The Instigator
SandlasJuagas
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points

College campuses should allow students to carry guns for protection.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,646 times Debate No: 548
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (21)

 

SandlasJuagas

Con

Ever since the Tech shooting, there has been debate over whether students should be allowed to carry guns for protection. This seems like a really bad idea.

I realise that people feel a need to be protected in times off crisis, but there has got to be a better solution than to let everyone carry a gun. My major points are these: A) Guns would make a crisis more of a crisis; B) Guns would increase the frequency of violent shootings; C) Crime in general would increase.

Some would argue that in a crisis it would be beneficial to have a gun so as to protect you and others around you. This would not only not be helpful, it could potentially harm innocent people who would not be harmed otherwise.

Imagine if you will, a shooter comes into a classroom, raises a gun into the air and shouts that everyone is going to die. So a student with a gun simply takes out his weapon and shouts the shooter before he can do any harm.

Now imagine this: A shooter comes into a room and systematically starts shouting with his well trained eye at students in the room. Before you know it a student in the classroom takes out his gun in order to defend himself. Not only does this make him a target, this also technically makes him a shooter too. He raises his gun to fire, but if he doesn't have as much training, or is under a lot of stress (which he probably is), there is a good chance that he will miss his target. This just creates more chaos, and potentially the student could shoot another student on accident.

My second point is: when there is a school shooting, the shooter has to think out his plan. He has to know where he will get his gun and ammo and when he will attack. However, a student who is allowed a gun at school has a convenient to carry death machine right in his dorm. If he has had a bad week at school and hasn't got a lot of sleep and his roommate's friends come over and just tick him off so much that he can't stand it, there is a gun sitting in his drawer ready to be used. I'm not suggesting that all collage students would use this option as a first choice, but it would make it easier for those who would.

Crime increasing is my final point. Crime is just way easier to commit with a gun. Even if one doesn't use a gun to harm someone, it is easier to, say, rob, damage, or rape someone if you have a gun.

So yeah, let's get us some guns in colleges, because lord knows that of all people, college kids would be the most responsible with them.
Korezaan

Pro

Hello, SandlasJuagas. Thank you for starting this debate.

Sorry I took so long to get to you, I had stuff to work on ._.

Alright so the CON's thesis is that we should not allow guns on college campuses because it would severely decrease security and increase crime rates.

However, I disagree on that same standard.

1) His only warrant for his first argument is that college students that have guns for self defense will only fumble and miss with them in real situations.

First of all, people that aren't accustomed to guns and aren't really big on guns wouldn't bring them in the first place, just as if a person isn't really addicted to a certain fashion style, they won't put it on display at work or school. This eliminates many of the people that would make up his situation already.

Second, for the people that are trained with guns, I would say that the situation then doesn't apply. And EVEN IF it does, I believe it is still better as if we have a VTech-esque shooter, defense is better than no defense.

2) This has nothing to do with protection. I understand how you say itll be a side effect, but you did not state either in the topic nor in your case that they'll be able to KEEP the guns.

For all we know, maybe theres this armory where they can visit before exiting the dorm and that theres someone that watches over it. He also didn't specify what types of bullets they were allowed; maybe they're only allowed small caliber guns? Maybe only rubber bullets?

If colleges allowed guns on campus, they would most certainly have some sort of restriction to which students would be allowed to have guns. The CON never specified that this debate would focus in on all college campuses allowing all students to have guns.

In any case, it's not only depressed students that have guns. In the PRO's world, other college students would also have guns and the instigator would be put down almost immediately whereas in the CON's world, well, look again to VTech.

3) Re-apply the last argument I made to his second point.

There is one concept that he never seems to touch upon and that is MAD. AKA "Mutually Assured Destruction", this argument does not only apply to the prevention of nuclear war, it also applies to handguns. If you allow guns, then law-abiding citizens that are interested in getting a gun will go and get one. In this case of guns in college, only the people that are trained with them and know what they're doing and actually like guns that much will be carrying them around.

However, if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will happen.

