The Instigator
2cents4change
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
pittythefool
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Conceal carry laws by private citizens

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
pittythefool
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 581 times Debate No: 84463
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (2)

 

2cents4change

Con

Conceal carry laws exacerbates cop violence particularly against black and minorities. By private citizen being allows to conceal their lethal firearms, cops are forced to assume that ANY ONE could be carrying a gun, be they man, women, adult or child. Therefor they are naturally inclined to shot first in order to protect their lives if they feel threatened in the slightest which does not take much because of their own prejudice and police training teaching them to value THEIR lives over citizens.

Minorities are greatly affected because even if they are a lawful gun owner in a open carry state or have a conceal carry permit, the majority do not exercise this right cause the majority of cops racial profile and shot first before asking questions so they do not want to take the chance.

Criminals on the other hand are forced to conceal because they are acting in a criminal manner and add to the racial prejudice and skewed thinking, even against whites if they are judge to be poor due to their dress, appearance, or speech. Therefor if an officer happens to see a person with a concealed weapon or believes they have a concealed weapon, they are most likely to shot without warning or while warning cause they assume the person is a criminal.

Though I don't think private citizens need to go around carrying guns for their protection, as that there are non lethal means available and you are more likely to be shot by friendly fire from another citizen or the cops mistaking you for a criminal or from an angry ex or shooting yourself while cleaning the gun rather then from an ACTUAL CRIMINAL IN THE PROCESS OF A CRIME, and there is the police which we are paying for in the first place, I don't think we need to carry guns at all unlessl for hunting food but I would rather it be open carry instead of conceal if anything at all.
pittythefool

Pro

I think anyone who carries a firearm whether you are a private purchaser, security guard, military or a Police officer should be subject to strict rules. Firstly anyone wishing to own or carry a firearm should be subject to quarterly drug testing (including alcohol and prescription medication), psychological screening and profiling. Secondly anyone with a serious violent criminal history should undertake even stricter scrutiny and controls but I don't think the carry conceal laws are the problem. Crazy people are generally the problem, people who are violent and officials who are violent and think they are beyond the law. Killing whether by breaking the law or loosely in the name of the law are equally detestable and indictable. In my opinion i genuinely feel that prevention should be more prevalent in gun control. If more scrutiny was given to these areas there would be less gun killings. Thirdly automatic weapons and high calibre spec weapons should only be issued to the armed forces and not the general public or the police its unecessary for home protection. The amount of weapons that anyone individual should also be scrutanised this would also bring down gun killings.
Debate Round No. 1
2cents4change

Con

It sounds like you agree with me on a lot of issues on gun ownership in general lol Yes if stricter laws are implemented that weed out the crazies before hand there is LESS to fear but JUST doing that will not necessary curb cops and other citizens fear that generally anybody on the street can be hiding a lethal weapon, legally or otherwise.

Criminals HAVE to conceal carry firearms in order to perpetrate their crimes. A bank robber who openly walks across a busy street carrying an AR rifle, even not wearing a ski mask/hoodie to conceal their identity, will cause a few heads to turn due to fear. As snakes, spiders, brightly colored animals and insects that are poisonious, great heights, and predator animals have been instill over our time during evolution to trigger our fight or flight/danger response, so has guns due to TV, movies, video games, many having personal and usually deadly traumas connected to gun violence, and the media coverage of crimes committed using guns. Though many teens and young child have a numbness to DEATH because of TV, movies, and video games and the miraculous reset after death, they still recognized that guns CAUSE death.

Concealing your weapon triggers innate psychological and social fears connected to criminals, even if the person carrying appears to be an upright and law-abiding citizen, though that view is skewed towards white men/women almost exclusively while minorities, no matter how proper they dress or act, will 95% be watched even more closely and with suspicious eyes full of racial prejudice. Cops see a lot of color on color, black, hispanic and asian, crime day in and day out. Although mass shooting and cop violence are saturating the media, the statistics are that most killings are from gang violence, assault and robberies by perpetrators and victims of the same color or another minority. Most use illegal guns that therefor has to be concealed right up until the crime happens and then usually turned on the cops when they are making arrests. Because of this, they have an even more heightened fear of concealed weapons and put more faith, however biased, in the possibility of a person carrying a lethal weapon that can be used against them, especially when engaging minorities.

