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

Gun Control and the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns
The notion that gun control effectively curbs crime is a contentious one, with compelling evidence suggesting otherwise. A study conducted between 1980 and 2009 found that assault weapons bans had no significant impact on murder rates at the state level, and states with restrictions on concealed weapons possession experienced higher gun-related homicides. During the 20th century, gun ownership doubled, yet the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott Jr., author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws," posited that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also witnessed substantial declines in violent crimes. Concealed carry laws, in particular, have had a dramatic effect on multiple-victim shootings, with the number of such incidents declining by 84%, and deaths and injuries from these shootings dropping by 90% and 82%, respectively. A Pew survey from 2014 revealed that 57% of individuals believe gun ownership protects them from victimization. Journalist John Stossel observed that criminals do not obey laws, and without the deterrent of potential armed resistance, they have an easier time committing crimes. The adage "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" holds true, as criminals do not follow gun control laws. Gun control laws encroach upon the right to self-defense and undermine people's sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense approximately 2.5 million times annually. The police cannot guarantee protection for everyone at all times. A Pew Research survey found that 61% of men and 56% of women believe 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, stated that the right to self-defense and the means to defend oneself are fundamental natural rights that stem from the right to life. Constitutions in 37 US states explicitly protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, as exemplified by Alabama's constitution, which states that "every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." The NRA's Wayne LaPierre said, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." A 2013 survey of convicted felons revealed that 48% avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun.

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...

"Generally speaking, gun control is recognized as the effort to restrict or limit the production, shipment and ownership of certain guns. Over time, the issue of gun ownership has become a staple of controversy and one of the most hotly contested social issues facing Americans. More often than not, where one falls on gun control depends largely on their political affiliation, their moral standards and their past experiences with firearms. According to some estimates, approximately 80 million homes in the U.S. own 223 million guns. As is the case with most issues, gun control comes with a list of pros and cons. The people who staunchly support gun control believe their argument would protect society and save lives, while those opposing gun control believe the opposite. Potential for more crime " It"s long been suggested that having a gun allows would-be victims to protect themselves against crimes. Proponents of gun control often point to crime statistics as a sign that gun control would be a positive for society. However, people against gun control firmly believe that by having a gun, people could prevent many of those crimes from happening in the first place. Second amendment " The second amendment from The Bill of Rights grants private citizens the right to bear arms. Thus, people who stand firmly against gun control insist that no legislation, technically, should have the right to take away a citizen's guns without first repealing the amendment in question. Bad history " History appears to support the pro-gun crowd. Throughout various political regimes, the one constant of a tyrannical government has been the disarming of citizens. Thomas Jefferson once famously said: "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government." The government has no right taking our rights away. My evidence of other countries with gun bans, I'm from Russia, i have experienced it, i have seen so many innocent people being killed and they can;t do anything about it."http://www.opposingviews.com...You see that text? It was copied and pasted from the link below. No mention of it whatsoever. Complete plagiarism. Because of this, every single detail of that is no longer valid. Though I will still respond to the first part of your argument. "[1]Well to answer the question of proof that every store that gets .22 ammunition is sold within an hour, is that i have experience, i have went on every box store and little owned gun stores and gun shows and rarely do you find .22 ammunition. people walk out of store wit thousands of rounds and if you are not the first 10 people at the door before opening your in bad luck. Here are some more of my back ups. [2] I also own a gun so does my whole family, sorry to say but you cant expect to live for a while one day you will get robbed and shot. You have a less chance surviving without a gun than with. Criminals are not normal in their head that's why they are criminals. [3] I had a best friend once that said she will never get shot and she didn't own a gun, well about a week later i found out that her whole family including her was shot by a criminal, and the police couldn't get there in time."1. It is physically impossible for you to have been inside every single gun store in the U.S. within one hour of them restocking .22 ammunition.2. Again, I have living family members who have never touched a gun in their lives, and are still here. There is no way that 100% of people without guns would be killed, otherwise the NRA would have no competition. 3. That's terrible! Can you please give me a link to the news article that mentions this (in the comments, of course)?

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.

