The Instigator
tajshar2k
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Hoppi
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at Colleges/Universities

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Hoppi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,020 times Debate No: 75119
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

tajshar2k

Pro

I believe students with CCW permits should be allowed to carry guns


My opponent must prove it isn't a good idea.


Good Luck.
Hoppi

Con

Currently, most states either prohibit guns on campus or allow universities to make their own rules about it (1). The overwheming majority of college presidents (2) and students (3) don't want guns on campus. It would also make legitimate law enforcement more difficult (4).

Therefore, the language "should be allowed" actually means laws should be changed to force colleges to submit to having guns on campus even though it's against what most staff and students want. It's a bad idea.

(1) http://www.ncsl.org...
(2) https://www.insidehighered.com...
(3) http://iowawatch.org...
(4) http://www.ou.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
tajshar2k

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate

Let me start of with my rebutalls


Currently, most states either prohibit guns on campus or allow universities to make their own rules about it

Its fine whether a univerisity chooses to ban guns. If the educators feel there isn't an immenent threat, then there is no reason for students and staff to carry guns. I probably should have been more clear, but I will be arguing that there shouldnt be a state ban on CCW.



The overwheming majority of college presidents and students don't want guns on campus.

The source you provided only applies to the University of Iowa




It would also make legitimate law enforcement more difficult

The article is only saying that it makes the lives of cops harder. But, what if the shooter is stopped by a CCW owner? The life of a student is more important than making a cops life easier.


I will now argue that CCW is beneficial at colleges.



Gun bans only prevents legal gun owners from possessing guns


Laws that restrict CCW only prevent legal gun use, because those who intend on using a gun illegally will ignore the rules anyway. In the link below, It shows how gun bans didn't work in stopping the killer. So another point, that CCW can prevent huge killing sprees from taking place.


http://newscenter.berkeley.edu...


2nd Ammendment

The right to bear arms is in the 2nd ammendment. If all 50 states allow CCW, why should the rules be different when it comes to College?
















Hoppi

Con

Pro said: "Its fine whether a univerisity chooses to ban guns. If the educators feel there isn't an immenent threat, then there is no reason for students and staff to carry guns."

This is a concession. If it's fine for a university to ban guns, then that directly contradicts the resolution that CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at colleges/universities.

The only exception Pro admits is when there is "an imminent threat". I will discuss this exception further below.

Pro said: "I probably should have been more clear, but I will be arguing that there shouldnt be a state ban on CCW."

It's not okay to change the resolution of a debate halfway through. This debate is not only about state bans, but about whether CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at colleges and universities, which includes all the laws and regulations in relation to that.

An imminent threat

Pro has conceded that it's fine for guns to be banned on college and university campuses when there is no imminent threat. However, I suggest that when there IS an imminent threat to the safety of staff and students, it would be far better for security to be maintained by trained law-enforcement professionals.

Further, I suggest that when there is an imminent threat to safety, that students and staff should stay away from campus until it is resolved.

2nd amendment

The 2nd amendment is not an unconditional right. Prisoners, the mentally ill, children, etc., are not allowed to carry guns and there are restictions on the types of weapons people are allowed to own (1). Furthermore, most states have restrictions on taking weapons to places such as daycare centres, schools, hospitals and government offices (2).

As was pointed out in United States vs Miller, the 2nd amenment only guarantees US citizens the right to bear arms only in "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". (1)

Therefore, exceptions to the right to bear arms are consistent with the 2nd amendment. Pro has conceded this point already when he said that it was fine for universities to maintain bans on guns when there is no imminent threat.

(1) https://www.law.cornell.edu...
(2) http://www.salon.com...
Debate Round No. 2
tajshar2k

Pro

Since Con is insisting that I stay with my original argument, I shall do that. I now will argue for any bans for CCW is wrong. This is fair, because Pro still has a chance to refute my cases. Also, voters feel free to take away conduct for my screw up in the beginning.

So far, Con has failed to refute the following arguments.

