An armed security guard should be required in gun free zones.
Debate Rounds (4)
The purpose of the hiring of security guards would be for the safety of the innocent unarmed people in the area against potential criminals, who might carry weapons into the area illegally. Con will be arguing that armed security guards should not be required.
Con may either simply accept in the first round, or begin making his case. If he/she decides to begin arguing immediately, he/she may not post any arguments or comments in the last round other than something like "Vote Con."
Gun free zones result in innocent people being defenseless in the event that an armed criminal decides to bring a gun into the gun free zone (for the purpose of either robbery or just to start shooting people). Studies have shown that most shootings occur in gun free zones . This shouldn't be a surprise since the criminal can expect no one to be armed as he commits the crime. The chances of the gunman being immediately shot are almost zero, since this would require a law-abiding citizen to have illegally carried a gun into the area (my  source notes a situation where this happened, as the conceal carrier was unaware of the gun free zone).
My point so far is that any person with a gun can easily kill people in a gun free zone, as these people are completely defenseless. Gun free zones are also likely attract criminals due to the unlikeliness of being stopped in a reasonable amount of time. But imagine a situation where an armed security guard was in the area. The criminal might then think twice about committing a crime in that zone in the first place, and if they did attempt a gun-related crime there, the criminal would quickly be stopped by the security guard. Therefpre, to increase the safety of gun free zones, I believe an armed security guard should be required in such zones.
Thus, my logic goes something like this:
-Law abiding citizens will not knowingly bring guns into gun-free zones.
-Criminals are not law abiding citizens, and do not obey the law.
-Therefore, a criminal can have a gun in a gun free zone (while law abiding citizens can not).
-If the above is true, a criminal can expect to not be stopped in a gun free zone.
-Therefore, gun free zones are an easy target for criminals.
-If an armed security guard was placed in a gun free zone, a criminal would not be the only one with a gun.
-Due to the known presence of another person with a gun, gun free zones would no longer be a favorable target for criminals due to fear of being shot.
-If an insane serial killer decides to shoot people in a gun free zone despite the presence of a guard, he would quickly be stopped by that guard.
-Therefore, the presence of an armed guard in a gun free zone greatly increases the safety of that zone.
I would also like to note that if a law was made requiring gun free zones to have security guards, it would give millions of people jobs as security guards, decreasing the unemployment.
That's my argument so far. I would like to see what my opponent has to say. Good luck.
All citizens have the right to their private property, such as houses, restaurants, etc. And if these citizens do not want guns on their property, that is their right. Even though for the most part I don't agree with gun free zones, I will NEVER agree with the government infringing upon our right to private property. When push comes to shove, the owner of a restaurant, bar, or anything of the sort has the sole decision as to whether or not people can bring a gun onto his/her property. Also, if citizens truly are in fear for their lives upon entering a restaurant that is a gun free zone, they can simply not enter. Just as it is the owners right to prohibit weapons, it is the citizens' right to not enter that area.
This brings me to my next point, in some cases citizens must enter a "governmental gun free zone" (area that the government requires by law to be a gun free zone) in order to continue their daily lives. Forcing armed guards to be posted outside of these gun free zones, such as schools, is what my opponent is proposing. Having armed guards at our schools is something that sounds quite logical, in a perfect world. The simple fact is that the amount of money it would cost to achieve this goal is impractical for our nations already fragile economy. President Obama has recently enacted a heavily scrutinized plan that will "provide $25 billion to prevent layoffs and support hundreds of thousands of teacher and other education jobs."  The amount of taxpayer dollars that this new plan will require is substantial to say the least, and any additional money added to the education budget unfortunately is unrealistic at this time. A Cleveland State University Economics professor claims that "having enough officers to fully protect schools would cost $23 billion", which is "half of what the federal government spends on K-12 education"  . Imagine that, wiping out half of the United States' education budget to fulfill this plan. I cannot argue that it would substantially increase our children"s security, but it is simply too expensive.
The logic for my argument is as follows:
-in situations where citizens choose to prohibit weapons on their property, that is entirely their right
-the government cannot constitutionally force private property owners to hire security.
- no one is forced to enter gun free restaurants or bars, so don't go in if you don't feel safe.
-in government forced gun free zones (schools, airports, etc.) hiring security is logical until the money situation is brought into play.
- hiring armed guards at all gun free zones would be immensely expensive
Of course citizens have rights to private property such as houses. If a citizen doesn't want to allow people with guns into his house, that's his own business, and there's nothing wrong with it. However, I am mainly referring to business property and other places where a great majority of people will be allowed into. In such situations, it is no longer the property owner's life at risk; it's everyone's. The property owner should not be allowed to make decisions that potentially put others' lives in danger just because he owns the property. Because people other than himself are in the situation, he no longer has a right to make whatever rules he wants. Also, your right to simply choose not to go in is irrelevant. Your decision to go elsewhere doesn't change the fact that people are going to get killed in gun free zones. The fact that you personally did not enter might save your life, but not anyone else's. The hiring of a security guard would still prevent the loss of lives in the event of a crime.
I should also note that the government has already infringed on our "right to private property." Can we build a second story to our house? Not without a permit. Can own a tiger? No. Can we kill someone if they're on our property? Nope, muder us murder, whether on your property or not. Just because you own property doesn't mean you can do whatever you want on it. You still must abide by the local laws.
In my opponent's second point, he claims that the government can't afford to hire security guards for places like schools. Aside from the fact that he gives no real evidence that they can't, this entire point is irrelevant. I never said that government property would have to have security guards on it. Although I personally think this would be a good idea, this isn't what we are arguing about. It's a separate issue.
Your logic isn't consistent; one point doesn't bring you to the next. Regardless, your first and second points fail because the government can make rules for what you can do on property.