I can be somewhat mechanical in my responses to say the least. I simply listed the definitions, because it was a spec in your formatting. The structure for my argument will be as such: [1] Gun Laws do Not Deter Crime [2] Guns Deter Crime [3] Violates Second Amendment and Betrays Law Abiding Citizens. I will now begin with the main structure of my argument. [1] Gun Laws do Not Deter Crime While some studies have shown that there is a correlation between firearm related deaths and areas that have higher rates of concealed carry and ownership, none have them have ever been able to show a direct link. I granted myself the luxury of taking a look at source [1] that Pro uses for her opening statement, saying quote, 'areas with a higher prevalence of guns had higher prevalence of gun homicides and homicides in general'. She failed to add the following notion, ' But studies haven"t been able to show a causal relationship " that the mere presence of guns, as opposed to other factors, caused the higher rates of gun violence.' The essential point to take away from this is that social factors are invariably the biggest determination when it comes down to gun violence. A Harvard study in 2007 points out that the main reason that the level of gun ownership in a society does not spur a respective crime rate is that murders are not evenly spread out among the population. Typically this falls to criminals who have an extensive affiliation with crime. To this extent, even if all law abiding citizens were armed, crime would not significantly rise. Additionally, if one takes the adverse effect into account, removing firearms from public ownership will also have no negative effect on crime rates, given most criminals obtain their firearms from illegal sources. According to the BJS of criminals who owned a gun at the time they were arrested, 40% obtained guns from a non registered source. However, this stat does not account for criminals who actively used the firearm, which is a much smaller group than the aforementioned. Any simple analysis will conclude that removing guns from public ownership has a minimal impact on gun crime rates, and multiple studies have shown that if one removes a firearm from the possession of a person intent on causing harm, they simply turn to other means. Case in point is the former USSR, which has the most intensive gun laws of any nation at the time, but also had the highest homicide rates among all developed nations. In a more relevant context, 90% of all violent crime in the US is not related to the use of a gun. To complete this segment, social factors are the prime determinant for firearm crime, not the firearm itself. [2] Guns do Deter Crime According to another BJS study, 60% of criminals admitted to avoiding attempted homicide or assault when they knew the victim was armed, and 40% admitted to cancellation of a hostile act when they even surmised that the intended victim might be armed. 74% of incarcerated individuals confirmed that they feared entering a home while the owner was present under the pretense of being shot, and 57% of felons reported that they are more concerned about meeting an armed individual than they are law enforcement. Another primary example is Kennesaw, GA, which passed a law mandating heads of households to own a firearm in 1982, and consequently burglary and assault rates dropped 89% in the following year. Another study showed that firearms are used around 2.5 million times a year in an action of self defense, nearly 80 times the number of instances guns are used in a violent and fatal act by criminals. Even more interesting, citizens shoot and terminate more than twice the amount of attackers [1527 : 606] than law enforcement, and the error rate is only 2% among these occasions, whereas the police have an error rate of 11%. [3] Violates Second Amendment and Betrays Law Abiding Citizens. Banning ownership of firearms from law abiding citizens who are statistically unlikely to use them in illegal actions does nothing to alleviate crime, and also deducts from lawful practices such as hunting. In the process, you also destroy or negatively impact many establishments and settlements who use hunting and other sport as their primary source of income. During the year of 2011, there were 13.7 million licenced hunters age 16 and older who spent in total 7.7 billion on assault arms and rifles, used for sport. By banning ownership of these weapons, you deduct from a large economic source of revenue, and in turn tax dollars that go to federal and state funding. I have shown: [1] Gun laws have little to no effect on violent crime. [2] Guns in fact do deter crime. [3] Banning guns has a negative impact on not only the economy, but also individual practices.