-Gun bans only prevents legal gun owners from possessing guns



R1: An imminent threat

Pro argues that it would be better for security to be maintained by trained law-enforcement professionals. He fails to show why it should "only" be maintained by law-enforcement. He also says students and staff should stay away from the campus till the threat is resolved. How are students supposed to get a warning of a danger? If a criminal brings in a gun into campus, they only have several minutes to react. They aren't given a 24 hours notice.

R2: 2nd Ammendment

Pro argues that certain people aren't allowed to carry a gun, and there are restrictions on the type of guns eople are allowed to own. This is completely irrelevant to my case. I'm arguing that CCW should be allowed. In order to be a CCW owner, you need to first pass all tests, and need to be qualified to own a gun in the first place. Also, all states allow the use of CCW. So Pro's rebutall is invalid.




My case

CCW protects lives.

CCW have proven to save many lives. According to this source, here are examples of sucessful self defense sought by students.

  • Arizona, October 16, 2008
    A University of Arizona student shoots two intruders in self-defense.
  • South Carolina, August 9, 2008
    A Citadel military school student successfully scares off a bat-wielding road rage driver by brandishing a handgun in self-defense.
  • Michigan, January 20, 2008
    A University of Michigan student shoots and kills two intruders in self-defense.
  • Utah, September 18, 2007
    A Utah Valley State College licensed to carry a concealed weapon shot a pit bull that was attacking him. The animal survived the shooting, and at the student’s request, no charges were filed against the dog’s owner.
  • California, April 25, 2007
    University of Southern California students overpowered a man, taking away his firearm and holding him at gunpoint for police. The man had become violent and threatening towards a female at a student party and refused to leave.
  • Ohio, April 24, 2007
    After a man demanded entry to a University of Akron student’s apartment and threatened him with a gun, the student returned fire with a roommate’s gun. The suspect then fled the scene.
  • Texas, January 25, 2007
    A Texas Tech student with a concealed carry permit grabbed his gun and hid when he heard someone trying to break in to his house. When the perpetrators successfully gained entry, the student took aim at the intruders. One fled, the other was detained for police.
  • Texas, January 24, 2007
    A Texas Tech student with a concealed carry permit returned home to find his car and home broken into, with the perpetrators still inside the house. The student fired two warning shots, causing the would-be thieves to flee.
  • Florida, September 8, 2006
    Two South Florida Community College students were attacked outside their apartment, but one used a .45 handgun to shoot one of the attackers in the chest. The other fled.
  • Virginia, December 10, 2005
  • A Virginia Commonwealth University student was initially charged with murder after shooting an armed gang member in a confrontation outside a coin laundry business, but was cleared by authorities two months later when it was learned he acted in self-defense
  • .
  • Georgia, September 19, 2005
    After dialing 911, a Mercer University School of Law student shot and killed a man that had broken into his home.
  • Kentucky, May 2, 2005
    A University of Kentucky student was cleared of wrongdoing after shooting a Louisville man who was robbing him outside a Lexington apartment complex

http://thearmedcitizen.com...;

http://concealedcampus.org...


Here is a map that shows all the shooting that occured in the United States of America. Keep in mind, many of those shooting occured in states were CCW is banned, or colleges have banned them.

https://www.google.com...





So far, Con has failed to show the disadvantages of banning CCW. His only proof was the majority college presidents do not want it, and the students from the state of Iowa do not want it either. Both of these are highly subjective, because different people have different opinions on self-defense. Keep in mind, that CCW isn't only for public protection, it can also be used for personal protection.

Hoppi

Con

Imminent threat

In round 2, Pro said, "Its fine whether a univerisity chooses to ban guns. If the educators feel there isn't an immenent threat, then there is no reason for students and staff to carry guns."

But then, in the next round he argues "How are students supposed to get a warning of a danger? If a criminal brings in a gun into campus, they only have several minutes to react. They aren't given a 24 hours notice."

He's contradicting himself. If educators feel that there isn't an imminent threat, then they're fine to ban guns. That means that students would all be on campus unarmed. If there suddenly WAS an imminent threat, it wouldn't make sense for everyone to go home or to a gun shop in town, arm themselves and come back. Instead, they should just go home period. A college isn't a war zone. Law enforcement professionals should deal with the imminent threat.

