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

Should there be a total ban on guns?

The argument that gun control laws would prevent criminals from obtaining guns is flawed. Statistics show that in 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. John R. Lott, Jr., a gun rights activist, argues that such laws take away guns from law-abiding citizens while criminals ignore them. In Chicago, despite a ban on gun shops, shooting ranges, assault weapons, and high capacity magazines, there were 2,089 shooting victims in 2014, including at least 390 murders. Approximately 50,000 guns were recovered by police in Chicago between 2001 and 2012, and more than half came from outside of Illinois.

Moreover, the claim that more gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns is also misleading. According to the CDC's "Leading Causes of Death Reports," between 1999 and 2013, Americans were more likely to die of heart disease, malignant tumors, diabetes, Alzheimer's, the flu, traffic accidents, and poisoning than to die from a firearm. Internationally, the US is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) claims that guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year, and 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families. Nelson Lund, a Professor at George Mason University School of Law, states that the right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life. Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense.

There are several problems with a plan to ban guns. The Second Amendment was made to protect the civilians from a corrupt or unfair government. The fact that a government could pass a law, or make threats, is the exact reason the Second Amendment was made. America is a democratic, not a fascist, country, and a law where police officers could search your house without a warrant and at any time would never pass. Furthermore, the punishments and the law itself are so extreme that it wouldn't be surprising

I believe that guns should be allowed to be held by teachers at school. First, the teacher would have to have the right amount of training and meet certain requirements before being able to obtain this weapon. I believe that the teachers that have obtained these weapons should have the training of how to use them, so they do not harm any of the people at risk in the process of using such a weapon. Secondly, the teacher must have the right safety precautions in motion. If they are to keep a fire arm with them, they will not be allowed to have the gun case unlocked any time, unless there is an emergency. Also, if they do unlock the desk there must also be a combination key to the lock on the gun trigger that has an easy set of numbers that the teacher could remember, e.g. their birth year. The school would also have the combination so that if there was a substitute teacher in the class that day, they would also have the combination. If the teacher had the gun in the classroom with them in an emergency, like the Sandy Hook and Columbine shootings they would be able to shorten some if not all of the death toll that would happen as well as keep a safer environment where the students and teachers would know that they were safer. This could ultimately lead to better grades because the students would feel safer, and there would be less fear through out the day of certain situations happening. Also, if the teacher felt like they were in a safer environment that would also have an effect on there teaching and could lead to them having a better teaching experience, and a more steady job and income. As well as the teacher may have more of an income because they are protecting their students and the parents might pay more to ensure that there is better protection for their kids. Overall, if a school were to allow teachers to have weapons in a controlled environment, it would lead to better grades, income and security throughout the school.

1.Bill of Rights 1a. Right to Bear Arms My opponent brings up the situations of a courtroom or school as a place where guns are not allowed. These are not topical to the debate, but I will go ahead and answer them regardless. A courtroom or school is a reasonable place to prohibit guns. A courtroom contains someone who is potentially willing to murder. For public safety, it is reasonable to disallow guns on the premises. In a school, students are unlikely to have guns, legal or not. The only viable reason a student would have a gun would be that they were actually planning on using it. However, neither of these applies to a plane. Take this into consideration: What is safer? A plane on which everyone has a weapon, or a plane on which only one person has a weapon? (Before I continue on this point, I'd like to point out it is possible to get a weapon on a plane, even with the TSA. Look at Adam Savage's recent experiences, he got two 12" razors onto a plane. As stated in my proponent speech, it is possible to hide up to 12" of explosive in a human body. These are simply undetectable by TSA scanners) If everyone can have a weapon, everyone can defend the plane. If only one person has a weapon, nobody can defend the plane, and the terrorist has the power. "What stops a terrorist from just killing as many people before being taken down?" The same could happen in a mall, or any other public place. It isn't exclusive to this debate and shouldn't be looked upon as a valid argument. Mass panic can be a problem, yes. If there is a terrorist on a plane, panic is going to happen. Regardless of whether or not you have a weapon, everyone is going to panic. The only difference is that with a weapon, you can defend yourself, and potentially eradicate the terrorist, allowing everyone to calm down. 1b. Unreasonable Search My opponent tends to compare my logic to other situations, so I will do the same. There is a massive war on drugs being done here in our own country. Obviously, someone has to have the drugs in order for them to be a problem. Is searching EVERY house and car in this entire country a good solution to this problem? No. Maybe it would be effective, and even eradicate drug usage in the U.S., but we simply cannot do it. That is what we give in exchange for having freedoms. My opponent specifically brings up the Underwear Bomber. The bomber was not caught by old scanners, and it has been proven that these new scanners also would not have stopped the bomber. These new scanners are simply security theater, not genuine security. "Would you, as a passenger, feel safe if you knew that many of the passengers on board were not searched just because they "seemed" or "looked" okay? Searches not only ensure safety, but the give peace of mind." In fact, yes I would. Both Israel and the U.K. use Behavioral Profiling as their method of airport security, and it's worked wonderfully. 2.Money Wasting My opponent states that almost all government agencies use money. The essential difference is that these agencies are not wasting money, they are using it proactively. The TSA is not. We need to pick the low-hanging fruit here, and get rid of non-essential money wasters. My opponent also brings up the idea of the TSA paying for these things with it's "revenue". Where exactly would the TSA earn revenue? They definitely don't sell anything. 3.Ineffective My opponent has requested a source. Here it is: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com... As my opponent pointed out, the article was posted in 2006 and may be a bit outdated. However, the problem persists. These new scanners, as I have mentioned countless times, cannot detect anything inserted into cavities, or any material that is nondense. Short of completely naked cavity searches, the TSA is not going to be able to stop every threat. My opponent has requested an alternative. As stated previously, the U.K. and Israel use Behavioral Profiling as a method of weeding out the terrorists, and it has proven effective. Dog sniffers have also been suggested as a viable alternative. 4.False Sense of Danger Sure, the media breeds a false sense of danger. They do that with a lot of things. Just look at product recalls, cancer stories, and the recent swine flu "epidemic". However, people tend to be wary of the media. They are not wary of the government. The government should not be breeding this false sense of danger! You claim that it is a real sense of danger. To quote an artice from forbes, "The odds of dying from a terrorist attack are much lower than the odds of dying from doing any of a number of incredibly mundane things we do every day. You are almost certainly more likely to die or be injured driving to the airport than you are to be injured by a terrorist once you're in the air, even without a TSA. Indeed, once you have successfully made it to the airport, the most dangerous part of your trip is over. Until it's time to drive home, that is." I'd like to thank my opponent for bringing up an impressive argument, I look forward to the rest of this debate. As I said before, if you would like sources for anything I said, just say the word. I'd be happy to provide them.