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

All I want to do this round is do a rebuttal of Con's latest argument, oh wait a minute, I meant debate; no that doesn't sound right."Why are you debating with me if you're not even an American citizen?" I knew it, I bloody knew that you would say this. Why am I not allowed to debate a topic I understand, or learn about a topic just because it doesn't affect my country. "And this is a debate, not an argument, but you probably don't know the difference," "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong." - Google"Debate is contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion; especially the discussion of questions of public interest in parliament or in any assembly," I think it is you that doesn't know what each means and what each can be used for."Also, did you really mention Korea? Really? While we're at it, why don't you mention Syria or any northern country in Africa?" Do you not understand the difference between North and South Korea? I take it you meant North Korea in the way you are reffering it to Syria. Anyway, this isn't about their political fundamentals, it is about the correlation between gun restrictiveness and gun homicides. "does that mean we should ban cars, or how about gas, so that the cars don't work anymore, because that's what's happening." ...Cars are not designed to kill people, guns are. Since the creation of cars, people have trying to make them safer. Since the creation of guns however, people have been trying to make them deadlier. Granted we have put a safety knob, but on cars we make the safety knob permanently on safe."To me it sounds like you're validating robbery." Really? Because to me, It sounded like I was making the point that robbers tend to go to houses without people in them, so the argument for guns using robbers would be invalid. "especially if the intruder has a gun"And how did he get that gun? Legally? Here is a thought: If guns were illegal, it would be easier to know who is carrying a gun illegally; all those carrying guns."You say there is more than one way to defend yourself, okay, I understand this. Let's put you in a ring with nothing but a knife, a revolver with 6 shots, and an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and see which one you choose when there are 6 lions thrown into the ring, armed with razor-sharp claws and teeth the size of your hand. Choose wisely."Urh! Don't you hate it when that happens! It's so common, especially in America. But seriously, what a strange situation."1. a rule or set of rules, enforceable by the courts, regulating the government of a state, the relationship between the organs of government and the subjects of the state, and the relationship or conduct of subjects towards each other2.a. See statute law a rule or body of rules made by the legislatureb. See bylaw a rule or body of rules made by a municipal or other authority3.a. the condition and control enforced by such rulesb. ( in combination ): lawcourt4.a rule of conduct: a law of etiquette5.one of a set of rules governing a particular field of activity: the laws of tennis"Why TF did you have explain this to me? It had no purpose. Explain. EXPLAIN!"a law doesn't prevent crime from happening."So true, which is why I think that we should abolish all laws because they don't actually prevent crime, RIGHT?"Do you know how a poll works? It adds up to 100%, and last time I checked, 67+58=/=100, it actually equals 125, so I would check your sources again."The Joke is on you. Here is the full table.Protection Against Crime 67%Target Shooting 66%Hunting 58% You see, some of the people said they owned the gun for more than one reason. One person used guns for all purposes, another for only two, another for one. I'll make it clearer in future if you want. "I hope you learned something from this"So do I to you. "and you learn that what you're advocating is wrong" You know, humility is a virtue. "and it will only lead to more death and destruction if you continue."And if you had used evidence to show this instead of dawdling on other things, I might have actually learned something.Gun control has been proven to be a good contributor, If not a necerssary factor to keeping homicide rates low by the relationship between the gun restrictiveness and homicides; Countries like south Korea and Japan have higher restrictiveness and lower homicides while countries like Honduras had low restrictiveness (causing desperate measures to be taken place) and high homicides.One note, the Con should not be allowed to post another argument in round 5 because he wrote an argument in round 1 even though he wasn't meant too. He shall say, "no round as agreed upon," and if he doesn't, i'll, i'll....It doesn't matter because I know he doesn't think laws prevent crime.http://en.wikipedia.org...https://www.google.com...;

There is no reason that some gun laws/ restrictions should not be in place. I believe in the second amendment that someone should have the right to bare arms, but that does not mean we can not have screening and restrictions on what guns we can own/carry.