Low rates of crime on campus


Pro has cut and pasted a list of incidents where students use guns to threaten, injure and kill people. None of those incidents happened on campus and so they are irrelevant to the current topic. For instance, people are far less likely to get caught up in road rage on a college campus than they would be on, say, a highway.

Pro's own source acknowledges that there is a far lower rate of crime on college campuses than in the rest of the United States (1). Therefore, it makes no sense to use off campus crime as an example of what could happen on campus.


Legal owners

It's true that it would be perfect if we could ban all guns from college campuses, and Pro is right that sometimes people will still smuggle in guns even when there is a ban. Unfortunately, illegal activity will occur sometimes. Passing legislation that forces universities to allow permit-holders to bring guns onto campus will do nothing to prevent illegal guns either. It will just increase the total number of weapons on campus.

Among the examples that Pro cut-and-pasted, there was one where students "overwhelmed a man and took away his firearm". That could happen, presumably, to any of the permit-holding gun-weilding students too: they could be overwhelmed and their firearm taken away.

Summary

Most college students and staff do not want guns on campus. We know this because in states where colleges can make their own choice in the matter, they overwhelmingly choose to ban guns on campus. Even Pro agrees that this is the right thing for them to do when there is no imminent threat, and his own sources agree that campuses have relatively low rates of crime. Pro has given no reason to depart from the status quo.

Thank you tajshar2k for this debate.

(1) http://concealedcampus.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
I admit that he conceded in the first round, and then changed what he said halfway through the debate, so I gave you conduct.
Posted by Hoppi 2 years ago
Hoppi
Midnight, you admit that he conceded and still give him arguments. That makes no sense.
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
Why you pointed that out*
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
Pro has cut and pasted a list of incidents where students use guns to threaten, injure and kill people. Ya Included the source where I got it from, so I don't get why pointed that out.
Posted by McHitler 2 years ago
McHitler
Yes, let's give a bunch of hormone-motivated young adults with access to alcohol and other mind-altering substances the legal ability to bring guns to camps. Nothing bad is sure to take place.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
tajshar2kHoppiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was fair on both sides of the debate, so that point is a tie. Spelling and Grammar goes to Con due to Pro's numerous grammatical punctuation errors throughout the debate. Sources will go to Con due to Con using both more sources and that he use law and highly scholarly sources. For arguments this was a close one, Pro brought up several cases where the student needed to defend himself, but Con ended up using Pro's own words against him as he shown numerous times throughout the debate that Pro made concessions to the case in certain circumstances. Due to those concessions I have no option but to also give those points to Con as well.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
tajshar2kHoppiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments. Pro conceded that colleges should be able to ban guns if the majority of students would feel safer on a gun-free campus. That concession costs Pro the win. In addition, Pro fails the BOP to show guns are needed on campus. Pro doesn't prove that university police are inadequate in dealing with threats, and all the self-defense examples Pro used occurred off campus (as Con points out). Conduct. Pro said to award conduct to Con for trying to change the resolution halfway through, and I agree doing so was sketchy. S&G. Pro misspelled: Amendment, imminent, people, rebuttal.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
tajshar2kHoppiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con, due to Pro accidentally conceding in one round, and then changing what they originally said. Arguments to Pro, because pro showed that people could successfully defend themselves if they were allowed to have guns on campus, and provided many instances of this occurring. Also, I felt that Con didn't successfully refute the statement that "gun bans only prevent legal owners from having them." Con tries to refute this by saying that allowing legal gun owners to bring in their own weapons will do nothing to reduce the amount of guns either. But Pro already provided evidence that the guns can and have been used for self defense, which is what would make the students and staff safer. Con never shows that reducing the amount of guns is required, he simply states that it will not happen if you allows students to have access to guns. Pro shows that letting students carry guns for self defense has helped in the past to combat illegal gun owners, and keep the students safe.