This suggests that allowing concealed carry on campus could lead to an increase in crimes, as students with access to guns are more likely to engage in felonious behavior.

3. Educational Environment: Concealed weapons would create an aura of fear and mistrust on campus, detracting from the educational environment. A study found that 71% of people would feel threatened by an increase in guns in their community, and 85% of non-gun owners oppose the spread of guns due to concerns about mistrust and reduced security (Source: <http://www.bradycampaign.org...>). This fear could decrease educational freedom and limit interactions among students.

4. Confusion and Increased Loss of Life: Increasing the number of guns on campus could cause confusion during emergencies, potentially leading to a greater loss of life. In a hypothetical scenario where a shooter enters campus, students may also arm themselves, making it difficult for police to identify the actual threat. If only one shooter is armed, police can easily identify and apprehend the individual, minimizing potential harm.

Rebuttals: The rarity of campus shootings and the potential for increased police security make concealed weapons unnecessary. While some campuses with concealed carry permits have not experienced major incidents, this may be due to low gun prevalence among students. However, there have been over 1,400 cases in Florida alone where CCW permit holders have committed violent felonies (Source: <http://www.bradycampaign.org...>). Additionally, most college students under 21 cannot obtain concealed weapons permits,

I apologize for not posting my round on time and for asking for a post early in my opponents turn. I regret that it may cost me a point, but it is deserved. In regard to my opponent’s first contention, I am not arguing that people should own nukes, missiles, and the like. But I am arguing is that under the current law, the government MAY NOT take away those rights at all. However, in regards to his comment about the drug cartels, laws already exist banning those items, yet the cartels have those items. Did the law stop THEM? Now, on to his second contention; He says that the original justification for the second amendment is that “the country were invaded, all the men of fighting age would grab their muskets and come to the defense of their country. ” He is correct and, except for the part of the musket, that is STILL the justification for it. My opponent has defeated his own argument with his own argument. And on to his third contention; he references the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). He says that if the second amendment were in play then it would just be BAT. In this case, I agree with him. The problem is that the second amendment is not in play. The whole problem with the current situation is that we have too many bureaus, departments, and czars with power over our right to bear arms. To this fourth contention I say that if you look at the third contention and see that his argument about the right “not coming from the second amendment” is false. The fact is that the second amendment is not in play, but should be. And finally, to his fifth contention, he said that “Public slaughter of school children and theater goers seems to be getting morepopular in our culture. He hit the nail on the headwith that statement. He pointed out the way to fix the problem. The problem is not the guns; the problem is the people. You should focus on the mental health laws of the nation, not the gun laws. In conclusion, my opponent has pointed out that the second amendment is not being practiced today. He pointed out the exact problem with the current politics of this nation. Today’s debate is about whether or not The Constitution is the law of the land or not. However, it is quite clear that it is the law of the land.