Thanks Con. Your arguments are much appreciated and I'm pleased that this debate took such a unique and thought provoking turn.First, extend the contradiction in my opponents definition of the state. He tries to argue it away by pointing out that governments initially arose out of the consent of the governed, but it does not follow that their descendants are bound to the same agreement. You don't show agreement by complying when the result for not doing so is imprisonment or fines, enforced by a million man army. This is significant because my opponent bases his case around what the state ought to do, and yet the very definition he bases this on has a fatal flaw. UtilitarianismMy opponent completely drops my entire critique of utilitarianism, accusing me of committing an unnamed fallacy in which I take "extreme scenarios" of utilitarianism that he agrees are unfair. Count this as an implicit concession about the failings of Util. as a system of justice on it's own. Moreover, if you are convinced by this re-read my arguments against utilitarianism and you'll see that each example falls within what util. would allow (measuring moral worth as only what benefits the most amount of people). At this point, you have to vote Pro because my opponents position is based on a moral principle that he's failed to defend from my attacks. He makes no response to the point that there needs to be the backdrop of another principle (like the NAP) to evaluate what constitutes the maximization of human well being.He says that the merits of util. are irrelevant, but if the system of morality fails when applied, then obviously his position in the debate falls. Compare this to my case, where the non aggression principle is implied in round 2 and explicitly invoked in round 3. My opponent has made no argument against the NAP, and as such has conceded to it. It's a mountain to climb to negate the resolution now, as my opponent would need to somehow show that consensual relations between two individuals constitutes an act of aggression. He has not, and indeed cannot and his failure to address the NAP shows that dueling (along with all other consensual relations) is indeed a right and must be allowed. Consider the NAP an objective moral fact when weighing this round because he makes no response to it.Law I'll say here that I was mistaken about my opponents conception of law/rights but that it's entirely irrelevant. I honestly only brought it up because the worldview it seemed like he was espousing is one that irks me beyond all belief. Aretaic ethicsMy opponents position here makes no sense. He argues first that util. is the way to make value judgements, then that "there is no specific way to determine what is 'good'", and then that killing is obviously bad. So basically, dueling is bad because utilitarianism says its bad, except that there's no real right or wrong, except when there is. His position is self contradictory. Never in the entire debate does he really say why we need to value Aretaic "ethics" anyway. I say ethics in parenthesis because this too needs principled morality in order to apply value judgements--a principle he's failed to provide. My opponents argument can be summed up as follows: The state should promote moral behavior. Dueling is immoral. Dueling should be banned. First, his complete concession to my attacks on util. destroys this argument because his system for applying justice is, in his own words, "unfair". Secondly, there are other ways to discourage immoral behavior than banning it. Look to how banning drugs has failed. Third, he drops my argument about how he's advocating competing moral systems. He even admits that there is a contradiction between util. and Aretaic ethics, but feels it doesn't matter if it doesn't occur in this case, except since debate is by nature the presentation of competing world views, it matters significantly. If the worldview he presents is flawed than you cannot negate the resolution based on that worldview. He agrees that both capital punishment and self defense can be justified. This defeats his argument about how killing is always wrong, and moreover he refused to respond to the fact that duels aren't always to the death. Very very very few fights (a modern duel would most likely be an honorable and contractual fight) start out without the intent to kill, and indeed it is the lawlessness and lack of honor that ultimately leads to deaths in street fights. To be clear, this is a turn argument. If life is inherently valuable, letting people fight in situations where they're less likely to kill eachother is beneficial. Dueling bad 1. He didn't weigh his harms against my advantages. 2. His disadvantages need to be ignored because at this point in the debate, its been firmly established that dueling is a right under the NAP which he's dropped. Rights protection outweighs subjective advantages (note that I have held throughout the entire debate that dueling is societally good besides being a right). 3. He dropped the worst problem I saw with his argument, which was that he values human well being without providing any actual reason to value humans on their own. He says that life is to be inherently valued, but the worldview advocated only values humans as a means to an end. Parts of a whole. Collective cogs in societies machine. This, ladies and gentlemen, is not the valuation of life. Truly valuing humanity means placing rights above all, as the recognition of rights (the interpretation of moral situations) is what distinguishes humanity from the rest of the animals on earth. Sacrificing these rights for collective well being (a subjective term if there ever was one) is a complete affront to all that is objectively valuable in humanity. TURN: Not recognizing rights as more important than collective well being leads to moral perversion. Refer to his Nazi example for this one. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and anything can be justified as being for "the greater good" if enough people share your desires. I realize that my opponent was just trying to show how dueling is bad, but just listing a multitude of reasons without weighing them isn't a compelling case, especially given that util. has been (for the purposes of this debate) ruled insufficient. =Advantages=Remember that I win if I prove that dueling is a right, which I already have. However, in case you fallback to util. my advantages clearly outweigh. 1. ViolenceIn my last round, I gave many reasons and explanation as to how violence will be somewhat reduced. My opponent quotes this and then says simply that he disagrees, no meaningful rebuttal or anything. This drop equates to a concession. He also concedes that less private property will be destroyed. 2. HonorCompletely conceded. He simply says this is not a good enough reason to legalize dueling. Yet he concedes that gaining back our sense of honor would lead to less murder, rape, and property crime. It seems incredibly improbable that the negative effects of dueling can outweigh all this. Under a utilitarian framework, taking steps to regain honor is an inherent good. Therefore the resolution is affirmed under my moral framework, and his.3. Government My opponent argues that he's provided a purpose for the government. Not exactly. He advocated a state with a self contradicting definition enforcing moral codes that he hasn't backed up, who's failings he's conceded to. His only response is that many states prohibit people from driving without a seat belt, but this is no reason to vote con. Just as he implies that the law is good, I can imply it's bad by stating that I think it's a stupid regulation created solely to generate revenue. In conclusion, the NAP supports dueling and has been conceded to. Pure utilitarianism is flawed, but even accepting it, concessions in this round make dueling legalization look promising.

The opponent has misrepresented my argument, claiming that I am "OK" with gang and domestic violence. I clearly stated that this is not the case -- and I provided evidence showing that infringing gun rights only helps the criminals my opponent condemns. Guns in and of themselves are not violent. They are inanimate objects. Their uses, and only their uses, can be judged in a moral context.The primary (but certainly not the sole) purpose of a gun is to inflict harm upon another human being. As I clearly stated, not all violence is immoral -- but that which violates the rights of others most certainly is. The protection of gun rights does not "allow for groups of people" to be harmed, or cause "families to separate." On the contrary, defending gun rights to the fullest extent enables innocent families and individuals to defend themselves against criminals who fail to obey gun restrictions. As I have shown, those truly bent upon violent crime will circumvent regulations and restrictions of any kind -- the more severe gun restrictions become, the more vulnerable innocents become to thugs and coercers.By voting positive, you are supporting a set of laws that would blatantly violate the rights of innocent human beings. In doing so, you would make civilians, who are otherwise capable of deterring and retaliating against criminals, completely vulnerable to violence and harm.In response to your second argument:Suicide rates can most certainly be compared amongst countries in the context of gun policy, since they account for differences in the things you listed. This is exactly what I have done. I have provided various examples of different countries with more gun restrictions having higher suicide and depression rates. You are right in saying that this problem extends beyond gun rights -- but coercive policies like the ones you advocate are undeniably the cause of this problem. The conditions of people in this countries clearly shows us what happens when the government infringes upon the rights of its citizens. Beyond statistical arguments, a single fact remains undoubtedly important: suicidal people will find other methods of ending their lives. This is easily explained; to them, the pain of living in the real world is immeasurably larger than any temporary pain suicide could cause them. As such, they are bent upon ending their lives to eradicate this pain.Finally, you claim that I have failed to "produce a negative case." Assuming we are functioning on the same definition of a negative case, I have provided various rebuttals, both statistical and moral, to your arguments. On the other hand, you have failed to counter my statistics and my moral arguments. As such, you have no valid arguments at the moment.