I believe that people should have assault weapon because the Declaration of Independence said that we have right to live, The Second Amendment said that the people the right to bear arms

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

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

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?

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.

I. Ban pistols Last round, I stated that during robberies (which occur more than house raids) the robber would switch to long guns and civilians would have nothing. That is the case my opponent is pleading for, and he has not replied to this at all except for saying civilians can buy long guns as well - which they would then leave at home, resulting in them still having no weapons at all. The fact that pistols are the go-weapon for murder and crime is simply because they are cheaper. Ban them and they will be replaced by bigger guns. I also don't see what my opponent does not understand about my statement here. Is it not clear that only pistols should be sold to civilians, as they provide the most excellent defense (you conceded upon that)? And that I am only arguing to ban those bigger weapons, which make a bigger threat to society? As for people running around publicly with a long gun, wouldn't you feel very threatened in a society like that? That is why it is unethical. The fact that it's inconvenient is another argument on my behalf, a reason why Con's idea of banning handguns should not be followed. On the hunting topic, Con presents no reply. He did not understand my analogy that hunting is seen as a profession, like being a soldier. You are enlisted and no longer a civilian if you wear the uniform. Hopefully Con will not ignore it this time. The case of an invasion is so extremely rare, but staying alive is more important than standing your ground. Immediate surrender is the best thing to do, maybe not for the country, but most certainly for the population. If anything, people can hand in their already bought long guns and take them home should an invasion actually occur. Civilians can join the militia, or just pick up their guns in state of war, but there is no apperent reason for them to have such weapons when there is peace. II. Second amendment Please, voters, my opponent hasn't even made clear what he is debating for. He is simply negating me wherever he can rather than being consistent in his visions. "Does gun control work?" No, and I have already said why you should ban long guns from civilians: it increases the potential threat a person can be exponentionally. "Pro argues that civilians should be allowed pistols because they can then defend themselves against government at all times, but democide doesn't work like that. It's almost always the gradual deprivation of rights to a group until their extermination, if these people were armed they could resist encroachment on their rights or at least have a chance. " That seems like a naive perception. Please give an example. III. Guns and crime I have immediately said in round one that I am not familiar with any statistics as I am not an American. How can I succesfully defend myself if you now alter the very rules you accepted? You knew I was not going to come up with statistics, and I allowed you to come up with yours. I must remind the voters that in round one, I have immediately said that stastics is NOT how I will defend my resolution. I have said that it is clear gun control doesn't work, as civilians are too stubborn. The ideal I propose is one that civilians would accept, completely trusting their government. My world is a hypothetical world, not an "ideal world" as con said it. A realistic world, which is better than the one we live in now. Neither do I want to disarm the citizen, or benefit the criminal. I do the exact opposite: I make a civilisation where the more lethal weapons are harder to get, and where civilians do not become a potential threat. My opponent concedes that his statistics in this point is useless, agreeing that he lumped together big and small guns with similar effects on criminals, proving it not to be a point for his case as there is no difference or distinct advantage in having a bigger gun rather than a small gun. 'False dichotomy' Again, Con, having guns solely at shooting ranges or being a huntsman (~soldier) is entirely different than being a civilian allowed to buy guns and consider them their own property, taking them wherever they want. "Easier for criminals" Con's source says that 40% gets their guns from friends and families. Where do the friends and family get their guns? I am also waiting to see proof as to why shopkeepers would need bigger guns rather than smaller ones. The article provided by con is simply built upon the idea that smaller guns could not have accomplished what the bigger guns could. Besides, we were lucky the Koreans did not fire at the crowd. Less rational people might have done so, resulting in the death of many. This case is rather unique as 1) no larger institution was present to intimidate the riot group and 2) the Koreans were civilians at its best, being rational enough to have mercy for your agressor. Con is an example of someone who would've "filled them with lead", and I'm sure many others think likewise. This is however not the good solution, and in this sole case Koreans have used the assault weapons in the only correct way that exists (in the hands of a civilian, at least). "Easier to solve" Look above to see comments on statistics. And I must admit that this point was kind of a last resort, my main arguments are the ones that count. That the people who own long guns does not matter was not related to this point, by the way. This is what I have literally said: "We are talking about whether or not the hypothetical world without long guns (being available to civilians) would be better, regardless and inconsiderate of how many people have actually bought a bigger gun instead of a smaller one." And my opponent negates the very title of this debate by saying that "it's [about] whether or not we should ban them." This debate is about the ethical question if selling any other guns than big guns to civilians. The fact that civilians would never agree to such a law is a fact, but does not matter! We are trying to reason, unlike civilians, and not trying to create a ban on big guns. We're discussing about whether the hypothetical world where no big guns are sold, is better than the world where they are. That is, completely theoretically and believing that the people will take whatever laws their juridical system desire. I am debating that this would have a positive impact on society, but that we couldn't make this plan a reality due to the lack of civilian co"peration. Con must agree to this, or else this debate serves no use at all. He cannot possibly alter my stance in the debate. Con however thinks straight-forward and pretends we're the government debating about a gun ban. This is realistic, but I like to think as John Locke would: the people need a government to rule them, as they are not capable of ruling theirselves. This debate is about what a good government should decide given that the population will have to follow their decisions, rather than oppose them.

