The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Concealed Carry on College Campuses

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,764 times Debate No: 68972
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)




Qualified students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons while on a college campus. There is no good reason to deny capable students with permits the right that they are afforded everywhere else. The issue is about student safety. Needless crimes happen everyday because students are not allowed to defend themselves in the most effective way: with a gun. According to the Department of Education, 25% of crimes that happen on college campuses are rapes and 39% are assaults. These numbers would be significantly lower had these victims been lawfully armed.


Having more guns in circulation means that the probability of someone shooting another person goes up. Students like me would feel very unsafe on campuses with all these guns around. Even if the students were qualified, being legally qualified to own a gun and being trustworthy to actually own guns is not the same thing. You cite rape and assaults, but how bad are these really?
Take rape, for example. What is rape?
Feminists often say that 1 in 4 women are raped on college campuses which would be where you got your 25% statistic. However, it's been shown that the studies done to obtain these statistics are lax in standard and incredibly misleading.

"Statistic: “1 out of every 4 women will be raped in her lifetime.”

Truth: Ah, here’s the doozy. I’m sure we’re all familiar with the source of this statistic: a study by Mary Koss that has been discredited countless times. Around three-quarters of the women she identified as having been raped did not consider themselves victims of rape, and almost half of them had sex with their supposed attackers after the event identified as a rape had occurred.

So, what do statistics collected from non-feminist sources say? Well, let’s try the FBI statistics. According to an FBI report, which did not account for differing definitions of rape, whether or not the rapes were convicted, or whether or not female-on-male rape was included, the United States had a rate of 29 reported rapes per 100,000 people in 2009. That’s not going to get us to 25%, but I’m feeling generous, so let’s look at the country with the highest rate of rape in the past decade–South Africa, with a rate of 116 rapes per 100,000 people in one year. Percentage wise, this is .1% of the population. Now, I’ll admit that I’m worse at math than anything else in the world, but even I know this isn’t even close to “1 in 4″."[1]

The majority of 'rapes' are not actually rapes? Are women then justified to own guns and kill these supposed rapists? Even considering the crime, a rape does not justify murder, even in self-defense. Virginity < life.

There isn't enough crime on college campuses to support gun ownership.

Point 2
I would really hate to live in an apartment with 6 roommates with each and every one of them owning a gun. If all college students had guns, the probability of college students being shot to death would go up disproportionately. The dangers of people taking these guns and shootingthem, whether or not they're licensed to have them, is incredibly terrifying.

Point 3
Guns as self defense is not justified.
"Compared to criminal homicides using guns, the VPC data shows justifiable homicide with a gun in 2010 was a tiny fraction: 230 of them compared to 8,275 criminal gun-related homicides."
That's about 8000 cases of unjustified not-really-self-defense use, about 97% unjustified use.
Apply that to college students. Statistically, 97% of gun owners will use their guns to kill unjustifiably. More guns means more unjustified deaths. Concealed carry shouldn't be a thing at all.


Debate Round No. 1


Your second sentence says you would "feel very unsafe" should students be allowed to carry their concealed weapons. The problem with this statement is that there is a huge difference in feeling safe and being safe. I'm sure the students at Virginia Tech felt very safe knowing that guns were not allowed on their campus; however, the fact is that no one was able to fight back when that maniac attacked.

To clarify my 25% statistic, it is that 25% of all reported crimes on a college campus are rapes, not that 25% of women are raped. Furthermore, your point that rape does not justify murder depends on your moral standards. For example, I would rather a woman shoot and kill an immoral man in self-defense than that immoral man sexually harm her. Prevention of rape is certainly a justified reason for killing.

"There isn't enough crime on college campuses to support gun ownership." Any crime that causes harm to an innocent person should be prevented any way possible. Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean that person has to use it. There are strict guidelines as to when a person can be justified for using a weapon.

As for your point about college students being shot should campus carry be legalized, since Utah first legalized campus carry in 2004, six states have since followed suit. In all that time on over 150 college campuses, there have been only 3 negligent discharges, all of which could have been prevented. Two occurred because the weapon was being carried without a holster and one was because a teacher was showing her new weapon to a coworker. None of these resulted in serious injuries. Many places require that weapons be holstered or cased to prevent things like this from happening.

