Gun Free Zone on College Campus
Of course if we agree that there should be a process to make it legal for certain people, I understand maybe not everybody agrees that a CCW permit is enough. I'm perfectly open to discussion as to what kind of requirements do you think in individual must pass to make it legal, but that's all details. For now, I wanna say that I am open to the idea that there should be some legal process offered by the public University to allow a certain individual conceal carry rights, so as long as he/she meets the following requirements, x,y, and z. For now, I think we can just take advantage over the system that is already in place to allow people to carry in public places and require a student/faculty to possess a valid CCW permit. It is wrong to deny a person rights just because some other people have abused it in the past. As a person who believes in America the way it was meant to be, a Republic, not a Democracy, then individuals including minorities should have constitutional rights in public places. Private Universities are another story. But Public Universities should abide by constitutional law.
To start off with the argument, I'd like to say that criminals and anyone wishing to do harm will probably break the law regardless of the fact that we deny everybody the right to carry. We cannot protect people with just a sign saying that it's illegal to carry a firearm. This leads me to believe that there really is no logical reason to think that Gun Free Zones themselves would have any affect other than disarming the people who abide by the law and have everything to lose(no felons, no misdemeanors, no criminal recored etc.) Of course I'm referring to Gun Free Zones on college campus's. I do however, think that Courthouses are at least smart with that law by setting up preventative measures such as metal detectors and making sure the place is full of armed police officers. Because of the mass shootings and other various forms of gun violence that have appeared on College campus, it is clear that Gun Free Zones don't prevent everybody from coming in with a gun. The Gun free zone clearly does not actually disarm everybody, and it only seems to be the people we should be afraid of the most who are going to still carry anyway. I'll get into stats and facts in the later rounds.
For now, this is my position as clear as I can make it with some rational reason why I don't think "everybody" should be disarmed. I welcome an opponent, preferably one who completely disagrees because obviously I 'd be preaching to the choir otherwise. So anybody who wants to challenge me, bring it on brother... or sister.
I too will get more into stats and facts in later rounds but for now i just want to keep it short. I look forward to arguing with you.
The Republic uses governmental power to keep the majority from ever taking away individual rights. It also divides the government so it cannot use its power to not abide by the constitution. I see it as each individual deciding for themselves whether or not "they" wish to conceal carry a gun, and that their decision shouldn't have anything to do with another individual's choice. I prefer it this way because it gives us more control and responsibility in our own lives. It's one thing to be a victim of a violent crime because you were not smart enough to exercise the rights you have. It's way worse, when that right is taking away from you and you end up being a victim of a violent crime because if that happens, the responsibility starts to lie with the school/government who try to control what rights people can have. At least in the previous case, the right was there and so you have nobody to blame but yourself.
A perfect example of somebody's right who was taken away and as a result, was unable to defend herself was a woman named Amanda Collins. She was a student. She also has a concealed handgun permit during the time she was raped at gun point in the parking garage when she left her evening class with her friends. If schools allowed guns, or at least offer a process to carry legally which a person like her would have been more than eligible to, she most certainly would have been more than happy to exercise that right, but because she had to follow the law, being the law-abiding citizen that she is, she became a victim. And since her rapist held a gun to her head, he clearly did not care about whether or not it was legal. The serial rapist went on to kill 19 year old Brianna Denison. Had she have been able to defend herself with the last line of defense(a firearm) she would have prevented to rape, and possibly have saved Brianna's life.
Above is a video of her testimony. Of course you could Google her name and find out more.
Let me start out by stating that I am not making the argument that are country should abandon being a republic nation and adopt a true democracy as are government. But your argument that “the minority's rights should be protected from the majority, by a list of individual rights...and one of those rights, is the right to keep and bear arms” is fundamentally flawed. First off, if you are going to refer to the 2nd amendment you should present it in it's entirety; “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
As one can clearly see, the right to keep and bear arms as it was written was originally meant to insure that a well' regulated militia was not unarmed not . In fact it wasn't until recently that the nation even recognized the right to keep and bear arms as a individual right that applied to all. It was only in 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled that the constitution guaranteed to every American a personal right to bear arms. In the case District of Columbia Versus Heller, in which a security officer in a government building sued the government of Washington, D.C., over a law that prevented him from legally owning a handgun. Heller won. ( http://scholar.google.com... )
But up until then it was never a fundamental right ensured to every citizen. Two years later in the McDonald v. Chicago case the Supreme Court ruled that every state in the union must protect this right.( http://scholar.google.com... ) But even then they did not go so far as to state that it is a constitutional right for a American to carry a gun anywhere, so long as they have a license. All it did was ensure that a person had the right to bear arms, particularity in there own homes. This was done intentionally because we do live in a republic nation where the national government can not create one-size-fits-all solutions to national problems. States, cities, all the way down to individuals are allowed to decide how much or how little they want to extend a individual right, so long as they are not infringing the basic constitutional right itself. Let me also be clear that most states are creating policies that are in favor of gun right. But that does not mean the rights of the minority of those that don’t should be ignored.
