All schools should be gun free zones.
Debate Rounds (3)
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." Gandhi says my position better then any individual could hope.
In round one I will address the result of regulator laws and their relation to gun violence. Round two I will go further and explain why this relationship exists and how it works and why. In the final round I will address the opponents arguments pointing out the flaws and proving why any adult should be allowed to concealed carry while in a school.
To open, guns should be allowed in school for one simple reason: If all schools were gun free zone would essentially make them a target for lunatics that only seek to kill the most people the quickest. According to Utilitarianism, the idea of the great happiness for the greatest amount of people would be in support of guns in schools. Both Bentham and John Stuart Mills, the founders of the philosophy would agree that have guns in school would not only be the safest option but also give the most happiness to the most amount of people.
Kycam1, I need to ask you a sincere question: What is your purpose of supporting guns in schools? Guns have no purposeful uses in schools, and should not be allowed in any schools. Guns are useful in the sense that they can be used to hunt and may be considered stylish by some. However, neither of these uses can be applied in school at all. Why would there be game for a school child to hunt in the middle of a school? Schools are intended to be a place of learning, not hunting grounds. Also, animals would not call a school their natural habitat because schools are constructed by hand, not by Mother Nature. As for the latter, why should guns be accepted as a form of style in schools? Pocket knifes, which used to be considered a form of fashion in schools, are now banned from schools and students can get in serious trouble for taking a pocket knife to school. If pocket knifes, which can be used as blades, aren't allowed, then why would a machine intended to kill a living thing by shooting a projectile from high ranges at high speeds be allowed in schools? Guns should not be considered a form of style in any part of society, schools included.
There are a lot of things that you are probably going to tell me that are not valid arguments. First, you are probably going to tell me that the second amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms to United States citizens. However, you are not going to consider the fact that the second amendment was not written with today's semi-auto machine guns in mind. When the second amendment was written, the writers knew arms as single shot muskets that were difficult to reload. Since then, gun technology has been updated and no longer applies to the Constitution. Next, you are probably going to tell me that guns don't kill people and that people kill people. If people did kill people, what if they didn't have the guns to do it? This could make schools even more safe than they already are.
In conclusion, there is absolutely no place for guns in school. History has repeatedly shown us that guns at school lead to violence. Guns can not be used for hunting at school. Guns should not be allowed to be stylish at schools if pocket knives aren't allowed. There is no sense behind the use of guns at school, and all schools should be gun-free zones.
When talking about gun control no one ever has a problem with the police caring around a gun. If the police can why cant any law abiding citizen who has gone through the necessary training to acquire there concealed carry license. As the opposition has pointed out school shootings are tragic things and should not be allowed. Examining the facts of the matter however allowing guns of campuses would subtract from the overall likelihood that a school shooting would happen. I am advocating for only legal gun owners who are legally allowed to carry to be permitted to have a gun at school. Under federal regulation this means having gone through a federal background check and also taken the federal gun safety class needed to acquired a concealed carry licenses. What most do not understand is a concealed licenses does not permit open carry or the iconic gun on your hip, whether an individual decides he or she wants to open carry should be left up to the school and individual.
Making schools gun free zones does not mean that it is impossible for a school shooting not to happen. Criminals no not listen to or obey the laws so by nature any standing laws do not matter. If a criminal wants to go kill as many people as possible where would they go? Well any logical person could see that the best place they could go would be a gun free school. This is do to the fact that there would be little to no retaliation at least until the police showed up. If a criminal were to go to a school that allowed adults to carry there would be direct retaliation and it is less likely the criminal would succeed in killing the most people with no opposition. As it has been reiterated in the media the only thing that stops a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. Look at the police or military for proof of this, who stops criminals with guns, police also with guns.
A gun by nature is not soly designed to kill. They have become much more then that, guns have become instruments of protection and entertainment. While guns do kill people one cannot deny that they also protect people from being murdered. This protective nature is why guns would be a deterrent and help stop school shooting massacres.