In Point 3, you fail to realize that the "8,275 criminal gun-related homicides" says nothing about cases of unjustified self-defense. Instead, it shows that while 8,275 people committed a criminal act of murder, 230 people were able to defend themselves from harm and put the bad guy six feet under. If you take away concealed carry, you will decrease the number of justified shootings, but would leave those people defenseless in the face of criminals.

Now here are some statistics for you.
"At the 2013 homicide rate, roughly one in every 285 Americans will be murdered.
A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found:
" 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives
" 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime
" 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once" [1]

How's that for enough crime to justify concealed carry? When you get to talking about college campuses, there is nothing that will lead a logical person to believe that just because he or she walks onto a campus, that person will not be exposed to criminal activity. While college campuses usually have lower crime rates, they are not crime free. A person who is permitted to carry weapons almost anywhere should not be prevented from doing the same on a college campus where crime is still possible.

Here are some more statistics:
"A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
" 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
" 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
" 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim""[1]

Responsibly carrying concealed weapons gives people an effective way to defend themselves. The only reason left to deny a person the right to carry is the very small possibility that someone else will be harmed, and it is not permissible to deny someone a right just because it is accompanied with a minor risk that can be reduced with simple preventative measures.



The law deals just punishment
"Just as every state has its own law concerning sexual assault, every state has a different sentencing scheme in place for people convicted of sexual assault. The federal government also has its own set of sentencing rules.

For example, in California a sexual assault conviction carries with it a possible sentence of 24, 36 or 48 months in prison, as well as a possible $10,000 fine. This type of sentence is known as "determinate" since it results in a specific term of years in prison. As mentioned above, a judge will examine the facts of the case, including aggravating and mitigating factors, in order to settle on the exact sentence.

In New York, sexual assault constitutes a class D felony. The sentencing judge has discretion to set the sentence, but the law binds the judge to impose a sentence within a certain range. Moreover, the sentence is an "indeterminate" one, which means that the judge doesn't set an exact term. Instead, the judge picks a range of years from in between the absolute minimum and the absolute maximum set by law. The defendant could serve the entire term or just the minimum amount depending on their behavior in prison and other factors. New York law sets the absolute minimum sentence for sexual assault at one to two years and the absolute maximum penalty at seven years. Judges can choose any range that falls within those limits."[1]

My opponent would shoot you in the head for slapping someone's butt.
My opponent claims that sexual assault deserves death. Clearly the law disagrees with him. I disagree with him, and so should you, the reader. The desire to have sex is a natural human impulse which modern society has largely learned to control and scorn. However, control of these impulses cannot be perpetual. Someone will let slip. Sex is natural and what qualifies as sexual assault can be something as simple as "touching an intimate part of another person."[2] While I think lewd behavior should be scorned, I think someone slipping their hand over another person's butt does not deserve to be shot to death. Such a punishment is extremely disproportionate.

Catching a few bullets
PRO: "To clarify my 25% statistic, it is that 25% of all reported crimes on a college campus are rapes"
This is a blank assertion by PRO. On the other hand, I've clearly shown that this 25% rape-report is based on fallacious data. I requote:
"Around three-quarters of the women she identified as having been raped did not consider themselves victims of rape, and almost half of them had sex with their supposed attackers after the event identified as a rape had occurred."

PRO: "... some statistics for you..."
My opponent is claiming that concealed carry will solve the problems indicated by these statistics. I counter-assert that they will not. My opponent's statistics have no correlation to the resolution until he can show otherwise.

PRO: "...more statistics for you..."
These statistics are based off a survey of about 1600 criminals scattered throughout the states with questionable reliability[7]. 34% of 1600 is nothing to 8000.