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 my opponent for this debateLet me start of with my rebutallsCurrently, most states either prohibit guns on campus or allow universities to make their own rules about it Its fine whether a univerisity chooses to ban guns. If the educators feel there isn't an immenent threat, then there is no reason for students and staff to carry guns. I probably should have been more clear, but I will be arguing that there shouldnt be a state ban on CCW.The overwheming majority of college presidents and students don't want guns on campus.The source you provided only applies to the University of IowaIt would also make legitimate law enforcement more difficult The article is only saying that it makes the lives of cops harder. But, what if the shooter is stopped by a CCW owner? The life of a student is more important than making a cops life easier.I will now argue that CCW is beneficial at colleges.Gun bans only prevents legal gun owners from possessing guns Laws that restrict CCW only prevent legal gun use, because those who intend on using a gun illegally will ignore the rules anyway. In the link below, It shows how gun bans didn't work in stopping the killer. So another point, that CCW can prevent huge killing sprees from taking place.http://newscenter.berkeley.edu...2nd AmmendmentThe right to bear arms is in the 2nd ammendment. If all 50 states allow CCW, why should the rules be different when it comes to College?


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

The right to carry a concealed firearm should not be granted in all 50 states as it does not necessarily reduce crime.

Firstly, let's clarify the definition of the right to carry, which refers to the ability to have a concealed firearm in public areas. This definition should be adhered to throughout the debate. A case in point is a university that allowed concealed carry, but then reversed its decision. The board chairman stated that the decision to disarm law-abiding adults on campus was reasonable, rational, and responsible. The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators concurred, stating that there is no credible statistical evidence to suggest that concealed carry laws reduce crime.

Furthermore, the argument that if people were armed during the Columbine shooting, the tragedy could have been averted is not necessarily true. An experiment conducted by 20/20 showed that even with firearms training, selected students were unable to successfully defend themselves against an attacker. This suggests that even if people were armed during the Columbine shooting, they may not have been able to act appropriately in a life or death situation.

Moreover, the argument that with correct instruction, people can be prepared for such situations is flawed. As an example, driver's licenses require training, but teenagers still account for a significant number of car crashes in the United States. This is because it is impossible to fully predict the intentions of a person when they want to obtain something.

In terms of statistics, it is argued that the implementation of a concealed carry law in Florida in 1987 led to a decrease in crime rates. However, it is important to note that this must be directly correlated with the law. Additionally, the statistics provided show that firearm homicide rates increased by 15% and handgun homicide rates increased by 24% as a nation. This suggests that the increase in homicides in 49 states outweighs the decrease in 1 state.