I believe that repelling conceal carry laws will help lessen the incidences of police violence - maybe not right away but as cops will no longer have the defense that they shot a person, usually minority, because they feared they were carrying a weapon or felt threatened by the possibility of a concealed weapon when that person comes towards them or has their hands anywhere but in the air or the ground. The offending cops should therefor should be convicted in greater numbers and other police officers and leaders will take notice and demand stricter training on assessing the situation and using non lethal force on suspects = less deaths.
pittythefool

Pro

I'm glad that we agree on some issues however I think that some of your points need separating in your argument. Firstly the fear experienced by cops that at times manifests in anger towards individuals during potentially dangerous interactions with the public I believe is more to do with their initial training, the individuals attracted to the police force and the general attitudes and culture that stem from this type of career. It would appear that the from the outset the marketing that is widely advertised in this career path is generally very high octane, aggressive and presents law enforcement in a very dangerous and emotive manner. I believe that this generally encourages the wrong types of individuals to the police force who are likely to be more aggressive and trigger happy in their approach. Secondly whether concealment laws are altered I fail to see how this will effect a criminals will to do so. A criminal will conceal a weapon whatever the law dictates and cops will still be paranoid that every one, particularly minorities that may wish to harm them. The general public will unfortunately continue to be seen in the same light by the police. There is a very strong argument to suggest that ethnic minorities are seen by their neighbours and strangely at times by themselves as being more dangerous and violent. In my opinion this is on the most part caused by institutional racism that at times is unconsciously and at otners intentionally perpetrated by the media and other social institutions. Your point regarding who is commiting the most killings highlights this as it was my understanding that spousal killings were the most prominent nevertheless criminals will always conceal weapons, it kind of goes with the territory.

Peoples fear of others generally stems from their own fears, prejudices and programming. People need to work through their individual discriminatory programming before these problems will be rectified even alleviated. if I had the formula for this I would be a Millionaire however the tendency to shoot first and ask questions later needs to be addressed. At this juncture I believe that the only real tangable way to deter unlawful police killings are very very long prison sentences and this may cause officers to think first before they act.
Debate Round No. 2
2cents4change

Con

Better police training, psychological test before and during employment, especially after a shooting or traumatic event especially for rookies, is a big part of it, I agree. My argument is based on reducing the amount of excuses cops can use to justify shooting where they declare that because of the possibility that the subject COULD of had a weapon/firearm they felt their life was in danger and shot in self defense or in defense of other officers or citizens. Racial prejudice does play a part, and that is exacerbated by the white lead media against minorities and also by minority media ALSO portraying stereotypes of themselves and other minorities. ( example rappers who portray themselves as bitch slapping, drug selling, jail time thugs even if the worst they did as a kids was shoplift if anything at all just to tap into the cultural stereotype for profits ) but as bad as prejudice is, it an opinion or view and everybody is entailed to theirs. Its when it interferes with your job or intimidates,harasses, or physically harms others, is when it becomes a problem but if cops are screened ahead of time and know if they can not keep their opinion separate from the job they are risking losing their job and in some cases jail time for themselves, I think that aspect can be reduced. Repelling Conceal Carry laws is only one step in a long and complicated process, eliminating 1 variable that contributes to shootings. Criminals are gonna be criminals regardless of ANY laws passed or repealed cause committing a crime requires a dismissive mind of the consequences. Hopefully with all of the for mentioned policies in place and conceal carried repealed the only ones concealing firearms would be criminals and so the cops logically would not have to be cautious approaching any regular citizen on random business, allowing them to more freely inexact in an open manner with their community. When chasing, arresting a subject, that person has been deemed a criminal by law ( by the officers with better training identifying suspect by their suspicious or criminal actions and not by the color of their skin and by way of a warrant which means they have proven reasonable justification to a judge ) the cop can assume there is a probability that the suspect has a firearm on hand and using their better training, can act accordingly and with lethal force as a last resort.
pittythefool