I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
First of all, just because the owner of one of these "gun free zones" isn't the one whose life is at risk, this doesn't justify governmental mandating of security guards on their property. Anyone who eats at a restaurant, shops at a store, or watches a movie in a theater that is a gun free zone is doing so at their own risk. It might sound harsh, but in this day in age people are expected to be mindful of their own situation, and if something makes them feel unsafe or nervous, they don't have to do it. A perfect example of my point is airline companies. Every single time a citizen steps foot on an airplane, they are aware (or they should be) of the risk that they are taking to get from point A to point B. The owner of Southwest Airlines (for example) isn't personally in danger of losing his life when someone steps onto a plane owned by his company, it was their choice.
At the same time, one could argue that the owner of Denny's (another example) is making his property more dangerous by deeming it a gun free zone, while the owner of Southwest Airlines has done everything (hopefully) in his power to make his company safe. To this argument my only response is: There is a sign on the door that says "Gun Free Zone", if you feel unsafe, don't enter. No one is forcing anyone to spend time in a gun free zone, and people who do so are making a choice that they are responsible for.
My opponent makes a strong argument by saying "the government has already infringed on our "right to private property."". His examples of how the Government has violated our rights are "Can we build a second story to our house? Not without a permit. Can [we] own a tiger? No. Can we kill someone if they're on our property? Nope". All of these are valid examples, however, they differ from my point that the government cannot force property owners to hire armed guards because none of these "infringements" ,as my opponent classifies them, cost a property owner money. Does it cost someone money to NOT be allowed a second story without a permit? No. Does it cost someone money to NOT be allowed to own a tiger? No. The simple point I am making is that the Government of the United States cannot force a property owner to hire someone to guard their property, it's unconstitutional.
And as to my opponent's next argument that I provide no proof that the government can't afford to hire armed guards for gun free zones, this could quite possibly be the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. Our government (and education budget) is in a financial crisis. Teachers are getting laid off left and right, yet my opponent thinks we can afford full time security guards at all government regulated gun free zones?
My opponent then moves to say "I never said that government property would have to have security guards on it" which could not be more false. His/her entire argument is that the government should "require" security guards in all gun free zones. My opponent must not be aware that schools, airports, public libraries etc. are ALL gun free zones, and they are also ALL government property. So if my opponent believes that armed guards should be mandated in all gun free zones, then he/she also 100% believes that "government property would have to have security guards on it".
First, I would like to make it clear that the government wouldn't be "forcing" people to hire security guards. If the property owner cannot afford to make his gun free zone safe for everyone, he can simply allow guns instead. Thus, requiring gun free zones to have security guards is justified. And once again, the fact that they can simply choose not to enter is irrelevant. The chances of getting killed are so low that almost no one will be afraid. But gun crimes do happen, and the hiring of a security guard would still reduce the number of people killed each year in gun free zones. And as I said above, the property owner can simply allow guns, choosing to reduce crime by conceal carriers instead of security guards.
Airliners are not a good example, as they do put armed guards (called Federal Air Marshals ) on planes, disguised as normal civilians. This argument is self-refuting, because in this situation they do exactly what I am proposing.
In your next argument, I will once again state that the government isn't forcing anyone to pay for something, because if you don't want to hire a security guard, you can just allow guns. Thus, none of these "property infringements" require money to be paid. Does it cost someone money NOT to make his property a gun free zone? No.
My opponent still hasn't provided any proof that the government cannot hire security guards, and although I am still not arguing for this, I will give my opponent the benefit of doubt for the moment: Assuming I was actually arguing this, what proof have you given that security guards couldn't be hired? None. You have given no sources confirming this; only a source saying some jobs have been lost, and a source of someone claiming it would cost 9 billion. These claims by themselves do not prove that the government cannot hire security guards. And even if the government really couldn't, they could potentially cut other government programs to afford it. All of this aside, it is clear that teachers still exist. There are also crossing guards, and many other school employees, all of which get paid a very good salary. If the government can afford all of this, I see no reason why they can't fit in a security guard. Furthermore, there are other solutions - most notably, the government could simply stop making schools gun free zones.
But none of that is relevant, because I am not debating this; that subject could fill an entire debate of its own. My opponent claims that I am debating this, and makes up his own resolution, which is NOT the resolution I put at the beginning of this debate. Please read the resolution one more time:
QUOTE (round 1): If a property owner (such as the owner of a restaurant or office building) wants to make their property a gun free zone, they should be required to hire one or more armed security guards.
"Property owner" clearly does not refer to the government; it refers to an individual, an owner of private property where he (most likely) plans to set up a business, as implied by my examples of "the owner of a restaurant or office building." My opponent emphasizes on the word "all." I would like to note that nowhere in the resolution (be it the complete one, or the summarized one I put as the title) did I say the word "all." Nowhere in the resolution does it say that the government would be included in such a rule, and this simply isn't what we are debating about.
-My opponent is mainly against the resolution because he believes people will be forced to hire security guards. This isn't true, as the property owner can simply allow guns instead.
-Con reasons that you can simply choose not to enter a gun free zone. This is irrelevant to the fact that the hiring of security guards would save innocent lives. People that enter gun free zones regardless of potential danger are still innocent.
-Con's argument concerning the citizen's risk when boarding an airplane is self-refuting, because airlines do have Federal Air Marshals (which are akin to security guards)
-Con believes I am arguing for security guards in schools. Based on this assumption, he claims that the government cannot afford to hire security guards. I am not arguing that security guards in schools should be required. Even if I was, Con has provided no proof, and I provided several points proving the argument irrelevant.
All of my opponent's arguments have been thoroughly refuted. Please vote Pro.
handywandy forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Marauder 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: because of ff
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.