Most statistical data on gun control uses the term mass shootings which my opponent used. There is no legal umbrella term for this, there is major disagreement on what is classified as a mass shooting. So to make the debate easier I will give a definition that can be used. A mass shooting is a crime that happens when more then five people are wounded or killed and the culprit does not claim to be a terrorist or in a gang. So to simplify this a mass shooting cannot be gang related or a terrorist attack. Under this definition the events of sandy hook cannot be thought as a mass shooting because the culprits both claimed to be an ISIS sleeper group. It is hard to give a general overview and acquire data on mass shootings because everyone has different standards for what a mass shooting is. As it stands the USA had 133 mass shootings from 2010-2014 however when you adjusted for the sheer population of the United States you get .31 rate per 100,000 citizens for mass shootings. This is compared with Norway, Finland and Switzerland who's rates are .78,1.94 and .40 death per every 100,000 in mass shootings in the same time period. This is pushed even further by the fact that all three of these countries have outright banned guns.
In conclusion to all of these fact further that guns should be allowed in schools for the safety of the children. The one argument I have neglected to speak on is the silver bullet of the Pro argument. That is the simple fact that with the exception of luby's all mass shootings in the past 30 years have happened in gun free zones. This is blatant proof that those who intend to kill aim for these zones. This is obviously due to the fact that in a gun free zone no one can actually defend themselves against an assailant. From this it is made obvious the last thing America needs is more gun free zones and more grieving parents over the loss of their children in a mass shooting because no one was allowed to defend themselves and others.
Guns being permitted in school is not a perfect link to no school shootings. There are so many other variables that could affect the amount of school shootings, such as the state's mental health and gun laws. Law-abiding citizen or not, guns do not belong in school. The argument that these licensed gun carriers have the same level as police officers is pointless when you consider that guns once again have no practical use in school. The why not argument that I have seen people say when opposing no guns in school is completely childish. It is not impossible to leave your guns at home when you go to school. Of course, if the persons were licensed, they would be an adult. This also means that the adult would have few reasons to come to school except to commit a mass shooting. If they did have a legitimate reason to come to school, they could leave their guns at home.
When I support gun free schools, I mean that no regular person can bring a gun into school. This does not mean that designated police guards could guard the school with guns. If a good person with a gun is the only thing that could stop a bad person with a gun, then these guards could stop the criminals. In fact, gun free schools would have more protection against lawbreakers. I am entirely aware that criminals do not follow laws and do not care if they break them. In fact, some criminals like to break laws. However, if every school were gun free, the criminal would not have a specific school to choose from, not endangering any specific school. Also, the gun free laws would be one more charge pressed onto the criminal in court, and would make it easier to arrest them.
Finally, I will address my argument's "silver bullet". Maybe every school shooting in the past has happened in gun-free zones. Maybe guns could protect schools from school shootings. However, that is not the purpose of the gun-free rule. If the gun-free rule were designed to protect from school shootings, the schools would have accepted the facts and allowed guns. The purpose of the no-guns rule in school is to protect children from fear. When people discuss this topic, they often forget that there are children at school. If a child saw a person carrying a gun, they would tell their peers and it would spread like wildfire. Then, the principal would have to go to all of the rooms and tell everyone that he was licensed and was permitted to have that gun. A gun in school would cause more problems than it would fix.
I would like to first applaud my opponent for his well thought out ideas and argument. It may have been well thought out but there are many logical flaws and misunderstood information that he uses to try to degrade my premises. Looking at round two your first paragraph has a large logical flaw in it, "I have gone to schools with no guns permitted, and those schools have never been attacked by " lunatics". Lunatics don't attack schools with no guns permitted specifically, they just attack schools in general." This statement is what is known as a logical fallacy, specifically this is known as ravens paradox. For those that do not know a fallacy is something that is psychologically powerful but logically very week. Ravens paradox states that just because something has not been seen or is not happened before it is impossible for it to be so. This is logically incorrect an in reality is not possible because as long as we remain in the laws of science anything is possible. So in his statement he states that he has not gone to a school that has had a mass shooting and has had no gun ban. In this statement he assumes since it has not happened to him it is not possible, this however is untrue and not a good base for an argument. The second statement is not characterized as a fallacy however it is misleading. I will not argue with the stamen however looking at the data it seems to be incorrect. While it is possible for a mass shooting to occurred at a school without a gun ban it is yet to actually happen. In fact the only place that there was a mass shooting that did not have a gun ban was Ludy's Cafeteria and when getting into the specifics of that case it was one of the worst in recorded history, 23 people died. In this incident no one in the restaurant that was filled with over 140 people had a gun. The victim had to wait to the police arrived to finally be safe from one criminal with a gun. If someone in the restaurant had a gun on them the casualties would have been less because the innocent civilians would not have had to wait for the police to arrive. It doesn't matter the training of the individual with a gun. If you are a criminal and you are trying to kill as many people as possible and someone pulls a gun on you who are you going to try to kill first. The answer is obvious the one with the gun, that is if you are not taken out first. Your later idea that guns being taken away is also incorrect and contradicted by a later point you make. Guns being banned is not a solution for criminals who by nature don't obey the laws. Look at the black market and informal economy for proof here. Just because marijuana is illegal does not mean people are not going to get their hands on it. Also examine other countries, the United Kingdoms is a great example for the most part all guns are illegal, yet they still have mass shootings.