It is also important to consider the role of the government in protecting the rights of its citizens. If concealed carry laws are implemented, how safe will society feel? It is the obligation of the people to give up a portion of their freedom so that the government can protect their rights. The government has already established institutions such as the Navy, Army, Air Force, State Police, and County Police to protect citizens' rights.

Concealed carry laws may create tension among people and allow individuals with harmful intentions to easily obtain a firearm. Instead, it is proposed that weapons be allowed in homes, but not concealed carry. This would ensure

"A right is an odd fluffy term that doesn't amount to much when examined with scrutiny."It only seems so because the word 'right' has been so thoroughly abused and perverted. According to the Declaration of Independence, rights come from God. The word has lost some of it's significance because many people believe that government grants rights, as opposed to merely defending them."Every person has self-evident freedoms."True, but the right to ownership of an atomic bomb is not even a freedom, much less a self-evident one."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."OR to the people, not AND to the people. This doesn't necessarily recognize a civilian right to atomic bomb ownership."the Constitution is not binding to citizens, only to those who swear to uphold it."But the Constitution recognizes the right to self-defense, as implied by the 2nd Amendment. Civilian ownership of an atomic bomb infringes on the rights of others' self-defense, because atomic bombs cannot be defended against in a practical manner."Even if it was binding to citizens, they have the freedom declared under the declaration of Independence to withdraw their consent and govern themselves as they see fit."That's right, but the Declaration of Independence only recognizes rights, it doesn't grant them. A right for civilian ownership of atomic bombs just doesn't exist, as opposed to the right of a government to own atomic bombs at the consent of its people. Ownership of an atomic bomb cannot be an individual right because it creates a "risk beyond a reasonable doubt to [your] neighbors (sic) property.""there are 65 examples in the United States alone [of safe release of atomic energy.]"Yes, from nuclear reactors, which are, by design, economically productive. This example does not apply to atomic bombs, which are designed solely for indiscriminate death and destruction that is not only wide-spread, but long-lasting. "the US government to date [h]as done $1,768,093,374 worth of damages due to improper nuclear bomb testing and uranium handling."That's merely an argument against improper testing and handling."All people have the freedom to safely own nuclear weapons and it is immoral for anyone to infringe upon that freedom."All people encompasses delusional psychotic people. Because of this simple fact, your premise is wrong.

Opening Statement: I deny that all laws that would detract from the right to protect the sovereignty of the individual and their neighbors necessarily infringe the Constitution. Moreover, the Militia referred to in the 2nd amendment has little to nothing to do with gun laws and regulations today (particularly, from a constitutional analysis).

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.

"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.

For starters, I would like to say that I agree with your opinion that criminals do and will obtain firearms illegally, proven by the statistic in my previous round (90% are obtained illegally). My question to you would be how do you think our country could even become "gun free" when we both agree that those who misuse firearms aren't even using guns that they acquired legally. That math just doesn't add up, and it shouldn't to you or anyone else either. Thinking it is possible to get our country "weapon free" (as you stated above) is even more ridiculous. How can we really define what a weapon is? I'm pretty sure if I really felt like it I could do some serious damage to an unsuspecting citizen with a baseball bat, possibly even murder them. The same could most likely be done with a steak knife. It is truly impossible to define exactly what a "weapon" is. There are many items used in our everyday lives that could be used to injure/kill another human being, yet none are considered weapons. You began your argument that we could all be in danger if gun control laws stayed the same, yet I would tell you to refer to my above statistic proving that the United Kingdom is actually a far more dangerous place to live, despite it's much stricter gun control laws. You stated that the fact is not legit due to the United Kingdom being smaller in area than America. I have yet to find the logic behind that argument. The people of America have the right to defend themselves, and yet some of us (yourself included) are fighting to take our own rights away. You stated that Americans having the right to protect themselves wouldn't matter "because if families are being attacked, than they are usually attacked by a gang, that owns more weapons and criminals." This simply isn't true. Out of about 30,000 gun-related deaths in America yearly, not even 1,000 are from gangs. Granted that some gang violence may not be recognized, logically it is tough to imagine that number ever reaching over 1,500. Also, gangs mostly kill members of rival gangs, not random, unprotected families just for the fun of it. The majority of homes that have been entered by armed criminals had the criminal acting solo, not with a gang. So that statement is just plain wrong. Seeing the lack of sources to back that up makes me wonder whether that is even a fact that you misread or if it is just something you thought sounded good to write in this debate. On the topic of gangs, you stated that "inequality causes people to join criminals, gangs." I would like to say that every human being has free will over their actions, and that nothing forces an individual to join a gang or become a criminal. There are always other, legal, alternatives for someone who may be a member of the lower class who may be struggling than to resort to crime. That statement is just giving an excuse for criminals instead of making them be accountable for their wrongful actions. Saying "the other problem is overpopulation and depression" has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate. Why do either of those topics have anything to do with the issue of gun control in America? Your only suggestion to keeping the public protected was law enforcement. Not only are police officers vastly outnumbered by criminals, but the duty of a police officer is to protect the public as a whole, not individuals. Although police will always respond to a 911 call, it is often too late to stop the criminal from already doing damage. Police officers have been protected by law (backed by the Supreme Court) in case of such scenarios. The Supreme Court also ruled that it is an individuals duty to protect themselves and their family until law enforcement can arrive. Saying that police "should track and haunt down criminals, terrorist, and the Illuminati" would be unrealistic if the police were forced with the duty of protecting every single citizen from criminals with illegally obtained weapons. All of your arguments either contradict each other, are just your opinion, or have major holes in them. You said you were a Democrat, yet claimed to have no knowledge of the gun control issue and didn't know which political party viewed the topic. You gave no real points arguing my stance and facts on the issue, just stated your opinion. You suggested that the real problem was the "Gini, ban of drugs, and a bigger education with psychological test." This is no solution to the gun debate, although you did mention that if it was your way, you would ban all weapons, a completely unattainable and unrealistic goal. Basically from this debate, I can tell so far that you are extremely unexperienced to politics and debating. I appreciate the effort, but suggest at least some real points/arguments for next round, backed up with facts. You literally showed no knowledge of the situation at hand. The fact is, guns save more lives than they take, by a significant amount (150,000 to 30,000, with about half of the 30,000 being from suicides, not homicide). Guns are a right of the American people, and taking them away (as you suggested) would be Unconstitutional. The firearm industry is properly regulated (as it should be), the real problem (as we both agreed) was the unregulated distribution of firearms to criminals. Using basic common sense, it would be plain stupid to take our right to bear arms away when the overwhelming number of citizens owning a gun use it 100% safely and legally, and have as much of a right to owning that gun as we do freedom of speech. (The typos I made inside of quoted material from my opponent were copied from his writing above, not on me.) Sources: http://www.encyclopedia.com... http://www.nytimes.com...