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


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

Gun Control Measures Reduce Homicides and Suicides
Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban, implemented in 1976, has been shown to effectively lower the rates of homicides and suicides, as evidenced by a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1991. This study, which analyzed data from 1968 to 1987, found a "prompt decline" in firearm-related deaths in D.C. compared to neighboring Maryland and Virginia, where no such handgun ban was in place. The data suggests that, following the enactment of the law, an average of 47 deaths per year were prevented in the District.

Handgun bans are enforceable, as proven by the success of gun control laws in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. According to "The Global Gun Epidemic: From Saturday Night Specials to AK-47s" (2006), the firearm death rates per 100,000 people in these countries are significantly lower than in the U.S.: Canada (2.6), Australia (1.68), England/Wales (.38), and the U.S. (10.27). This evidence supports the enforceability and effectiveness of gun control measures.

Furthermore, states with higher rates of gun ownership have higher homicide rates. A study published in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine found that states in the top quartile of gun ownership had an overall homicide rate 60% higher than states in the bottom quartile. The rate of homicides involving guns was more than twice as high in these states.

Although gun ownership may not necessarily increase homicide rates, it does increase suicide rates and accidental shootings, as stated in The Philadelphia Inquirer (2007). Miami Police Chief John Timoney, who oversaw a reduction in homicides in Philadelphia, warned that overturning handgun bans could lead to a rise in suicides and accidental shootings, which would not be reflected in homicide statistics.

Most firearm deaths in the U.S. are suicides, not homicides, with 16,599 suicides compared to 10,828 homicides in 1999. Individuals who own guns are more likely to commit suicide than non-gun owners, as shown by a study conducted by Mark Duggan, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland (2003). The study demonstrated that much of the relationship between state-level gun ownership and suicide rates is driven

Thank you for sustaining the debate, I appreciate you are busy and I hope the three day interval I supply between rounds will be enough. In terms of your argument, a lot of it is unsubstantiated and circular, because the studies you mentioned are not sourced, I am going to completely dismiss them. Also for your clarification, ROTW is Rest of the World, however I apologize for it is a bad acronym and I did not state its meaning originally. Now I shall try address your points as best I can. 1.) I do believe that people should be able to defend themselves, this can be done in a variety of ways. It can be done using your hands, a weapon or the shotgun/hunting rifle that I believe should stay legal. Saying that however, the last thing a person should be doing is trying to defend themselves by lowering their moral views and essence of a human being to nothing more than a dirty animal. This happens when people fight fire with fire. A person should run, give up their possessions or seek assistance rather than fight the perpetrators on their own terms. Otherwise they put their lives at risk or destroy the life of criminals. Although they are criminals, they are still human and don't simply sacrifice the right to life when they enter somebody's house to commit burglary for example. If civilians own handguns. criminals wont think to kill them. These people obtaining guns of the black market are organised and efficient, they are going to be able to eliminate you easily if you pose any threat. The best thing you can do is remain morally intact and not starting a firefight. Like I said, most criminals aren't out their to commit mass killings, most might be out to mug you, steal your TV etc. 2.) Natural law refers to the laws of the ancient Greeks, that we follow Gods rules and the divine kings and that this supersedes man made law. But nowhere in the bible would it condone violence or defending yourself. So it would be morally bankrupt of you to disrespect the original moral laws and kill people with guns, even if they are breaking the law. "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written[1], "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Also, Matthew said "an eye of an eye, a tooth for a tooth" but Jesus said if "somebody was to hit your left cheek, you offer him your right". And the constitution can indeed become outdated, which is why people not just myself disagree with how dysfunctional it is. There are still laws in the English unwritten constitution that condone the killing of a Scotsman in York with a longbow. Obviously this has been revoked for it is silly and no longer serves any purpose. The problem is, people are clinging onto the tradition for the Constitution of their country, when the people and goodness of society are screaming out for it to be amended in order to evolve with the rest of civilization. By condoning the use of guns to conduct welfare, your basically admitting your morals and ethics are similar to that of Nigeria or Afghanistan. 3.) Guns do kill people. Without the guns people die on a much less scale, if people were to use swords, the amount of deaths would drop drastically. the fact is guns place too much power in somebody's hand. A simple pull of a trigger of an AR15 and 15-20 people's lives are gone forever. You can't trust criminals or people, so by removing the thing they are using, you stop the situation. Also like I said, thorough background checks are not going to do much in terms of stopping an "Adam Lanza" just as your police force can't stop the black market. [1] http://www.openbible.info...