“ You did not address the majority of my argument, and simply refuting my my arguments does not prove your own point of view.”I only addressed what I wanted at that point, and I didn’t want to address all of it. “If the criminal doesn't have a gun, It shouldn't be too hard to hold him off or scare him away while the police are on their way.” Once again, criminals will have guns with them. They will not go in a place without a gun. So they will always have gun power over someone who doesn’t have a gun. “Guns used in defense frequently injure or kill innocent bystanders.”Guns do not kill people; the ill in the head who hold the gun and shoot people. I don’t think the gun pulls its own trigger. “ The primary source of the mafia's power is firearms. When a person is murdered, it's usually with a gun (according to the FBI, 60% of murders are with a gun).”Going back to my statement, taking guns away will not make anything safer. Look at Washington D.C. That city is one of the cities in the US that has the highest crime level. “Guns are dangerous, one mistake can be fatal. For example: "A guy had a S&W 629 (44 Mag.) that he wanted to dispose of after a mishap at the range. He said there was a loud bang when he tested his new ammo, (Chinese made),and the gun smacked him in the forehead, leaving a nice gash." "Jenn" 23 June 2010 Snopes.com, fortunately, this man didn't die, but he was rushed to the hospital and could have; the magazine exploded and could have easilly killed him and multiple bystanders.”That’s why you go through gun training before you get a license to own a gun. Some people are idiots, and they deserve to die if they are being irresponsible with a gun. You can’t save stupid from stupid. "for every burglar who is halted by the sight of a handgun, four innocent people are killed by handgun accidents" Nan Desuka faculty.mdc.edu As this person also states, People will be much more likely to escape a murder attempt if it is done with a knife or club.”Gun against a knife or a club, think about it, a bullet travels faster than you can stab someone or hit them with a club. It doesn’t make sense. I’d rather shoot the son of a gun than have a 99.9% chance facing death that day. “ 90% of burglaries are committed while no-one is at home, but if someone were home, he/she would not be expecting to grab a gun in defense, but the criminal would likely already have one in-hand, so guns for personal home defense aren't effective.“ I carry a gin with me all the time. And I have a rifle that is with me in every room I’m at. So if an unexpected intruder comes in, he will never see daylight again. “If someone were to show aggression towards you in the street, the time and warning it would take to draw your gun, turn off the safety, and possibly load would be enough for the aggressor to subdue you whatever his weapon may be, so guns for personal defense in the public wouldn't be effective either.”I disagree. To take the safety off takes only a second. When you place your hand on the gun there is a little button then you press. Then the gun is ready to fire. There are some guns that you can pull the trigger to unlock the gun from the safety. I decided this round I will rebuttle your argument. As you have complained that I didn't rebuttle all of what you posted.

"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.

First of all, id like to say that in the fourth&fifth round is when i will try and disprove his bill. For now i will simply give my argument. I disagree with the bill. I will state facts why. in 2013, 33,804 people died from motor vehicle traffic accidents " and 33, 636 died from firearms. With your way of thinking, should we not then try to ban cars? They are dangerous and can easily kill us. Guns may be used as a form of offensive strikes. But they are mainly used as a form of defence. People also use guns as tools to hunt, without guns, how would that happen? Our food rates may even go down. I propose a diffrent bill. Every person that ownes a gun should get a card, much like a credit card. But the diffrences is that everyone time someone buys a gun or bullets, he swipes his card. The card registers the gun and how many bullets one person buys. Every single person is only allowed to buy so many bullets a month. The card would register it. So whenever someone is in question of their guns and bullets, their card may be swiped by the police. It also holds ones gun permit. If the police find a gun on someone, they can scan the type of gun and the guns serial number, and find who owned it. Then they can investigate. Along with that, every year a gun owner must do a stress test.(a stress test, as it says, tests ones stress, allowing them to tell if the person gets angry easier.) If ones stress test it too high, their guns can get suspended for a time until the pass the test.

I will jump right in: 1. Guns are a constitutional right because they are both a symbol of power and literal power. In the early days of the United States, weapons were banned from the general public. Why? Guns are a symbol of power. If you own a weapon, you have the means for change and it is used to rise against tyrannical government. Ever since the first French Revolution and the Glorious Revolution in England, guns have been used to throw over oppressive government. If we take away guns, we take away the ability to rise against your government. To see the coming argument, guns can be used against the government, which is why I still leave out the use of automatic weapons. Normal weapons, when used en masse, can be used against the government. The majority of the population rising up against a fair government, however, is extremely unlikely and has yet to happen in history. 2. Guns are used for protection. When someone breaks into your house, the first thing you do is get a weapon and call 911. If there was no weapon in this equation, we would tell them not to call the police but the ambulance because there would not be people left to save. Taking guns out of the equation for protection in this day and age makes you more vulnerable than ever before. Having a weapon is key to survival against crime in the home. Without it, crime would spiral out of control. The police can't do anything because they can't be everywhere at once. Only the average person can protect themselves from crime. 3. Guns are to be used correctly. I make this argument, but also add this. I have a strong belief that guns should be regulated. No one with a past of crime, major potential for crime, and needs to be proficient in gun use and safety. There are too many people who don't know how to use firearms and so end up afraid of using them. This is another problem that I accept and should be fixed. Over to you Con and good luck!