Well, how about if you have a gun and little kids, they don't know if a gun is dangerous or not they can pick it up and shoot themselves or you just by accident. Someone comes up behind a girl trying to tell her she dropped her wallet, the girl thinks its a rapist, 'bang' an innocent man just died because a women thought it was a rapist. Because lots of women say they get sexually harassed (stares) and women sometimes make false rape accusations It doesn't reduce rape just increases the number of women shooting people, good or bad people. Guns don't reduce crime, they increase the number of injuries and deaths and the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people is wrong to try telling that to the victims of school shootings, "no it wasn't the gun that did that to your school peers it was just that man' is not good enough argument. Also, guns make it easier for people to commit suicide, they have a gun and they are depressed, they aren't thinking and 'bang' they're dead.

I would like to accept. First, allow me to help clarify the terms. 1. "Gun control" shall be defined as a limit posed by the government that restricts a citizen's rights to own firearms. 2. The resolution can be rephrased as "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".BoP should be shared.I will be arguing for "The right of the people to bear arms should be limited."My main arguments:I. It is inherently dangerous for society to freely possess weaponry.II. Self defense is not a legitimate excuse to freely own all firearms.III. The NRA is not closer to the "solution" of ending all dangerous shootings than everyone else.IV. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was not meant to deal with the weaponry today. Therefore the right to bear arms should be limited.Thanks.

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...

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.

When it comes to illegality, the main question that should be considered is: does this have the potential to harm anyone OTHER than the individual using it. In other words, is this a victim-less crime? When it comes to matters such as marijuana or prostitution (tangents I'd prefer not to get into, I'm merely using them to illustrate a point) there is a potential for harm, but only to the people using marijuana or practicing prostitution. The right to inflict harm upon yourself is one that I will vouch for, as it is a personal choice. Weapons, on the other hand, have the potential for harm beyond just the people using them. In fact, they are designed specifically to harm anyone but the person using them. This now puts individuals with no willing association with the subject in question in danger. It's true that people kill people but, frankly, (to refute this old clichï¿½) they use guns to do it. This is why we should take all steps possible to keep guns out of everyone's hands; criminals and civilians alike (though shooting someone has the potential to make you a criminal, doesn't it?). It is absolutely ridiculous that you would need an automatic weapon to defend yourself. Even within the current context of handguns being legal, surely that's enough? In the kind of situation where one might need to use a weapon (and such situations are few and isolated), would you not want to minimize the amount of gunfire?


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

Restricting Firearms

I maintain that there should be stringent limitations on gun ownership. One might argue that guns serve useful purposes, such as hunting. Yet, only a mere 4.2% of the population engages in hunting, and there are abundant alternatives for obtaining meat from various farming sources. Moreover, the current measures such as shooting proficiency tests, written exams, background investigations, mental health assessments, and interviews with family members might not be foolproof. People can change over time, potentially evolving into threats. Thank you for considering this perspective.