To another point there is a hypocrisy in arguing that the rights of the minority's must be protected from the majority when the evidence shows us different. Over 40 state constitutions do in fact protect a right to bear arms. Furthermore, following the 2008 Supreme Court case and the McDonald case that came two years later, we now live in a nation where the right to bear arms is now defined as a guaranteed right to “all” Americans. So where then exactly does a public universities right to allow guns on campus infringe on your right? If you are going to make the argument that the rights of minorities need to be protected from the majority you cannot then argue the rights of the states, cities, and now public universities should not be protected when choosing whether or not they want to extend upon a constitutional right. By forcing all public universities to follow a “one-size-fits-all” policy you have taken away the rights of those who don't feel the same way towards guns as you.
My final point would be to state that my opponents example of Amanda Collins, although tragic and horrifying, the fact is to say that “had she have been able to defend herself with...(a firearm) she would have prevented [the] rape, and possibly have saved Brianna's life” is nothing more than speculation. Should of, would of, could of is not a concrete logical argument. Who's to say that even having a gun would prove useful when the offender already has the victim at gunpoint?
That being said I thought I should give an example of my own. When the mentally disturbed community college student who shot an Arizona congresswoman and killed six people in January fired 32 bullets in 15 seconds. After unarmed bystanders wrestled him down and took his gun, a man with a concealed weapon burst on the scene and almost shot one of the good Samaritans by mistake.
Trig314 forfeited this round.
Due to the fact that my opponent forfeited the last round I will keep this argument brief. Respecting the fact that my opponent will hopefully return to the debate. That being said I would like to simply use this round to read a quote that I like that I feel is appropriate for this debate
"How poor are they that have not patience, What wound did ever heal but by degrees?” -Shakespeare
And with that I will close.
Trig314 forfeited this round.
Hopefully my opponent will return to finish the debate that they started. I have been reluctant to make any further arguments that might tip the scale unfairly in my favor in the event that my opponent does return to the debate. That being said my patience can only go so far and I will make my closing argument in the next round regardless of whether or not my opponent decides to return.
As far as some of my facts statistics are concerned, first off, many people who oppose everyone from being allowed to carry their firearm will cite their evidence as "Schools are statistically safer." There is less crime on campus in general. I have no doubt that that is true, but what amazes me is that they think that the gun free zone is the reason for this. Anybody with some knowledge of statistics should know that correlation does not imply causation, and considering the fact that College is a very different environment than the cities, it doesn't surprise me that crime rates are lower by comparison, but honestly, it has almost nothing to do with the gun free zone. When you compare a campus/university environment to that of an urban environment, it is common knowledge that urban environments just tend to have a lot of crime. It is also important to note that there are different kinds of crimes. You have murders; robbers/thieves; rapists; mass shooter. etc.
Typically urban environment is where you will see a lot of robberies/thieves and murders. College campus, however, is where rapes and mass shootings usually take place. Mostly because college is full of beautiful young women, as well as a place where you can expect to have massive amounts of people in buildings.
I tend to joke in a non-serious manner, that you never see muggers on campus, because all the students are broke from paying tuition.
For the purpose of identifying what the cause is of the gun-free zone, I find it would be much more reliable to compare non-gun free zone schools with gun free zone schools. That way, a lot of you variables in the experiment will be easier to keep constant, instead of comparing a gun free zone school to a non-gun free zone urban environment. And it just so happens, we actually can compare non-gun free zone schools with other gun free zone schools. Not everybody knows this, but there are currently 12 Universities in the entire country that have legalized concealed carry compared to that thousands of other universities that prohibit it. What's amazing about it is that between the 12 Universities and how long they have been legal, there's been a combines total of about 200 semesters so far. There hasn't been a single incident of gun violence/gun theft, nor an accidental/negligent discharge. And statistically, about 1% of the american population is licensed to carry. The fact that they've gone this long without any incident should be convincing of most people that the gun free zone really wasn't doing much in the first place. By the way, the Universities that did legalize, only legalized it for licensed carriers which is what I'm advocating for(not allow everybody).
The biggest concern people have about a certain right is that they feel as if the right can be abused and that is the grounds they use to push their agenda to remove that right. But by only allowing the qualified individuals to carry, it's been shown that none of them are abusing this right so far. And if that's the case, then why is it illegal for them?
As for the concerns teachers and students have of feeling uncomfortable knowing that someone may be carrying is little bit ridiculous. Most of these people go to places like the mall and the movies with their friends, and you don't see them expressing any kind of fear that someone may be carrying there, so how and why would school be any different? And why would teachers be afraid of people carrying legally when there actually might be people in the class who are already carrying illegally? When you break it down, these fears and anxious feelings are best described as being irrational. Many people seem to think that if we legalize, then all of the sudden, everyone on campus will be armed which is completely absurd. In reality, it may only be a small handful of people who start carrying because 99% of the population doesn't carry a gun on them anywhere outside of school either. And not sure if I have mentioned this yet or not, but you are 20 times more likely to be struck by lightning then to be killed by a licensed carrier, so many people ought to be more afraid of thunder than a law allowing permit holders to carry.
And for my last point, accidental gun death are extremely rare. You are statistically 32 times more likely to accidentally kill yourself with poisoning than by accidentally killing yourself with a gun. And so I hope anyone reading this debate will ponder seriously about the issue as there are people who are affected by this.
jpl951 forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|