Defense is better than no defense, and his only argument against it is that the people fighting back will misuse their guns. This is a conditional argument as it will not happen all the time and as my other arguments above prove, things like that aren't going to be happening.
Debate Round No. 1
SandlasJuagas

Con

"A new study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, "nearly half of America's 5.4 million full-time college students abuse drugs or drink alcohol on binges at least once a month." For college gun owners, the rate of binge drinking is even higher – two-thirds." - Brian J. Siebel (2007)

You say that only the responsible kids, who know how to use a gun properly, are the ones who are going to bring guns to college- which is wrong –but these seem to be the people who are going out and getting high or drunk most often. Am I missing something, or does this seem very dangerous? Maybe they could shoot with accuracy when they're sober, but are they going to use the guns responsibly if they don't have a good grip on reality? I am by no means suggesting that gun owners are drunk all of the time or that all gun owners use illegal materials at all, but I'm just saying that the ones that do will definitely be a great danger to themselves and the people around them.

But I don't believe that only gun-enthusiasts will bring guns to school. Some students will in fact take guns to school without knowing how to use one. For example, a father gives his daughter a gun in order for her to be protected, and she now has a gun without having any experience shooting one. This is only an example; I believe a lot of people would take guns to their school in order to be protected.

Even if someone has experience with guns; is shooting a target the same as shooting a human being? The answer is obviously no. Someone could have really good aim and be a very good shooter, but not be able to kill a man. This would pose as a serious problem in a crisis situation. The man would instantly be made a target if he was seen with a gun.

I don't understand how an armory would be safe at all. It just seems like a place to get easy access to weapons if one wanted to create a crisis. Even if there is a guard; what is he going to do? Either the guard lets everyone who wants a gun have one, or he doesn't let anyone have a gun unless instructed by an official, in which case the efficiency of an armory is lost.

Using rubber bullets is an interesting idea that I had never before considered. However, while rubber bullets would work to keep away an unarmed attacker, they wouldn't do more than piss off a shooter. Rubber bullets might slow a shooter down, but in the end it would just make the student a target.

You say that MAD can be applied to handguns, but your logic doesn't make sense. The reason nuclear war doesn't happen is that all the powerful world-states have weapons powerful enough to really screw up the world. But for this theory to work with handguns, a majority of the school population would have to have a gun. People use guns to overpower the helpless, where as nuclear weapons cannot be used to overpower a country that also has nuclear weapons.

You say in your last paragraph that there is no defense, but what about the on-campus police. There are trained officers that can use guns accurately and safely to protect the students. The only setback for officers is the time it takes to relay the information of an emergency.

We already have defense, and guns would just make the defense weaker. Your only argument for the use of guns is that everyone who uses guns will be good responsible students, who are not only dead-eyes, but also always sober. And since I just disproved your argument, I think I can say that "things like that" are definitely "going to be happening".
Korezaan

Pro

---There is no correlation between the drinking students and the ones that bring guns. There probably is some overlap, but that does not make your argument true nor absolute. Actually, I don't see anything in this first paragraph of yours proving anything; all of it is merely a "suggestion".

And I shall not take it.

Probably because I haven't heard of any incidents other than VTech where theres been a college shooting. You use my base argument for your point, which was "Only people accustomed to guns will bring them", was that other people bring guns to school. Which is funny, because I'm going to turn the arg again.

Let's look at it this way. You give me this quote from Columbia University that two thirds or so of college students use drugs. You turn my argument so that these druggies will be using the guns and be shooting people, AND THEN you add on this argument that more people than just gun fanatics will bring guns to school. However, people are doing this RIGHT NOW (you don't give any reasons why your situations only happen in a world if we vote PRO), and you haven't given me any incidents in which college shootings have happened, and because I think colleges are generally a good place, I'm going to assume shootings AREN'T regular and therefore your point is disproved.

Oh, and the "targets" argument? If you actually asked the real gun fanatics, you'll find that most of them spend more time playing paintball than at the firing range. Paintball is pretty realistic.