Gangs and criminals still get guns, however it is more difficult for them to get guns" Yes but they will still get guns even in a 100% ban on guns existed, and an unarmed population is easy pickings for criminals. Do you want to commit violent crimes knowing nearly everyone is armed and concealed carrying? No, that's why criminals tend to avoid committing crimes in states that are the least armed. Of course violent crimes still exists in these areas, a large percentage of those crimes would have not happened or been at a lesser extent of the victim has been armed. > "Mexico's problems are mainly due to corrupt government officials and not their strict gun control. " It doesn't change anything, guns are illegal there and only the criminals have them. The people are unarmed and can't fight against the corrupt government or the drug lords. Why do you think the United States made the second amendment? For if similar corruption happened we would be able to fight it out in a revolution. (one which actually happened). Do you think of the Mexican population was as heavily armed as the Americans this huge corruption would of still existed? Well it's really up for debate but I know they wouldn't be walking on the people so hard. > "31.2 firearms are are owned per 100 people" That seems about true, but most of the guns are with huge collectors that have huge stockpiles. The gun industry there isn't very big with most of the firearms in Europe (Except for the Czech Republic) being manufactured before the 1990s..Not to mention the majority if the firearms are in residential areas. Whereas in some states almost every single person has a firearm and most firearms being under 5 and 10 years old. > " that's about 1/3 of France's population." And yet in a huge city like Paris there wasn't a gun in site to stop these terrorists. Not to mention no concealed carry laws. If 1/3 of the people in or around the shooting area had concealed carry pistols MUCH less people would of died. This is undisputed. >"even then a firefight in amongst the crowd of thousands would leave more injured than dead. " The Islamic terrorists were already opening fire on everyone, nothing more would change except for the victims returning fire. The only way "it would leave more injured" as if people started blindly shooting, and that doesn't really make sense. It wasn't pitch black and the terrorists saw enough to easily pinpoint people, the victims would easily be able to do the same. Trying to dispute this is nonsense. > "Most civilians are NOT TRAINED AGAINST PROFESSIONAL TERRORIST ATTACKS." Describe what "trained" means. Most civilians in France aren't trained? Or do you mean the entire world? Well if you are talking about France the gun culture there is nearly non-existent, of course people wouldn't be well trained.. If a system existed like America people would be "trained" enough. You have to get back to me on this one. "Guns and drugs are completely different, it is a lot easier to sneak drugs than guns." It's actually easier, guns can be broken down into tiny pieces and sent individually. You can also machine extra parts with only a few cheap metalworking tools. This isn't a source link but I am showing it to better explain my argument. http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com... Not to mention it usually only takes one or two small parts to turn a semi-automatic into an automatic firearm. Dogs can smell drugs and drugs are hard to hide. It's VERY hard to find metal bits and it's very easy to hide. "2. Better gun control will mean less accidental deaths by guns." Accidental deaths by firearms isn't an issue. Of course firearms should have an age limit (perhaps 18) and part of being an adult is being safe and responsible. This was the motto of American freedom, there are more dangers in the world but you are a free man. The nanny-state isn't going to look after you. So if someone is stupid enough to accidentally harm themselves with a firearm that's their problem, and it's not justification to have gun control. "More guns means more deaths, no matter how you look at the data doesn't lie" Yeah but you also need to realize that if someone was dumb enough to accidentally shoot themselves with a firearm they were probably going to die another way. So maybe 1000 more people die from firearm accidents, well 900 less people die from car accidents or drug overdoses. "America has 88.8 guns per 100 people and has the highest death rates by guns 16 times more than Germany. " Well American and European gun violence used to be nearly the same up until the 60's, but America started massively importing poor third world people.. Naturally gun violence is going to go up. Plus look at the most gun violent places in America.. Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore. All places with large densities of non-whites. Look at the places with the lowest gun crimes.. North Dakota,Wyoming, Maine,Montana.. They are all the whitest states in America with nearly exactly the same gun laws as every other state give or take. The same thing applies to Canada. >"yea I definitely would not give that guy a gun?" Some people are different, but we can't judge people based on looks alone. I do believe in restricting severe mental health people to firearms but that doesn't really count as "gun control" per-say. It would only limit a very small portion of the system. I rather not waste time arguing on this issue. >"The 70's were a different time and gun violence started to rise in the 60's and 70's. Gun violence as a whole started going up in the 70's and 80's.. Though it did spike in the 60's in some areas. >"The type of guns available were different as well as the amount of guns out there." Uhh no, you could buy fully automatic Ak47s in 1949.. You could also get machine guns with several hundreds round of ammunition and even miniguns in the early 1950's.. So yeah. > " takes precision, time, and patience, sometimes a cooperating helper. " A 15 year old with basic metalwork skills can make a majority of these parts. Heck most gun magazines have one pin between the magazine that can easily be sawed off to increase the magazine size. Another link (not source) to demonstrate. http://farm8.static.flickr.com... See the pin in the middle? Cut that off and now your weapon can hold more ammunition. This is one of the most popular firearms in Canada. See the irony with these gun control laws? > "Which means people that want to modify their guns to use for illegal reasons will have a tougher time doing so. Sure the Internet can teach you but Do it yourselves(DIYs) aren't always perfect or practical." A person with the determination to sacrifice his life to commit mass murder or similar terrorists crime will easily accomplish it. A gang will easily have a similar time. ----- > "Why wouldn't you want stricter background checks? " Because background checks only work on people with mental health issues.. Everyone else can easily bypass the system. Gangs get all the guns they want by having a "freshie" (A guy without a record) to purchase all the firearms and launder them. So it doesn't really stop anyone. It only impedes normal people who don't want to wait weeks to get their guns. "You should be mentally competent(cleared by a doctor) and trained about properly using a gun if you want to own one " Unless your IQ is 70 and you are really that stupid you aren't going to tell a doctor you have a mental health problem if it means never getting a firearm.. All it does is make people scared to admit their illness and they won't get treatment, and usually ends up too late if they do something stupid. Vision tests are already done every few years when you renew your driving tests. At this point it would get very tedious.. You are also giving me the idea that you think everyone is stupid and can't look after themselves. Word limit