"but some laws are out dated such as right to bare arms so I think that the U.S. should change some of it's laws". People should be allowed to bear arms, legs and tumies. People also should be allowed to bear firearms. This is not a gun debate. If you want to debate guns, then that's a different debate.If they are protesting AIDS, then they can reduce AIDS by eliminating homosexuality, but I digress, just like you do.It disturbed people but if they didn't like the noise, they could close their windows, which is what they probably did anyways since it was Late November during the protest and therefore, it was cold outside. As a result, they probably wouldn't hear the protest much if they were inside the apartment buildings.Writing notes or writing an editorial is one way to protest. But protest is also an alternative method to express someone's ideology. Also, a letter to the president won't effect your community much. However, a protest can.

The right to bear arms is absolutely crucial to individual freedom. The right is clearly set forth in the US Constitution in the second amendment. It is also extremely important in the idea that citizens should have the means to overthrow an oppressive government, if necessary.

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

Gun rights: I do not have a strong opinion as of yet. The purpose of this debate is to give me an opportunity to feel out my thoughts on this subject. Please read carefully. Clarification: 1: What this debate is not about This debate is not about gun control. This debate is not about the NRA. This debate is not about gun crime. This debate is not about gun deaths. This debate is not about gun safety. 2: What it is about: The second Amendment: Below are two of the versions of the second amendment, one passed by congress, the other ratified by Thomas Jefferson. The punctuation is different. “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.” (1) “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.” (1) What I would like to debate is the following question: Is owning a gun a natural right? Pro will argue that owning a gun is a right. I will be taking the position of Con, as I imagine there are more potential opponents that are Pro: Format: 4 rounds, 8,000 characters, 72 hrs. 1st round Pro may begin arguments 2nd and 3rd rounds for arguments and rebuttals 4th round for final rebuttals and closing statements. (No new arguments.) This gives pro an extra round. This debate is impossible to accept: Please comment if interested in accepting, please include a brief summary of your position. I will choose an opponent based on ELO, and summary of position. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...

The United States Government should not restrict our right to bear arms. Our founding fathers gave us this right not to form a militia but to allow our citizens to defend ourselves against an oppressive government. We should not allow our government to have the power to force our vote or opinions. The only thing preventing a dictatorship is the ability of our citizens to defend themselves. We cannot prevent an oppressive government by using pistols and other inferior guns to our military.


Question: Should Individuals be Granted the Right to Conceal Carry a Firearm?

On Campus Concealed Carry: Negative Case

Contention 1: Concealed weapons permission is unnecessary on campus. Although many point to incidents like the Virginia Tech shootings to justify concealed weapons, most college campuses are safer than other areas in the United States. According to the Justice Department in 2002, crime on campus is 20% lower than the national average for individuals of the same age as college students, and 93% of violence against students takes place off campus. This means students are safer on campus than in the outside world, demonstrating that concealed carry laws are unnecessary. Additionally, concealed carry laws may increase crime, as most college campuses are safe without the provision, while the outside world, which permits concealed carry, is not as safe. This suggests concealed carry provisions may contribute to higher crime rates.

Contention 2: Crime would increase on campus. Students who own guns are more likely to be mentally unstable and dangerous than nonviolent peers. Studies show that individuals prone to carrying guns on campus are more involved in risky behaviors like binge drinking, drug use, DUIs, vandalism, and clashes with police. This means that students who benefit from the law are prone to felonious behavior, and given that most students will not carry guns, and those who do possess them are more likely to engage in risky, illegal behavior, crimes on campus will increase. Allowing risk-prone students access to weapons could potentially increase violence and other felonies on campus.

Contention 3: Concealed weapons would detract from the educational environment of the school. Given that colleges aim to provide a safe, comfortable environment for students to obtain an education, permitting concealed weapons on campus would foster mistrust and detract from a student's ability to learn. A study found that 71% of people would feel threatened by the increase of guns in their community, and 85% of non-gun owners were opposed to the spread of guns because it would foster mistrust and lessen their security. This increase in fear would decrease educational freedom by minimizing educational interactions, so concealed weapons should not be permitted on campus.