No concealed carry, lower crime rates
PRO: "college campuses usually have lower crime rates"
I thank PRO for corroborating the negative case. College campuses usually have lower crime rates! And yet..
"The overwhelming majority of the 4,400 colleges and universities in the United States prohibit the carrying of firearms on their campuses. These gun-free policies have helped to make our post-secondary education institutions some of the safest places in the country. For example, a 2001 U.S. Department of Education study found that the overall homicide rate at post-secondary education institutions was 0.07 per 100,000 students in 1999.[5] By comparison, the criminal homicide rate in the United States as a whole was 5.7 per 100,000 persons overall in 1999, and 14.1 per 100,000 for persons ages 17 to 29. A Department of Justice study found that 93% of violent crimes that victimize college students occur off campus.[6]

Despite the success of these gun-free policies, an increasingly extreme pro-gun movement in the USA is promoting legislation and litigation to force colleges and universities to allow concealed guns on campus. As a result, schools in Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin have now been forced in different ways to allow the carrying of firearms on their premises (i.e. campus grounds, classrooms, dormitories, or parking lots)."[4]

It's quite possible that college campuses have lower crime rates because of its general prohibition of concealed carry. Consider that for a few moments. We're doing really well in this area, why make it worse?

Responsible carry can give people an effective way to murder someone else in self defense, but just because it can be used effectively, there's no reason to believe that it will be used effectively in all cases. My opponent says that 8000 homicides are criminal homicides, but that's exactly why we should not have a concealed carry policy. 8000 concealed weapons are used criminally. Why not just do away with concealed carry altogether? College campuses are a prime example of anti-concealed carry effectively lowering crime rates.


Debate Round No. 2


My goal with this argument has been to show that violent crimes occur on college campuses and that allowing permit holding students to carry firearms while on campus, just like they do elsewhere, can help prevent those crimes from happening. Throughout this argument, my opponent has twisted facts in an attempt to win this argument, and to take his words at face value may prove to be a dangerous mistake.

In Point 3 of Round 1, my opponent gives this statistic:
"Compared to criminal homicides using guns, the VPC data shows justifiable homicide with a gun in 2010 was a tiny fraction: 230 of them compared to 8,275 criminal gun-related homicides."
He tries to twist these words to say that the 8,275 criminal homicides were committed by concealed carry permit holders when the statistic says no such thing. In 2010, there were 8275 criminal murders that involved a gun. In that same year, 230 people defended themselves with a gun. This statistic says absolutely nothing about concealed carry.

CON claims that I believe the consequence of sexual assault should be death. I simply believe that if a woman is being attacked, she should be able to defend herself with a gun. That does not mean that she has to shoot anyone. In fact, simply seeing a gun will scare away many criminals as seen from my statistic in Round 2. If it comes down to the woman having to shoot her attacker, I believe that she has the right to do so in defense of herself and the law would agree with me.

"To be legally justified in killing an attacker, a rape victim must reasonably believe that the rapist intends to kill or grievously injure her. In many rape situations, the threat of severe physical harm is clear; the rapist is armed or threatens death or grievous injury. Situations where a rapist does not explicitly or implicitly threaten physical harm beyond forcible intercourse are less clear regarding the victim's right to use deadly force against the rapist. Current law does not clearly articulate a basis for the right to use deadly self-defense when a person reasonably believes that harm will be limited to forcible intercourse. One factor which can justify the use of deadly force against a rapist who does not threaten the victim with death or grievous physical harm is the high frequency of murder and serious injury incident to rape. This could properly lead any rape victim to assume that her life and health are in serious danger. A second factor that could justify the use of deadly force is the high rate of physical injury and psychological trauma attending rape. The threat of venereal disease, an unwanted pregnancy, and psychological debilitation can be taken together as a threat of serious harm. Overall, rape can be viewed as a grievous physical and psychological attack that may be resisted by any and all means"[1]

While the citation for CON's argument against the validity of rape statistics leads nowhere, I would still like to address his idea that one woman being able to defend herself against a rapist should be prohibited due to his fear of guns. My 25% statistic was a completely different statistic than the one he tried to disprove. My statistic said nothing about 1 in 4 women being raped throughout her lifetime and did not come from a feminist. My source was the US Department of Education and it said that if there are 100 crimes on a college campus, it is likely that 25 of them will be rapes. He is trying to discredit a statistic that I did not provide.