In the following my refutations to the affirmative's arguments:Refutation of 1st Argument: Guns lead to a higher crime rateThe affirmative does not provide any evidence for this claim but instead only gives two examples of homicides that allegedly wouldn't have happened without access to a gun.The following study clearly refutes this claim. This Harvard study [1] with the title "WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?" shows not only that there is no positive correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but in fact shows that there is actual a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases murder and suicide decreases.According to the authors: "Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not."Furthermore: "Per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent."and “Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.”I strongly recommend everyone interested in the issue to have a look at the study.Refutation of 2nd Argument: It is not really that easy to defend yourself with a gunThe two given examples seem quite ridiculous. No one suggests a) not to use their common sense with regards to the decision when to use a gun to defend oneself and when it would be safer not to do so and b) not to go through some kind of training when owning a gun for the purpose of defending oneself. Everyone who prefers owning a gun has the responsibility not to act stupid. Furthermore some regulation could be introduced insuring that every gun holder undergoes some basic training.Refutation of 3rd Argument: Guns are very dangerous weaponsThe affirmative again contents that the number of homicides would come down with a ban of law because it is more difficult to kill somebody without a gun.The previously mentioned study refutes that. Two reasons that could explain this is:a) other weapons are substituted for guns b) criminals obtain guns in the black market. As i suggested earlier, criminals (by definition) are much less likely to abide by the law then non-criminals.With regards to children: Children shouldn't own a gun, nor should they have access to it. That comes back to the training and responsibility of the gun owners.In the following I will defend my earlier arguments:1) Every citizen should be protected against violent assaults. Since no government can provide perfect protection they should not prevent the citizens to protect themselves.The affirmative objection is that a stun gun would do the job. My response to this: If all criminals knew there are only stun guns out there, would they really be deterred from offensive acts of violence?2) A ban of guns is likely to lead to a higher imbalance in the distribution of guns between those who are possessing it for offensive purposes (e.g. to kill or rob somebody) and those who are possessing it for defensive purposes since the former will be more likely to ignore and circumvent the law than the latter. Thus citizens who want to protect themselves are ultimately the one who would be put in a disadvantaged position.The affirmative's objection is that "by banning guns, no citizen would own a gun and therefore cannot own it for offensive purposes. No one would be put at a disadvantage as both sides do not have guns."That claim fails to take into account the fact that - as stated earlier - criminals by definition are much less likely to abide by the law and thereby much more likely to own a gun than law-abiding citizens. Thereby a ban on guns would lead to a skewed distribution of guns to the favor of criminals.[1] http://www.law.harvard.edu...

But if the students do not know the teachers have a weapon how would they get it? they wouldn't! if the teachers have a concealed weapon( even maybe just a knife) they could help prevent deaths. Now im not saying things could go wrong, because well they surely could. That is why i think it would be important for people interested in being a teacher they must get a mental test done to make sure they are mentally right for a teaching job.

The intent of my position is to demonstrate that it would be a good idea for the government to ensure people are properly trained and certified before being allowed to purchase a firearm. First, the constitution labels gun owners as a "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment. The term "well regulated" implies that the right to keep and bear arms comes with the responsibility to maintain a high level of training. Second, rights are no longer protected if they infringe on other peoples' rights or endangers their safety. Gun owners (myself included) own weapons for personal protection in many cases. Many who support a limitless Second Amendment often exclaim that more "good guys" with guns will help reduce crime. I tend to agree. However, such weapons in untrained and unfamiliar hands only compounds the potential danger to innocent bystanders in any situation where they would be used. Consider any of the mass shootings in schools or malls over the past 20 years. One untrained person trying to do the right thing and neutralize the shooter would actually make the situation worse, let alone several untrained people. Such do gooders would have a high chance of missing the shooter and hitting an innocent person, especially in a crowded area. It takes a lot of practice to suppress panic instincts and shoot accurately while under stress. For this reason, i propose it would be a good idea if the government ensured people received proper training before buying a gun

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.