Pro

I can see where your coming from and I'm all for curving any excuses the police can use believe me! however I'm a bit sinical I suppose. I just don't feel that non concealment laws will have any impact if the officer is already predisposed to being violent and is programmed to use deadly force. Excuses generally come after the act and are likely to be an attempt to manipulate empathy or to justify themselves. Now I don't believe that most officers who have shot and killed someone wake up that morning with the intent to kill, however I do not feel this should help render weak excuses that are accepted by the court. Oh I thought they had a gun...please. No i m afraid a significant amount of people abuse the power of their position in all lines of work, however the police have the power to use deadly force in theirs. They need to be scutanised even more so and be held accountable for their delivery and conduct.

Whether a police officer let's for argument sake on a night shift approaches old Mrs Jones from the grocery store..... In between discussing the price of a twinkie he suddenly feels threatened by old Mrs Jones who is acting suspiciouslly and he suddenly remembers that she may have a perfectly legal concealed weapon on her person. Mrs Jones later was found by paramedics dead grasping a carrot...please.... Do officers really go into a shift thinking "oh someone may have a legally concealed weapon" Really? I'm not so sure..

Guns are not going away anytime soon I'm afraid. The way the Police act I would be concerned if they are the only ones with access to arms. Now if there were no guns then great!!!....but there are and that's kind of scary. It would be just a little nice to know that I did not have to worry about being shot by the police for holding a cell phone, or maybe that's to much to ask?

I just pictured people being allowed to carry side arms.... like in the wild west lol. Now when the sheriff pulls over my wagon...would he: a) shoot first and ask questions later? or b) shoot first and ask no questions? Either way there's a problem right!

Seriously the only thing need changing I feel are attitudes, I believe without serious restrictions and continuous vetting, prevention will be very difficult to achieve. This could however be achieved quite easily and with immediate results. This process should also be mandatory for any citizen wishing to own a firearm. This will protect all citizens including police officers. The amount of guns any one individual is allowed to own would also be key to this framework.

The process of changing attitudes I suppose begins with one's self. Discrminitory or prejudice views can be changed whether your into hip hop or not lol.
Debate Round No. 3
2cents4change

Con

" Whether a police officer let's for argument sake on a night shift approaches old Mrs Jones from the grocery store..... In between discussing the price of a twinkie he suddenly feels threatened by old Mrs Jones who is acting suspiciouslly and he suddenly remembers that she may have a perfectly legal concealed weapon on her person. Mrs Jones later was found by paramedics dead grasping a carrot...please.... Do officers really go into a shift thinking "oh someone may have a legally concealed weapon" Really? I'm not so sure.. "

It seems you are arguing my point for me lol If Mrs Jones is carrying a LEGAL concealed weapon she is most likely white and an older women which by virtue of her age and color is most likely not gonna arouse an officers suspicions unless she was clutching at her chest and he suspected she was having a heart attack lol A black person or any minority is less likely to openly carry a weapon much less conceal it even if it is legal and they are the lawful owner cause of the majority white police force who, by training or by belief, have a prejudice against minorities that if they do have a gun, it is most likely illegal and so they are in danger.
pittythefool

Pro

No not really my point is quite simple....whatever the law regarding concealment an officer can and is likely to continue to use the same old excuses. Your angle is confusing, it appears as though you accept that unlawful police killings occur but you feel that the excuses they use are passable because people are allowed to carry concealed guns. I'm sorry but as you are aware guns are easy to come bye...right? Then why would the police feel more comfortable if people are not allowed to conceal them. Don't you think that the officer may still feel a bit anxious that someone is not actually abiding to the rules. Come on drop me out!
Debate Round No. 4
2cents4change