Now let's look at violent crimes on college campuses. College campuses are not immune to crime. Just last year, Florida State University was attacked by an armed man. Here are some numbers provided by the FBI about crimes in schools (not just colleges). Between 2000 and 2005, there were 67,597 violent "crimes against persons" to include assault, rape, and murder. [2] According to, "Students aged 18 to 24 report about 526,000 violent crimes each year, according to the Violent Victimization of College Students report. Of those, 128,000 'involved a weapon or serious injury to the victim.'" The same site provides that 5.8% of female students had reported being raped between 2003 and 2004.[3]

It is clear that violent crimes do occur on college campuses, but can concealed carry stop them? "Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home." "States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%." [4] Here are some instances of concealed carry permit holders defending themselves:

"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." [5]

If any doubt still exists, examine this article from Students for Concealed Carry

I hope that I have been able to accurately present the need to allow students to carry concealed weapons while on campus. This is truly an important concept to consider. Will concealed carry allow students to defend themselves in the face of a violent criminal?




My opponent's beliefs
PRO: "If it comes down to the woman having to shoot her attacker, I believe that she has the right to do so in defense of herself and the law would agree with me."
I ask my opponent: in what kind of scenario does a man or woman 'have to' shoot his/her attacker? Ultimately, it comes down to individual subjective judgment. Let's take a look at the spiel on rape I presented in round 1. Most cases of confessed rape were not actually cases of rape, but the women who made the claims supporting the 1 in 4 statistics claim otherwise. Consider this: you're making out with a woman and you're getting it on quite nicely. You decide that it's time to hit home base. However, the moment you make your move, the woman pulls out a gun, calls you a rapist, and makes you leave. You decide not to leave, and she shoots you in the head. She had to right? Otherwise he wouldn't leave? Later she can claim that he tried to rape her as is conducive to the false rape statistic. Isn't that just ridiculous?

Crimes on college campuses:

My opponent declares that his goal with the college campus statistic is to show that violent crimes do happen on college campuses. However, he neglects that the statistic also covers the fact that violent crimes happen everywhere and that they occur less often on college campuses. It is this lessened frequency which shows that prohibitions on concealed carry works.
My opponent's argument is this: crimes exist on college campuses and permitting concealed carry will solve that problem. That's quite an assertion. How does my opponent know that permitting concealed carry won't actually increase the rate of crime? Don't college campuses' low crime rate actually prove that not having concealed carry actually decreases the rate of crime? Less guns around means less guns being shot, and statistics clearly corroborate this. College campuses are some of the safest places in the world and is a clear case in which a community with no conealed carry laws have lower crime rates.

The under 9000:
Let us revisit this statistic of homicide versus justified homicide. Of the about 8300 gun-related homicides in the year 2010, only 200 were considered justified homicides with the other 8000 are considered criminal. My opponent counters by saying that the 230 cases of justified self-defense fire negates the 8000 criminal homicides and justifies concealed gun carry. My opponent then goes on to say that the 8000 criminal homicides were not committed by concealed gun permit owners.
Let me this around and ask: how does my opponent know that the 8000 weren't concealed gun permit owners. In 2012, James Eagan Holmes shot and killed 12 people at a theater in Colorado. The firearms he used were legally purchased and possessed.[1]
An even better question: how does my opponent know that the 230 justified killers were concealed gun permit owners? If these 230 aren't concealed permit owners, how does my opponent justify using these 230 to justify concealed carry laws? 230 bad guys were put under the dirt, but 8045 innocent people lie with them.
The statistic shows that 97.2% (8045/8275) of self defense homicide, permit or not, are going to be criminal.

Statistics on Crimes in college:
Again, 93% of crimes on college students occur off campus.
Most of the cases cited in my opponent's case are cases of offcampus defense, and only a few of them mention concealed carry permit holders.
I would like to point out this case in particular:

"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."
Consider this: What if this case were reversed? What if the students were the ones threatening the female and refusing to leave and the man was the one with the firearm trying to deter such behavior? In this case, the students' overpowering the man would be a terrible thing. The likelihood of such a thing occurring increases with each gun owner added to the pool of gun owners.