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.

Well I have also read the U.S Constitution and in my reading the Second Amendment had two clauses. The first clause being the Militia clause which you mentioned - Militia Clause (A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.) Except the Second Amendment also holds the clause Right to Arms Clause - Right to Arms Clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.) What people don't realize is many pass this clause over because they are more concerned with the security of a free state, but I assure you it's in the text. If you would like to see where I obtained my information from here is the website. http://faculty.ncwc.edu... If no one had guns, bear arms, or any weapons, and were educated, they wouldn't want to kill anyone. So there would be no reason for a militia. --> So what your basically saying if we had no guns there would be no war, so having no guns would stop the violence? I would beg to differ. People who are educated would have to realize the guns are not making people violent, people have a natural aggression anyway - regardless without guns people are still going to find the need to argue, be right, and fight for whatever they believe in. Also many people do not own guns just for killing, there is a deeper meaning behind the bullets for example take the NRA. The NRA isn't encouraging anyone to hunt they are encouraging people to fight and protect the second amendment and our rights as citizens and civilians to bear arms.

It seems my opponent is using many rhetorical questions. Given a blank sheet of paper, my arguments would hold water. I haven't made a single argument, so far, that guns are a right. I haven't made a single appeal to tradition or the constitution. I've been giving statistics that say that gun control anywhere is not good. If I was the founding father of a new land, I would let them have guns. The alternative would be to set up checkpoints all around this land and make sure that nobody was bringing in guns, then check to make sure nobody had guns. It wouldn't work even then. And, of course, you're making an appeal to "developed nations." If the founding fathers could have seen this, they would better clarify the second amendment to establish gun rights independent of being in a militia. Also, the purpose is not so much to protect from foreign invasion, but domestic tyranny. And for Great Britain... you messed up. This has nothing to do with gun rights, or pretty much anything. I repeat, I haven't been making appeals to tradition or the Constitution. Statistics are independent of this. The right to bear arms is good because it results in less tyranny and increased safety. So "it would be better" if there was no gunman, but so far all attempts to stop criminals from obtaining guns have been futile. Imagine this alternate scenario: criminal has knife, you have nothing (I doubt people would carry around knives for self-defense). Who's going to win?

No, we actually don't have the right to bear arms without a license. Killing a Bear, and taking its arm is considered poaching in America, and in most states can result in serious jail time. When this amendment was passed there were no poaching laws so this was acceptable. Now the bear population has gone down, and we need to protect them from people like you. The constitution did say we have the right to bear arms, but we need to protect the bears, and thats why states have made laws against it. This amendment is almost impertinent now.

I'd like to expand a bit from my point of view on your last statement, which reads, "...but if they knew people were carrying guns, they'd be less willing to rob some place". First off, I'd like to debunk a myth conservative media has been telling you: there really is no correlation between lax gun policy and crime rate. Places such as Israel, which you have been told has an essentially no holds barred policy on gun ownership, actually have much stricter gun laws than you may believe. For instance, in an article in the Washington Post (source link below), it reads "...Israel laws, Rosenbaum [an American scholar] writes, 'are designed to keep amateurs from carrying guns in the street - even amateurs who have served 3 years in the army'" [1]. Israel has much lower crime rates than the US, but not because of its lax gun policy, but rather, its tendency to leave guns in the hands of professionals: police, soldiers, hunters, etc. Also, if citizens carried guns, and possible criminals were essentially out-gunned by the public, they wouldn't just roll over and die out; they'd probably look for bigger, stronger, more modernized weaponry to outclass any firearm citizens would carry on their person. Then, it'd just turn into a legally questionable arms race between gun-owning citizens and criminals, each trying to overpower the other with superior weaponry. Then, the police would have to overpower both of them just to keep civilian life civil; this means there'd be enhanced police vehicles, advanced firearms, more equipment like breaching charges, grenades, tear/poison gas, flashbangs, etc. being used on civilians and criminals in public, which means someone is bound to get caught in the crossfire, innocent lives will be lost. Then, there's the problem of making sure each citizen with a gun would actually act responsible with their newly acquired toys. Small, drunken arguments could lead to colossal shootouts just because some gun-toting badass wants to show his machismo to others. Then there's the idea that maybe gun-wielding civilians wouldn't be ready to actually kill someone who is a danger to others. If they aren't ready to take a life, then there really is no use for guns to be in the hands of many civilians, since they, meaning the civilians, may end up just running away or finding help. Here's one of the many cases where a regular citizen didn't end up saving the day, "In 2008, a gunman who killed two and wounded two others was taken out by another patron in the bar, who was carrying with a valid permit. But this was no regular Joe with a concealed handgun: The vigilante, who was not charged after authorities determined he'd committed a justifiable homicide, was a US Marine" [2]. Sources http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.motherjones.com...