Contention 4: Increasing the number of guns on campus could cause confusion and thus foster a greater loss of life. Consider a hypothetical scenario: A shooter enters campus and threatens a student, who proceeds to pull out a weapon of his own to confront the aggressor. Students nearby also begin to arm themselves and enter the ensuing fray because they feel their friends are in danger. By the time the police arrive, they cannot reliably

I don't think that's such a good idea. Did you miss the Virginia Tech shooting? If everyone had the right to own guns, which we do, there's no stopping anyone from robbing the bank and shooting someone or a teenager's suicidal attempt or school shootings, etc.

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

I welcome my opponent to debate.org; as a first-time debate.org member myself, I hope to be a good first challenger. I also wish to establish one rule for voters: "Decisions should be made on the content and resolution of the debate. Outside bias or information should not be factored into the decision unless brought up in the text of the debate." That being said, I will outline the case for Side Pro, supporting the existence of the US Bill of Rights" 2nd Amendment. I have two primary contentions. Contention 1: The Second Amendment is necessary for homeland security. Let us examine the text of 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." It is easy to jump to the latter clause, but the former "militia clause" is just as important. From this perspective, the Second Amendment prevents the US Federal Government from withholding firearms from a militia. But what exactly is a militia? Is it another word for the US Armed forces? Does any private paramilitary organization have the right to call itself a militia? Even worse, could terrorists consider themselves members of a militia, and thus shield themselves from all gun restrictions? Fortunately for US homeland security, militias are slightly more complicated. Looking at Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, clause 15 and 16, we find Congress has the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union." From a grammatical standpoint, the Militia is not only capitalized, but also given the preceding article "the." From a linguistic standpoint, this provides both a sense of authority to this militia, but denoting it as the one specific militia; one cannot create a militia for private use. Such a militia is not legally recognized as a militia by the government. With this in mind, what militias can Congress not take arms from? 1. The National Guard of the United States The US National Guard is arguably the US government"s greatest asset to homeland security. The National Guard operates via state-by-state branches and districts, able to deploy men and women to help individuals from any crisis, be it a natural disaster or another threat. Not only do these honorable individuals help rescue individuals from threats, but they also provide crucial security after disasters. Consider the recent Boston Marathon attack: various National Guard members immediately rushed to the aid of the injured and panicked. Afterwards, they helped search for the individuals responsible for the attack. Indeed, for their bravery, the state of Massachusetts awarded 14 members of the National Guard with Army Commendation Medals (1). In May of this year, members of the North Dakota branch of the National Guard controlled missile field security for "one of the nation"s three missile fields." In fact, the National Guard managed to safely cover an area the size of New Jersey (2). Such defense does require firearms, as in the case of a suicide bomber or a launch facility breach. For this and other needs of the National Guard, firearms are nigh necessary. The right to bear arms is then necessary to prevent the federal government (or the state government, under the SCOTUS doctrine of incorporation) from seizing the weaponry. 2. State Defense Forces Along with the National Guard, most states have laws in place authorizing "state defense forces," armed forces serving as adjuncts to the National Guard. These individuals are nearly as important as the National Guard with regards to promoting security and saving lives. Consider the 129th Rescue Wing of the California Military Department: since 1975, the members of this rescue division have saved over 1000 lives (3). In some cases, firearms are nigh necessary for these individuals. Without forces such as these having adequate firearms, lives could be at stake. In 1966, Charles Whitman, a crazed US Marine, murdered 16 people with a sniper rifle from the University of Texas tower. Austin"s police, without a SWAT team or a National Guard capable of putting down this threat, was left relatively defense. Sheer luck was a huge factor in taking Whitman down, as there were no properly armed men capable of taking him down (4). So to stop men such as Whitman, our legally recognized militias require the right to bear arms. It is for our security. Contention 2: The Second Amendment does not supersede gun control legislation. Under the precedent of District of Columbia v. Heller, the SCOTUS decided "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" (5). Thus, current opponents of gun control legislation have been quick to batter down any proposed gun control legislation as infringing upon Second Amendment rights. This is not the case. In fact, ANY constitutional right can be limited; the greater question is the degree of the restriction. The question of whether or not a right can be restricted to a certain degree is determined by the SCOTUS via one of two tests: the Rational Basis Test (established by 1819"s McCulloch v. Maryland), dealing with non-fundamental rights, and the Strict Scrutiny Test (established by 1938"s United States v. Carolene Products Co.), dealing with fundamental rights. Under the Palko Test, established by Palko v. Connecticut, as the right for a private citizen to own a gun is not "essential to a fundamental scheme of ordered liberty" (6), the right to bear arms is not considered a fundamental right. Therefore, the right to bear arms is treated with the Rational Basis Test. The Rational Basis Test has two components: 1. Does a government policy restrict/limit a citizen"s non-fundamental right? 2. Does the government have a legitimate state interest in enacting the policy? If the answer to the second question is "yes," the policy is constitutional. Therefore, the federal government can legally create a policy, such as a Federal Assault Weapons Ban for private citizens, with a legitimate state interest behind it. If someone sues the federal government, the SCOTUS should, by all previous precedent, consider the policy constitutional. The Second Amendment does not stop gun control from passing; the SCOTUS tests allow the right to bear arms to be restricted to a certain degree. In essence, my opponent"s issue with the Second Amendment is not due to the Second Amendment itself, but poorly written gun control legislation. Which brings me to" Refutation: My opponent"s main issue with the Second Amendment seems to stem from an alleged underlying contradiction between the right to bear arms and gun licensing. The right is supposedly "counter intuitive to any cohesive system." The main issue with this argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Second Amendment works. The Second Amendment, under the ruling of DC v. Heller, allows private citizens or members of militia, the US Armed Forces, etc. to own a firearm. It DOES NOT say the government cannot enact restrictions to ensure gun safety. The government can and has created such restrictions (see the Federal Assault Weapons Ban). If my opponent has issues with convicted felons reacquiring gun rights and then concealing purchased firearms, this is an issue with gun control legislation, and not the second amendment. I thus close the first speech for side pro, and eagerly await my opponent's first rebuttal. 1. http://www.nationalguard.mil... 2. http://www.nationalguard.mil... 3. http://www.calguard.ca.gov... 4. http://www.biography.com... 5. http://www.supremecourt.gov... 6. http://www.constitution.org...