Your "threat" argument can easily be taken out by my original argument - defense is better than no defense. And since, as you said, more people will have them, then that means EVEN IF the person who pulls out a gun is seen as a threat by the perp, that will buy time for everyone else to pull their guns out and shoot. Sounds dirty and "using lives" in an unjust way, I agree, but I believe that having a few people die as heroes is better than a whole group of people being slaughtered without any sort of way to fight back.

IMPACT >>> People generally WILL have better defense against attackers, as having a gun and shooting back is better than just sitting there waiting to be systematically murdered.

---The armory was just an example to point out the vagueness of your case.

---Two layers to the Rubber Bullet.
1) "Target" - Re-apply the argument above the first impact.
2) That's exactly what we want. I don't know about you, but here's how I see a situation in which a colelge shooting had students armed with rubber bullets - The perp walks in and perhaps shoots a few people. By then people will have realized he's a threat and pulled out their guns and started shooting. As you have conceded, this will slow down the shooter, and fatigue him/her for a little while. During this time, other people will be stepping up and disarming the perp. I'd like to believe that college students are bright enough to know that they have to not just stand there and shoot like its a firing range (although those people will be useful too, as they keep firing at the perp while others are trying to disarm him/her), and that a few of them have to take up the job to take away the gun(s) from the intruder.

IMPACT >>> This argument by itself wins the round, as it provides more and higher efficient security.

--- The setback is all it takes. Notice how the perp of VTech had things planned out and jammed the doors shut? EVEN IF there is enough campus police and EVEN IF they are efficient, unless there is a squad of police in each and every college classroom (one would not be as efficient, as that person would be shot first and then the rest of the classroom is just an eeny-meeny-miny-moe game for the perp), campus police aren't ever going to be enough to prevent or take down these shooters quickly or efficiently enough.

Guns do not make defense weaker. I have disproven the Campus Police argument, showing that there is a need for students to arm themselves; I have won the Rubber Bullet argument, and since SandlasJuagas never specifies what type of gun or bullet in the resolution I ADVOCATE RUBBER BULLETS IN HANDGUNS; and finally I have turned the "Student Inefficiency" argument, proving that students don't and won't just randomly go out and shoot people just because they're drunk.

I will provide the line-by-line voting issues for the reader at the end of R3.
Debate Round No. 2
SandlasJuagas

Con

This is going to be short because I feel that you have simply provided your differing opinion to all of my topics but have given no substantial proof of anything. To compensate I have provided my opinion for all of your points, but have included relevant, un-opinionated information as well.

"There is no correlation between the drinking students and the ones that bring guns."-
Oh, well okay. This is some very insightful information. I'm sure you would back it up with some tests or studies, if any tests or studies existed which would confirm your opinion. But since there's not, I'm going to continue to believe the study instead of your opinion.

"I haven't heard of any incidents other than VTech where theres been a college shooting"-
Well it's good to know that I'm arguing the issue with a well informed individual. Since you don't seem to know that magnitude of the problem, let me fill you in:
University of Texas (1966)- 14 killed; 31 wounded
Kent State University (1970)- 4 killed; 9 wounded
Jackson State University (1970)- 2 killed; 12 wounded
California State University (1976)- 7 killed; 2 wounded
�cole Polytechnique School (1989)- 14 killed; 14 wounded
Concordia University (1992)- 4 killed; 1 wounded
Appalachian School of Law (2002)- 3 killed; 3 wounded
Dawson College (2006)- 2 killed; 19 wounded
Delaware State University (2007)- 1 killed; 1 wounded
These are only a few examples.

"people are doing this [bringing guns] RIGHT NOW"-
By this are you saying that people already bring guns to college? If this statement is true then it looks like guns at college aren't helping. If this statement is false then it doesn't really matter.

"Paintball is pretty realistic"-
I guess paintball is pretty realistic. Even though in paintball you know there is no consequence for shooting someone. But you're right, killing someone is pretty much the same thing as hitting them with a plastic ball full of paint.

"The setback is all it takes"-
You say that rubber bullets will be enough to subdue a shooter, but I just don;t believe that this is the case. I'm thinking that even if you have ten kids with guns that fire rubber bullets, it won't be enough to match a man armed with real weapons. And again I'm going to argue that rubber bullets will do nothing more than piss of the shooter.