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.

Sorry about that forfeited round. I know this will be a penalty in conduct. However, my opponent stated that the teachers should take a mentality test to keep people from doing this type of event, but if a teacher has to take a mental test, I wouldn't want them to be teaching. If teachers are given the right to carry guns, then teachers must be sure the guns will be used to keep people safe. But then, teachers will be hired on whether they can shoot somebody and not if they can teach someone. That is why we have officers at schools: to help prevent those types of events happening. But now it seems that if teachers are given the right to bear arms, then life will be reverted: teachers will be shooting and officers will be teaching.What if a student gets a hold of a gun? Many bad things can happen when the wrong person holds a gun. Many people can get hurt. Giving teachers the right to hold a gun can make things worse.

I make the assertion that the people of the United States have the right to own and use firearms. I also clarify that I do not assert the right to military grade weapons. Now to the structure: 1. Acceptance 2. Main Argument (no rebuttal) 3. Rebuttal (no new information) 4. Conclusion/Rebuttal(Include any last information) If you accept this debate, you accept the outline. Breaking this outline or trolling in any way results in your immediate forfeiture. I hope for a good debate :)

Let me concede four facts my opponent brought up in their initial argument. First, "Women are biologically weaker"" I was dreading arguing with the type of person who would deny this. Second, based on 2012 statistics NeatFreak stated, "As you can see men are more responsible for violent crimes than women, end of story." I am not trying to diminish the scourge that fraud is, but they are not related to women being able to defend themselves. Third, my opponent also cited an article from 1983 from which we learn, "Females are more verbally aggressive than males but males are physical (sic) more aggressive." Again, I fully agree with my opponent on this point. If my opponent has had their feelings hurt, they need to know that their pain is valid; it is OK to cry. Recent advances in medicine have reduced fatalities from hurt feeling all the way to zero. I would suggest that higher language skills reduce the need for physical aggression, thus more and younger women having access to guns will not increase incidents of hurt feelings or massive hemorrhaging from gunshot wounds. The fourth fact I agree with my opponent on is that most victims of assault, including rape, are men. That the majority of victims are men does not diminish the disparity of strength when a man attacks a woman. Male on male violence is more likely to pair two closely matched individuals who both seek to prove that they are stronger. Very weak or strong men need neither prove nor defend their status. Thus, the ability to inflict and receive damage are similar. All of this goes out the window if one or both are armed, the decision and ability to use violence is no longer effected by relative strength. It comes down to aggression, impulsivity, maturity, cultural norms and alternative means of resolution. Males 18, 19 and 20 years of age are more likely to resort to violence due to increased aggression, impulsivity and cultural norms due to having lower levels of maturity and fewer alternatives. Females 18, 19 and 20 are more likely to use a gun defensively than aggressively. Near the end of their first argument, my opponent made a statement regarding increased violence in women"s households. Please provide a source, preferably more current than 1983, and clarify if you mean there is a higher rate of violence, more total incidents or something else. ""Most physical aggression among women are found against their spouse, children or siblings ". in their household," when I read it translates to, women don"t punch strangers or acquaintances. This may be true but says nothing about the frequency, severity or predictability of such assaults, nor how they compare with male initiated violence. Now let us look at where my opponent and I disagree. They "don"t believe that women or trans-women are specifically targeted at all." If just one mugger or bad-guy committing violent crime is rational, than we would expect them to choose the weakest victim possible. My opponent recognizes that women are weaker, thus the absolute statement that they are not targeted AT ALL, is false. Let us look at another crime. More men than women are raped every year. This is a surprising statistic to many because most people don"t give much thought to the realities of prison. If prisons are excluded then women are the most frequent victim. A female rape survivor reports being assaulted by a male 98% of the time, male rape survivors report 93% of their attackers were male. (http://www.oneinfourusa.org...) The rapist in prison has few opportunities to choose between raping a man or a woman. Outside of prison they have more options. If women weren"t targeted then rapes outside of prison would be similar between genders. This sight cites statistics that 90% of rape victims are women, https://www.rainn.org.... You can either believe that rapist are perpetuating a truly bizarre statistical anomaly, or that women are the target of choice. The sight also provides evidence that trans-women are disproportionately victims of sexual violence. Maybe my opponent subscribes to the feminist answer that woman facing a potential rapist should urinate in her pants. I think that the option to produce a handgun and make the rapist piss himself is a better solution. My opponent also threw SJWs and Antifa into this debate, which is revealing. Not all Antifa and SJWs are women, not all women are SJWs and Antifa. When the closing line of argument is, "P.S (sic) who wants are (sic) feminist with a gun in her hand vote for the other person(sic)" it starts to smell a little misogynistic. My opponent may or may not be misogynistic but they are certainly transphobic. They are welcome to their opinions but not their own facts. Here is a New York Times article that details that transwomen are the most likely victims of a hate crime and that the frequency is increasing, https://www.nytimes.com.... More transwomen have been murdered this year than any year previous, here is an article from 2017 https://www.nytimes.com.... My opponent thinks trans-people should see a psychologist; with an official diagnosis would they support a trans-woman being able to get a handgun at the age of 18, 19, or 20? Lastly, because states and localities have different standards for purchasing a handgun this proposal is limited to the federal requirements. Purchasers have to be 21 regardless of gender. For example, in Washington, DC they may also have to be a beatified saint, in Illinois they may have to pay absurd taxes, elsewhere they may have to take hours of classes or get permission from local authorities. Where I live in the United States you can buy all the pistols you want once you are 21 as long as you go through an FFL and pass the FBI"s instant background check. I look forward to my opponents response.