I will proceed to argue on three points as examined in the opening statements. "I affirm that all citizens, within sound limitations, have the right to bear arms as a means to maintain the peace of the State in case of marshal law or the failure of the State to provide adequate means to protect", expounding upon this first I would like to explain what "Sound Limitation" is. I posit that the term refers to those who are mentally, physically, and emotionally stable as shown through a screening process which is imperative to firearm ownership. The person is also not at risk or in any particularly dangerous circumstances which would necessitate what may be considered "hasty use" of the firearm. With that covered I would like to explain what constitutes maintaining the peace with the use of firearms. I would posit that maintenance of peace can be argued to the prevention of crime, the education of proper management of weapons, the explicit knowledge that citizens are indeed armed which would deter wrongful acts of violence, and that the knowledge that a neighbor can intercept a problematic situation armed and trained is a boon to society. A properly educated, properly weaponized, properly capable set of persons would know not only how to operate a firearm, how to treat firearm wounds, how to manage and diffuse situations to prevent fired shots, and also how to tell who is and is not armed and what signs to look for in violent individuals. No different than a neighborhood watch these individuals would be able to fundamentally act on their own should the police not be available however it is acknowledged that the official force, if capable to intercede, should be called upon. Next I would like to define "Well Regulated"; I am arguing that the term refers not only to the proper management firearms and their safety but also the proper management of criminal situations (citizen's arrest) and the laws contained therein as well as proper protocol for confrontation if it needs to come to pass in order to minimize casualties caused by both crime and misunderstandings. Furthermore I would propose that additional boons be granted to those who choose to pursue further training in crisis management and in turn increase the value of the militia. In times of crisis (such as natural disasters) a well-trained force of citizens involves not only a set who can adequately defend themselves but also help one another. Finally I would insist that any law which would inhibit the right to self-defense through any effective means including weapons threatens the individual. I would insist that the removal of firearms is one such inhibition. I would say that if the government and Constitution are for the people there is no logical way for this to occur without being a direct infringement and threat against the people.