"I will provide the line-by-line voting issues for the reader at the end of R3"-
Thank goodness, I would have given the line-by-line voting issues myself, but I would be afraid that my opinion would make them biased or irrelevant. Thank God you're here to help.
Korezaan

Pro

Alrighty then. Responding to his responses first.

1) I agree with his study, I'm pretty sure that a lot of college students use drugs. However as I said earlier, this doesn't really prove anything. If all the people are only using rubber bullets and a lot of people have them, then if some druggie wants to use his, then he'll be subdued by the people around him.

2) Notice how he didn't provide a humongous list. If the problem is really bad as he says it is and druggies are shooting people, I'd imagine the list to be a lot longer. There is an 8,000 character limit and he has not used all of it, therefore I will assume he has either chosen not to include any more or no more exist. Either result leads to "there is no reason to believe there are more". Quoting Sandlas himself, "no substantial proof".

3) Yes I am saying that there are already bringing guns to college. If this is true then that means all your impacts are incorrect, because people that do illegal things like using drugs at school have a higher tendency to do other illegal things such as BRINGING GUNS to school, and that hasn't resulted in the amount of shootings that you've claimed but have not given evidence for.

4) Funny how you make this argument, because rubber bullets don't have a consequence. They merely slow down the perp. I will explain this in my voters. Besides, there isn't one skill where practice makes the person ready for the real situation. Paintball is as realistic as it gets before you actually get shot with real guns.

5) I completely agree that if ten college kids were just standing there firing at an armed man, they would eventually have to reload and in the process, they would get shot. However, this is not 18th century warfare and I believe that college kids are smart enough to charge the armed guy while he's being pummelled with the rubber bullets and attemt to disarm the perpetrator.

6) I don't need to insinuate that my opponent is insolent, dumb, retarded, moronic, or uninformed to win this debate.

VOTING ISSUES

Just as a point of my personal opinion: You shouldn't be voting for someone that has no sort of courtesy for his opponent. Last I checked, we were supposed to keep a civilized debate, and in my mind that means none of the sarcastic comments he made to me that are supposed to bring my confidence level down.

To understand my 3 voters, people must first understand that there are three parts to an argument - A claim, a warrant, and an impact. A point, a reason, and why it matters. The way SandlasJuagas goes about his points is why he loses this debate.

A1) For the rubber bullet argument, the only argument he makes is against the impact. he says that it just won't be effective, and that means he assumes this argument to be correct.

A2) My argument against this is that it would be effective, as students with rubber bullets will be able to distract/tire/fatigue/etc the armed man for a while, and other people will step up to disarm the perpetrator. I'd like to believe college students are smart enough to do that and not just sit there in fear BUT SINCE he never responded to my warrant, that means my warrant is true. Since I have responded to his impact argument, I win this argument.

A3) Regardless though, he loses it. He's just provided you with a list of shootings at colleges. >>>He's just given you proof that campus police doesn't work.<<< However, I give you the intuitive argument that if college students were armed with rubber bullets, that would already be more efficient than campus security police because they're already on-scene. Because it's non-lethal and it's powerful at the same time, it will be able to slow the perpetrator down. I don't need to say any more on this because he's already agreed to the warrant of this argument, he's only arguing that the impact is different.

A4) His only argument left then, is the paintball point. But I don't see any sort of real warrant behind his argument, he just says that theres no consequences when you shoot someone with a paintball and there is when you shoot someone..... with a rubber bullet. I don't see much of a difference. I think he forgot I'm advocating a rubber-bullet-handguns-should-be-allowed world, not real-bullet-handgun colleges.

B) I am not the status quo, he is. Therefore he is advocating the status quo and I am advocating what I've said I'm going to advocate - A system where colleges allow rubber bullets in handguns on campus. The status quo is horrific. As he stated earlier, he says that campus police are enough. However, he also provides a list of shootings. That just goes to show that campus police aren't enough.