Pro seems to think that the intention of the gun ban would be to reduce crime, this is false, my initial arguments were based on the intention of saving lives. I apologize for the misunderstanding, but that is what my position in this debate is based off. R1) Gun cultureThe impact of this argument is irrelevant to the resolution. We agreed that once all firearms were eliminated from the United States, the result would not achieve the objective. In this contention, Pro argues that Americans love their guns, it is a large part of our culture. He then concludes that banning guns would have a major impact on their life. The impact on America’s culture has nothing to do with saving lives through a gun ban, it is non-topical, it is a red herring.R2) Little Effect in certain statesIn this contention Pro attempts to establish a connection between Vermont’s almost nonexistent gun control and its low homicide rate. The problem with this is that there are thousands of factors that could have resulted in a low homicide rate. You need to take into resources available to law enforcement, how much law enforcement gets payed, the effectiveness of law enforcement, education level, state culture, population density, urbanization degree, religious characteristics, policies of the criminal justice system, youth concentration, modes of transportation, poverty levels, environment, organized crime, tourism, job availability and hundreds more.Pro is trying to make a link between two abstract variables to attain his desired impact. As I have shown, low crime rates could be the result of hundreds of different variables, these variables have little to no correlation.R3) Guns are used for self-defenseHere Pro argues that firearms are used in self-defense, two million times per year. Pro’s evidence comes from the Crime Prevention Research Center created by John Lott, notorious for manipulating statistics to support their view. [2] The statistic is proved blatantly false by the U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Firearms were actually the least used protective behavior at 0.8% [1].Pro has used a biased and discredited source to give blatantly false evidence, the argument is nulled as guns are not used in self-defense enough to substantiate the claim.R4) Illegal guns/Pro’s of CCWIn this argument Pro argues that since there are so many illegal guns in the US, banning guns would not take away the illegal ones. Yet we both agreed the resolution was that once all guns are effectively banned from the United States, the effect of the elimination of guns would not achieve the objective of the ban. This argument is non-topical.The second argument is non-topical as well. Whether or not CCWs (Carrying a Concealed Weapon) are effective does not have to do with a gun ban. My opponent has to show that a complete gun ban would not be effective in achieving its goal, not whether or not CCWs are effective. This argument has no impact as well.R5) Britain has a higher violent crime than the U.SHere Pro claims that because Britain has high gun control it still has high crime, and in America with low gun control crime is lower than the U.K. Yet Pro forgets we are talking about a gun ban, not high gun control, these are two different laws. Gun control means you need more background checks and training, but people can still have lots of guns. There is no relation here, the U.K has a different culture, and these statistics could be the result of lots of different factors that I mentioned in R2. This argument fails to prove Pro’s side of the debate.ConclusionI would like to thank my opponent for the excellent debate and tell anyone reading this thank you! [1] http://www.bjs.gov...Pg. 12[2] Johnson, Timothy. "Gun Researcher John Lott Offers False Firearm Statistics Days Before Congressional Appearance." Media Matters for America. N.p., 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 13 Sept. 2015.http://mediamatters.org...

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 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.

My opponent forfeited this round, however I urge voters not to hold it against him as it is difficult to post an argument is the brief time period that most debates allow. I still stand firm in my con position and I resolve that guns should not be banned in the US or the rest of the world.