I would like to point out the distinction between a student having prevented a crime and a student having prevented a crime on college campuses. Recall that this debate is about concealed carry on college campuses, not off college campuses. I posit that the statistics on violent crime provided by my opponent in this last round would be reduced if guns were banned and not the other way around as my opponent seems to be saying. My opponent has provided no evidence whatsoever that the total rate of crime would be reduced with concealed carry laws. Again, college campuses' being statistically more crime free than almost any other environment in the world clearly shows that not having concealed carry laws is correlated with reduced crime. Again, less guns overall means less gun-related crime.

PRO:"While college campuses usually have lower crime rates, they are not crime free."
Nowhere in the world is crime free. My opponent seems to be claiming that concealed carry laws would make college campuses completely free of crime. Again, there is no evidence whatsoever that having concealed gun laws would magically remove the existence of all crime. There's no such thing as crime-free. In fact, I posit that concealed guns are the cause of a number of crimes and that not having concealed gun laws lowers crime and not vice verse as evident of the relatively low crime rate on college campuses.

I hope that I have shown that college campuses do not need conceal carry laws and do not need to carry weapons while on campus. While a few cases of gun use may be justified, we have to remember that most are not. I must also point to the fact that this debate pertains specifically to concealed carry on college campuses. I have succinctly shown that college campuses have lower crime rates without concealed carry laws. I believe that is sufficient in negating the resolution.

"the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns."[2]
The real question is, what portion of the concealed carry population will commit a violent crime?


Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WillYouMarryMe 1 year ago
No, you lost the debate because the only voter for this debate sucked.
It's unfortunate that you had to unfairly lose this round. I think you won.
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
I lost the vote because of my anti-feminist arguments didn't I? >_>
But that doesn't mean my other arguments weren't legitimate. Sigh whatever.
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
I will respond to that after voting period ends so as not to cloud voter judgment outside of text provided within the debate. I will ask you do the same. It does make for an interesting discussion, and I'm very willing to further this conversation in 10 days. ^-^
I'll just ask you to think over this for the next 10 days: What is the difference between concealed carry and legal carry? What is the practical distinction between the two?
Posted by DeeJay0018 1 year ago
I would again like to say that the 8000 statistic does not necessarily refer to concealed carry holders or to people acting in self-defense.
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
It's bad form to argue the resolution in of an ongoing debate in the comments section. I apologize for my initiating this exchange, and will withhold from responding further. I ask you do the same. Sorry again. :P
Posted by DeeJay0018 1 year ago
Those 8000 homicides you cited were criminal homicides. Criminal Homicide refers to murder and manslaughter, not self-defense and not concealed carry permit holders. The statistic you keep referring to does not even apply to the debate at hand. The statistic doesn't even specify whether or not the one committing the homicide legally possesses that weapon.

"Myth: Concealed carry laws increase crime
Fact: Forty states150, comprising the majority of the American population, are "right-to-carry"
states. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-to-carry
law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states deny or restrict the right to carry.
Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02%
of all carry permit holders since Florida"s right-to-carry law started in 1988.151
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the
national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting
period, 2005).152
Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their
concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and500% faster in the second153. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.154
Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws155:
Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national
Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%. "
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
It is Russian Roulette.
Gun = population of gun owners
Shots = gun owners who will shoot other people.

Having the gun itself is a temptation as evident by the 8000 killers who may or may not have belief that their shooting was justified and who had guns at the time of shooting.
Posted by DeeJay0018 1 year ago
Beginner, you are very about that what determines the winner of an argument; however, I strongly believe in my stance on this issue.
Posted by ILoveyou_Forever26 1 year ago
@masterlucario you need a revolver in order to do Russian roulette if its with a semi-automatic then its polish roulette. get your facts straight.
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
Whether or not you agree with a debate resolution should have nothing to do with who wins a debate in the end. :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed to have some difficulty with his statistics and made some oddly twisted arguments. Failed to go for the jugular with "Why would we trust these kids with concealed firearms if we don't trust them with beer?"