The Instigator
aircraftmechgirl
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Doritosguy93
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Concealed Carry By Law-Abiding Citizens Lessens Crime

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,100 times Debate No: 17539
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

aircraftmechgirl

Pro

This debate will argue whether concealed carry laws lessen crime. I will argue the Pro position: that these laws allow the general populace to defend themselves, lessen crime rates, and therefore should be protected and encouraged rights. Please note that my argument will focus on the right of the "average" individual, assuming they fulfill the legal requirements for owning a firearm in their state (see definitions).

Con will argue that concealed carry laws either have no effect or worsen crime, and therefore should be abolished. Con may even go so far as to argue that the 2nd Amendment does not even allow for personal concealed carry.

Definitions:

Concealed carry permit or concealed pistol license: A permit to carry a concealed handgun, legally obtained within that state's jurisdiction or subject to legal reciprocity agreements with the state in question. (Also referred to as CPL)

Carry: The act of being armed with, due to the rights afforded by a CPL, a legally-obtained handgun in a manner allowed by law.

Citizen: A law-abiding American, who is not part of the law enforcement or justice community, does not have a felony record, is mentally sound, and meets the legal requirements for owning and carrying a handgun as defined above.

Standard rules apply: Round 1 for acceptance, 2 is opening arguments, 3 for rebuttals, with 4 being closing arguments (no new issues or points in the final round).

I look forward to this debate!!
Doritosguy93

Con

I accept and thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
aircraftmechgirl

Pro

Thank you to Con for his acceptance. My apologies for my nearly late reply. I will keep my future responses more timely.

A1: Violent Crime Statistics

In 2008, a little over 16,000 murders were committed in the U.S. 67% of those were committed with a handgun. [1] In the home, people use their guns to scare off criminals attempting to break in almost 500,000 times per year. [2]

The Department of Justice gives some perspective on the average person's chances of being the victim of a violent crime:

"Annual rates can provide a false sense of security by masking the real impact of crime. Upon hearing that the homicide rate is about 8 to 10 per 100,000 population, one feels safe; after all, 1 chance in 10,000 is not very frightening. Actually, however, at recent homicide rates about 1 of every 133 Americans will become a murder victim; for black males the proportion is estimated to be 1 of every 30. Similarly, while 16 out of 10,000 women are rape victims annually, the lifetime chances of suffering a rape are much greater." [3]

There exists a need for citizens to protect themselves from those who would victimize them. Considering break-ins, rapes, and murders are often committed with a handgun, logic dictates that the average citizen should be at least as protected as the criminal is prepared.

A2:
This is a simple concept, because a "no-gun" society doesn't mean literally that there are no guns--only that law-abiding citizens cannot have them. Criminals always have guns. In Washington D.C., a de facto handgun ban existed from 1976 until 2008. During that time, regular citizens were unable to own guns unless they were disassembled or had a trigger lock installed. This made them completely unusable in case of an attack in the home, and citizens were unable to protect themselves outside their home.

1996 saw Texas' carry law become effective. Their murder rate averaged 30% lower and brought it down to the national average. [1]

Michigan's dropped 4%. [1]

-----

Due to the strict window of this debate, I will not argue the Constitutionality of a citizen's right to bear arms unless my opponent opens the door for it. The facts on concealed carry are as follows:

1. Taking guns away from citizens does not take them away from criminals. Prohibition showed clearly that if someone wants something bad enough, they'll find a way to get it.

2. Armed criminals who know a citizen walking down the street is legally unable to carry a handgun know that their potential victim is already at a disadvantage.

3. Conversely, criminals who know that citizens are allowed to carry may think twice before attempting to victimize someone who just might be able and willing to defend themselves at the same level as a criminal is willing to victimize.

Therefore, law-abiding citizens must have the power to carry a gun if they meet the criteria as set by the state of their residence.




[1]http://www2.fbi.gov...;
[2]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[3]http://www.ncjrs.gov...

Doritosguy93

Con

Doritosguy93 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
aircraftmechgirl

Pro

aircraftmechgirl forfeited this round.
Doritosguy93

Con

Doritosguy93 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
aircraftmechgirl

Pro

aircraftmechgirl forfeited this round.
Doritosguy93

Con

Doritosguy93 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by aircraftmechgirl 5 years ago
aircraftmechgirl
I need to clarify one source. I should've included http://justfacts.com..., as my murder rate statistics came from there. I erroneously listed a different source for those particular numbers. My apologies.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
When i say Arguing on your grounds, what that means is your setting up what your Opp will argue and not giving one General basis or statement to argue over.
Posted by Doritosguy93 5 years ago
Doritosguy93
Well I didn't see these comments and if someone else was going to accept I'm sorry.
Posted by aircraftmechgirl 5 years ago
aircraftmechgirl
Sorry if it's unclear. If you accept and want to offer different terms, I'd be cool with that as long as they're reasonable. I was mostly just trying to not end up stuck arguing the same old gun debate. Wanted to make it more interesting. I'm certainly not looking to "set up" my opponent.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
Whoa. I wasn't going to accept this becuase of soo many problems in Pro's first speech.

1. The Citizen definition is really stupid, It takes out alot of citizens.
If Pro wouldv'e used the Unitied States definition then i wouldv'e been fine
2.What is the Resolution?
Seriously Pick something.
3.Pro Is setting up Con to argue on her grounds.
Posted by aircraftmechgirl 5 years ago
aircraftmechgirl
Hm...I wonder if the opponent knows he's gotta post an acceptance, or if he plans to forfeit it.
Posted by aircraftmechgirl 5 years ago
aircraftmechgirl
lol Of course I find them unreasonable. As someone who does carry concealed, I'm a big fan of gun rights. ;)
Posted by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
Eh, there's arguments to be made on the Con, but I think we can both agree that they are unreasonable. =)
Posted by aircraftmechgirl 5 years ago
aircraftmechgirl
My apologies. I had initially set the age to 21 since that is the legal handgun carrying age. In the interests of actually having the debate, however, I've removed that. If you'd like to try again, it'll work. :)
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
aircraftmechgirlDoritosguy93Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct tied as both forfeited. Pro provided the only argument and the only sources.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 5 years ago
CD-Host
aircraftmechgirlDoritosguy93Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Nothing beats something and first round was a solid win for Pro.