Con

I accept that unlawful police killings occur BECAUSE THEY DO lol That is a fact that has been proven time and time again so I accept it as such. I don't FEEL the excuses are passable, I just understand that psychologically, politically, and racially these excuse fly cause of their persistent nature in our society. I FEEL that such excuses are bull personally. As i said, repealing concealment laws in addition to other measures is my aim, a part of a larger comprehension program to overhaul the recruitment, training, and psychology of the police department, and public in general. Guns are easy too easy to get through various loopholes in the laws such as only federally licensed gun shops have to run background check, registration of a gun in a new state is voluntary, people who buy gun for other do not serve sever sentences, ect ect. Too many to count really and sadly. Even people on the no fly list, people thought to have committed a terrorist or large violent crime or are planning to, can still buy guns lol The readily availability of guns does not help but if this program and others are implemented, I believe headway can be made. Through psychological testing, incident reports, and other means the officers is found to still be in a hostile mindset they should be dismissed. Personally I advocate that their right to private firearms be revoked as well but that is a different argument lol.
pittythefool

Pro

I'm having trouble seeing exactly where you are coming from and without trying to cause offence I don't feel you are being entirely sincere. I feel your philosophy is contradictory as I find it hard to understand your concern regarding police brutality but your wish to have them be the only ones who can carry arms. So your position is if they are the only ones allowed to carry them they will be less likely to shoot innocent people...really? Truth is whatever your position which is somewhat deluded I'm far more afraid of the police hurting me then my peers or neighbours! Look G the excuses fly because they are allowed to..if it were not one excuse it would be another, I feel your passion but please..please give it to more worthwhile arguments!!

Personally i don't think you do understand the psychology which to me is quite simple...pumped up psychopaths with a get out of jail free card...may kill you..simple. It has nothing to do with there fear. More people comit suicide each year then shoot at the police or commit murder give me a break! The police's paranoia is what some may call deflection...

Would I give up my right to be able to protect myself i n favour of the police protecting me...hell no!!! I doubt most would!!!
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by pittythefool 10 months ago
pittythefool
Im afraid your whole stance gives you away. The problem with many academics is that they have very limited perception with egos that overshadow their true potential. Smart dummies who are overtly concerned with how clever they look. Do you really know yourself? Or are you just playing scientist. Keeping an open mind should be desirable to any scientist but it seems you have either lost or never had any gusto. Mediocrity seems to be your ambition as your viewpoint remains fixed on common notions instead of looking outside the box to establish a more consistent truth. Good luck on your future pursuits kid but please do society and yourself a favour and remove your head from your a***!
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
...So now you're assuming my motivations as well? In fact, this entire time you've pretended as though you knew me personally, including all my background and even what's going through my mind. You've made a point of essentially calling everything I do and have done horsesh*t. If that's the kind of conversation you want to have, if that's what you view as instruction, then we're done here. I'm not going to engage with someone who clearly thinks he knows me better than I know myself.
Posted by pittythefool 10 months ago
pittythefool
I know your a scientist its obvious, what I could never understand about you guys is that your so rigid....until the information changes. My issue is that even in the face of this fact you continue to remain blinkered. Arrogance and science shouldn't mix but it clearly does, I suppose due to your research funding your agendas generally remain as bias as can be. You guys are not really interested in the truth as it seems to me your more concerned with polishing your over inflated egos whilst pleasing your financial masters. I find it quite pathetic really! however most true scientists are not concerned about going against the grain even if their findings risks them being snubbed by the scientific community. Unfortunately true scientists are very few and far between. Let's hope in your journey you remain true and keep the courage of your convictions but it seems you may be more interested in twisting peoples words. I truely hope for the sake of human progress you are different, won't hold my breath though.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
Glad to see you are unwilling to allow my basic request and have continued condescending to me as though I'm a child.

I'm a scientist. I'm well aware of how we distinguish fact from fiction, and frankly, the notion that our efforts produce nothing factual just defies the notion of what fact is. Similarly, to call much of math non-factual simply treats math as some sort of nebulous thought exercise with no basis in reality, which is just plain wrong.
Posted by pittythefool 10 months ago
pittythefool
You clearly don't keep up to date with current mathematical and scientific findings. You call them facts which to me compounds your naivety, there's allot of very interesting developments in string theory, biology, archeology and history. The word fact is often thrown about loosely and very loosely in many debates and throughout history itself...son.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
You keep calling me "son", which is more than a little condescending. I'll ask that you stop doing that.