I will be affirming the resolution that guns should be legal in any capacity. The sphere of my argument is going to revolve around two things: guns' effect on crime, and the constitutionality of guns. First, guns' effect on crime. I. Crime Criminal do fear guns. This can be no more explained than with the concept of hot burglary. This is when a criminal strikes when a person is already at home. In Canada and England, where gun control is very strict, almost half of the burglaries were hot. In contrast, 13% in America were hot. What is the reason behind this? Because criminals think they may get shot, they say robbing at night when people are home is the best way to get shot, they would rather case a house. This proves they fear guns. Even think of it as something as simple as apples and oranges. In a closed market of only apples and oranges, if the price of apples increases, the demand for apples decreases, and the demand for oranges increases. Apply this to guns and robberies. If the amount of guns increases, the incentive to rob decreases, and there is less crime. A common misconception is that more guns are used in crime than in defense. However, defensive handgun use is more widespread than crimes committed with guns: "In sum, DGUs are about three to five times as common as criminal uses, even using generous estimates of gun crimes. "[4] This is what three seperate studies conclude:John Lott summarized, "If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly. "[1] Police studies conclude, "After controlling for an array of factors, including trends before and after the law went into effect, I show that states that enact concealed carry laws are less likely to have a felonious police death and more likely to have lower rates of felonious police deaths after the law is passed. This result is statistically significant in seven of the nine specifications, and the difference between the before and after trends is significant in over half the specifications. "[2] Further evidence concludes, "In this paper, we use a Poisson-lognormal model to analyze intertemporal and geographical variations in the effects of right-to-carry laws on murders, rapes, and robberies. For each of these crime categories, our estimates suggest the existence of statistically significant deterrent effects of right-to-carry laws for the majority of the 10 states that have adopted such laws between 1977 and 1992. "[3] This graph shows that more guns mean less crime: [5] Here is a chart detailing concealed carry laws's effects on each crime bracket: [1] And finally, here is a very informative graph on the effect of conceal carry laws on crime: [1]Guns do reduce crime and thus should be legal. II. Constitutionality On its face, the second amendment's language, "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," suggests an intent to guarantee a right which people can effectively enforce. This was invariably what the Founders described on the numerous occasions in which they indicated what they meant by "militia" and that is how the identical "right of the people" language which appears in the first and fourth amendments has always been construed. The following points are offered to support the contention that the language of the second amendment must be taken at face value: 1. The Founding Fathers praised the individual ownership of firearms in terms that would seem extravagant even from today's pro-gun organizations, and thus there is no reason for assuming that individuals were excluded from the right to arms the Founders wrote into the Constitution. 2. There is no support for the assumption that the right is only a collective one because all the political philosophers cited by the Founders affirmed that the individual's right to possess arms is his ultimate guarantee against tyranny. 3. By "militia," the Founders meant "all (militarily capable) males . .. bearing arms supplied by themselves". 4. When what was guaranteed by English common law (and confirmed by the English Bill of Rights of 1689) was unequivocally an individual right to keep and bear arms, there is no cause for assuming that its American successor guarantees only an exclusively "collective right"--something that did not exist in any legal system with which the Founding Fathers were familiar. 5. Last, if the Founding Fathers had intended to guarantee an exclusively "collective right," they would not have done so in language which (in light of the English and American legal background) their contemporaries could only--and uniformly did--construe as preserving an individual right. The evidence for the individual right interpretation is so overwhelming that the existence of an argument which (by studiously ignoring that evidence) degrades the second amendment into a meaningless "collective right" is inexplicable. The readily available explanation is that this "collective right" argument has been written under the influence of a violent antipathy to firearms and a profound belief that their eradication will somehow reduce violence. The effect of that belief upon the discussion of second amendment issues has been so great that a brief consideration of the criminological issues is imperatively necessary, even though it is theoretically irrelevant to the legal considerations involved. [6][7][8][9][10]Therefore, the ownership of guns is a constitutional right and thus should be legal. I have provided two proofs as to why guns should be legal - they reduce crime and are protected by the U. S. Constitution. Sources:[1]: Lott, John R. Jr. , and David B. Mustard. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. " The Journal of Legal Studies, (1997). [2]: Mustard, David B. , “The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths” The Journal of Legal Studies, (2001). [3]: Plassmann, Florenz, and T. Nicolaus Tideman. "Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say," The Journal of Law and Economics, (2001). [4]: Kleck, Gary and Maltz Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, (1995). [5]: . http://gunsandbullets.wordpress.com...[6]: U. S. Const. , amend. II. It is often asserted that the Amendment's reference to a "militia" negates the possibility that an individual right was intended. In fact, in 18th Century English usage, the "militia" was the entire able-bodied adult male population-"all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] . .. bearing arms supplied by themselves. " United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939). [7]: R. H. Lee, Letters From The Federal Farmer to The Republican 169 (Philadelphia, 1787) (a militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves . .. ); 3 J. Elliott, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 386 (2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836); Va. Const. (June 12, 1776): "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people . .. . "; Sprecher, supra note 1, at n.29. [8]: "Congress shall make no law . .. abridging . .. the right of the people peaceably to assemble,. .. . "; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects,. .. ." U. S. Const. amends. I, IV. [9]: U. S. v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939). [10]: . http://www.guncite.com...;