Okay. Let's dance. You seem to put a bit too much faith in the legal authorities and their ability to respond in a timely manner. The problem is that when seconds count, they're only minutes away at best. (First, you have to be able to physically dial 911, then it's the "Hello, 911. Police are being dispatched." *Police are called up and a patrol car deployed*, *Distance and traffic*) The sudden attacks would still happen, but the police can be somewhat lax in arriving quickly, because they're going to spend more time identifying the bodies than securing the perimeter, because the people that did have guns and didn't get shot are going to be shooting the idiot. Also, individual establishments are entirely free to say "Keep your guns holstered/sheathed," or make patrons check them at the door. Here's a trick, though. Were we to let the arms industry in fully, someone would take them aside and point out that maybe they should include an instruction manual that has the words "Don't be an idiot" in big bold letters printed somewhere on it. Protip: Fictionland is always being threatened by its neighbors that covet its wide tracts of land. Sure, they're at peace right now, but what of the moment after the next? You are assuming that the gun is going to be used for self-defense. There are some that use it more often as a fashion accessory, which says to the people around them. "I am armed and know how to use it." This has a side-effect of deterring the common gain-motivated criminals, who upon realizing that at least one person in the area is armed, will stop to reconsider their plan to rob the place. Who said it had to be a psycho planning on killing things? Seeing as most common criminals rely on intimidation to do their dirty work, having another gun pointed at them is a blow to their plans on the level of "We can't do it now." Would YOU go into a building with at least two guns you know of with their wielders having more than enough justification to shoot you?

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.

FYI)I must admit, I was laughing when you said the word karate. There are variety of martial art. So I guess the counter that... Rebuttal 1) "Gun owners own weapons for personal protection in many cases" Thieve...rape......etc.... There is a reason why there's CCTV (The security camera), police, and law. I'll keep this short since it's a weak rebuttal. 2)"One untrained person trying to do the right thing and neutralize the shooter would actually make the situation worse" The Pros mention the school. Ok. The teacher is not allowed to carry guns to schools, nor the student. So they're basically defenceless. So what do you want them to do? Surrender and get shot? Or get a lucky hit by throwing a scissor at the shooter? 3) "The state security is directly linked to the people's right to keep and bear arms." Security has nothing to do with the people's right. 4) ".....Not very comforting in a world...." I thought we're talking about America? 5) "I would also propose that having a society where everyone carries knives......around does not seem like a satisfying alternative" Better than nothing. Nothing else to say. GD

While what you stated is true, certain guns are banned and restricted from certain areas. In NYC a gun must be concealable and have proper registration. While i do oppose drug dealers strolling down broadway with a rifle in hand, i must state that this is once again going back to the concept of taking away rights. A person might keep a shotgun in their house in the rural backcountry but in the city, having a shotgun ready for annintruder in the umbrella rack is a crime

Well. the constitution can be bent becuase you can not and should not allow situations 200+ years ago to govern how the supreme law in the land dictates our judicial system.... at the time of the revolution due to hostilities btween the natives and settelers, native american raids were common. Hence the reason why most families kept guns....we just finished fighting a war with no guarentee to our nations future and the gov't couldnot afford to arm everyone...that is also another reason for the amendment... and another argument for the viability of altering the constitution is that this whole debate you have been defending an alteration of said constitution, becuae the bill of rights themsleves were added onto the orignal document... therefore since you aruge that the constitution must not be altered you should naturally be agaisnt any amendments to it... and seeing as the right to bear arms was an addition to the constutution, you must therefore concede defeat here...:D(obviously i do not expect you too or desire you too) When it comes to murder and guns reducing murder rates...I say that murderers will not think twice about going into a persons home who owns a gun, because( and you yourself stated this) that most murders are not pre meditated...holding a gun gives people an empowering feeling, which a bit of straw would not... Now my argument is that we cannot have complete freedom to bear arms, nor can we completely ban guns.... we must reach a compromise betweent the two sides

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.