Facts exist. Yes, not everything that is perceived as factual actually is factual, but the perception that those represent all facts is fallacious. There are very real facts that have been proven over and over, and I think it's more than a little problematic to suggest otherwise. On that basis, we could throw out the fields of math and science entirely. I don't see how this view is gullible.

Relaying experience to others via story, by definition, anecdotal. Your life is a series of stories and experiences, ones that you can say you had, but ones which I can never fully verify. I haven't assumed anything about your story, nor have I called your experience into question. Yet you've gone and done exactly that to me, assuming that my experience is trivial and, for reasons you have yet to explain, calling my views of this debate "drivel".

It's your business where you choose to spout off as you've done here. And it's my business, and the business of anyone else who chooses to do so, to respond to what you've written here and treat it as a debate. Just because you want to be a teacher of men doesn't mean that this is the best place to do it, and you'll be challenged on it, time and again.
Posted by pittythefool 10 months ago
pittythefool
Son, fact is a very interesting word and many so called facts can be argued for or against and with most things change when the information changes. Age is nothing to do with life experience i admit but your exposing yourself as insolent by your gullable viewpoint. More intelligent! Its really not for me to say, however I can rely on my experiences which you call anecdotes (which doesn't make much sense) as appose to some source which I found on the net. I don't know your experience but i can guess from your non original drivel as it doesn't leave much to the imagination. I may be in the wrong place! Wouldn't be a first however that's my business not yours. No one said sources are worthless but I will always rely on my own experience rather then sources from complete strangers.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
Then, once again, you're in the wrong place. If you want to teach, go to the forums and post a topic of interest to you. This isn't a forum. It's a debate.

I'm 6 years younger than you. The fact that you think that makes it so simple to dismiss me is a sign of your own ignorance. My life experience is different from yours, and I guarantee I'd have some things to teach you if we took the time to sit down and discuss our experiences, just as you'd have things to teach me. That doesn't change anything. Whatever experience we may have may improve our knowledge base, but just because you happen to have 6 years more of it doesn't make you more intelligent or knowledgeable. You don't know my experience, and therefore you don't know what I know, so don't assume that you know more or have a better understanding of the world just because you've lived longer than I have.

And while sources can be found on both sides of any issue, that doesn't make all sources equal. There are such things as facts, and those facts come from reliable sources. Simply because I can find a blog post by some crazy guy from Montana who doesn't believe in gravity doesn't mean that sources as a whole are worthless or solely a matter of opinion.
Posted by pittythefool 10 months ago
pittythefool
Oh and anyone can cut and paste sources of argument whether it can be considered evidence is in most of your cases...is still a matter of opinion.
Posted by pittythefool 10 months ago
pittythefool
I didn't come to debate, I came to teach. When you get more life experience I may attempt to hear your point or at least listen. My experience of the the police particularly Caucasians cones from my personal experience and through my career working alongside them. Chin up son!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
2cents4changepittythefoolTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments. This vote was cast on behalf of the Voter's Union.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 11 months ago
bballcrook21
2cents4changepittythefoolTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Round 4 was destructive to Con. Constant usage of "lol" in a debate, as well as referrals to inadequate racial stereotypes that Con has no propensity to prove is what allowed for the argument to go to Pro. Much of the burden of proof rests on Con, as all that Pro has to say is that what Con said isn't true. Con gave no sources, and stated no facts, but argued from a subjective point of view. Much of what Con stated was pure nonsense, being that their entire argument rested upon racial prejudice, which remains untouched in the entirety of the debate. Nothing about racial motivations/statistics was shown or proven, leading me to believe that Con's argument was not very confounded in any sort of research. Pro didn't do too good a job either, but the childish manner of Con's arguments combined with his inability to provide sourcing is what lead to the point being given to Pro. Overall, poor debate. Expected more.