What the argument does not understand is that happiness is a good bases for my argument. Society is roughly governed by it and society is based off it. What I mean by happiness is general happiness, killing or harming someone would take away from society allotted happiness so that is why it is morally wrong to take someone's life. When I say gun in school would create more happiness I mean it as individuals would be safer and their would be less lives lost which subtracts from societies happiness. To support this claim what why do you do something that you like? It is because it makes you happy, in the bigger picture why do you support a particular policy? Again it is because you will benefit and it will make you happy. Happiness can also be applied to safety, in that safety creates happiness so the Utilitarian philosophy fits as a perfect basis.
No I will address the argument mainly made in the first round. It is clear that your understanding of the second amendment is elementary at best so I will educate you on what it means and how it was meant to be interpreted. To do this I will directly quote it in whole "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." There are two main parts to this the first is speaking on the military and the necessity of it to be regulated by the state which is check in of itself by the people. This by no means does it mean for guns to be regulated by the state in fact the opposite. The second half speaks of how the people have the right to bare arms and for them to not be taken away under any circumstances. What this means is for the people to be the regulating force for government. The amendment was put in place as a backup plan for if government became tyrannical like Britain did at the time. It gives the citizens the means to actually overthrow the government if it became to invasive and took away human rights, this is directly in the Declaration of Independence. So was the second amendment design only for hunting? No, and the argument that the founders never intended for that based on modern weaponry is equally foolish. The simple fact is during revolutionary time there were already prototypes for full automatic weapons that are as devastating as modern counter parts. In fact although they were expensive some founders come to own very early prototypes for what we call the gatling gun the gun was call the puckle gun. Five years after the constitution was written into law a private individual even ask to put cannons on his ships to ward of pirates, this was quickly approved because as the constitution says the right to bare arms is not to be infringed. So the idea that the second amendment was designed for mascots only is a very common misconception.
Final I come to the argument that guns are fashion statements and that is there intended purpose when being carried. As any licensed owner know this is incorrect. A gun is device that can be used to kill people and is very dangerous no different than a kitchen knife. One does not carry to make a statement unless they are open carrying which you need much more training to attain a license for. When I say carry a gun I mean canceled carrying a gun, in this no one actually know that you have a gun other then yourself because it is hidden or concealed. When doing this it is soly for protection and not a fashion statement whatsoever. Some may still open carry and like you said in that case they are making a statement. However the statement that you see may be different then the one I see it is completely subjective unless you ask the one carrying why they are carrying. Yes children may see guns if they are in schools this is not a bad thing as you make it out to be. If anything it would teach them the importance of the second amendment and make them feel safer and teach them not to be so afraid of a gun. In the end a gun without a person controlling it cannot harm anyone it is only the person handling the gun that is the only risk. If that risk is a law abiding citizen, then I have no problem with them using there rights. To infringe on the right only based off of fear mongering and deceptive information is not reason to take away that right.
In conclusion I would like to state that guns should be aloud in school because it would make it a safe place for the children in said school. The only benefit of taking away guns from schools is painting a target on the back of every kid at that school for the next psychopath who wants to go on a killing spree. In doing this it will only increase fear of guns, not deal with the true problem of mass shootings. I would again like to thank my opponent for his arguments and hope him the best.
EMachine03 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.