C) His drugs argument has can be disregarded because of two reasons.
C1) He advocates drugs and agrees to "people already bringing guns to college". I see no situations where that has happened and he has not provided me with any. He holds me to the standard that I have to provide evidence, which means he must also apply the standard to himself. Because of this and he hasn't provided and drug-gun correlation events, there is no reason to believe that is true.
C2) Even if that is true though, my advocacy is of rubber bullets. Again, because he concedes to the warrant that people already bring guns to school, and since even more people will bring guns to school if its allowed (empirically proven everywhere: If it's legal, more of it will happen) AND because only rubber bullets will be used, then that means many people will have rubber bullet guns and therefore if some random guy pulls out his and starts threatening others, he can be put down rather quickly.

SUMMARY:

His three standing arguments (and my responses against) at the end of this debate are:
- Kids with rubber bullets are not trained well enough to fight back against the intruder, and even if they did, it would not be enough.
-- Nothing will ever train a person well enough for the real situation in ANY skill. What I'm saying is if college students are armed with rubber bullets, they can at least distract the armed person long enough so that others will disarm him, and prevent a lot more murders. It IS enough, since he has conceded that rubber bullets do have effect, and he has not responded to my argument that people will step up to the job, his argument is false.
- Campus security is good enough.
-- His list speaks for me.
- Drugs make everything go bad.
-- Since there are already guns on campus and nothing's going wrong right now, it won't be going wrong in the future.

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by SperoAmicus 9 years ago
SperoAmicus
One flaw in the "Pro" side, just because you allow good people to carry guns, doesn't mean good people will neccessarily choose to carry a gun. In the meantime, the allowance provides criminals easier access. I don't think this is relevant everywhere, but specifically on college campuses, I have trouble picturing good people bringing guns to class with them.
Posted by CongressmanDrew 9 years ago
CongressmanDrew
Sandlas you make the point about students being binge drinkers but you never bring up the more dangerous and lethal weapon involved with drinking and that would be automobiles. The same arguments as to why you should ban guns on a college campus can be made toward vehicles. Statistics show that more people are killed by drunk drivers than drunk gun owners owning a concealed gun permit. So by your own argument you should not allow college students to own a vehicle because they are prone to drinking.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
It's okay; that's why I said "out of my personal opinion". I do debate on the high school level and there've been a lot ruder people there, so no offense was really taken here.

No worries. Wouldn't want to ruin the Christmas spirit :)
Posted by SandlasJuagas 9 years ago
SandlasJuagas
Korezaan,
I'm sorry if you were offended in any way over the debate. In all honesty, my only intention was to show my opinion on the issue. Please do not judge me based solely on the way I behaved during the debate, it is just me trying my hardest to convince others of my opinion. In the future I will try harder to be civilized. I honestly did think of the problem in a whole new light after you mentioned the rubber bullets. I'm sure you're an intelligent individual.
Posted by SolaGratia 9 years ago
SolaGratia
Sandlas, I couldn't agree more.
Posted by audraxheartsxyou 9 years ago
audraxheartsxyou
Oh yes...let's carry gun's because it'll be safer..
We're America..we're all about gun's for protection.

oh yes..that's a good one.
Posted by bobsatthepub 9 years ago
bobsatthepub
"If the students were allowed to take guns onto campus maybe they could have defended themselves" not the exact quote but still one of the best quotes I have heard to come out of America in a long time... what a world we live in.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Sorry, I'ma take a while on this one cause i got lotsa hw to catch up on x_x
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mharman 7 months ago
Mharman
SandlasJuagasKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by roycegee 9 years ago
roycegee
SandlasJuagasKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by ronnyyip 9 years ago
ronnyyip
SandlasJuagasKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by wooferalot101 9 years ago
wooferalot101
SandlasJuagasKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
SandlasJuagasKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Partyboat 9 years ago
Partyboat
SandlasJuagasKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
SandlasJuagasKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
SandlasJuagasKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by NSG 9 years ago
NSG
SandlasJuagasKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Erik 9 years ago
Erik
SandlasJuagasKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03