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

Guns... US

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 884 times Debate No: 22797
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




Full resolution: "Conceal carry laws reduce violent crime, and bun bans increase violent crime"


My opponent argues the liberal side.

BOP even.

Definitions: Conceal carry = being allowed to carry guns
Banning guns = no more private ownership of guns.

This argument is on crime, not the constitution. Pretend the constitution is gone now.

Also, I argue first only conceal carry, and then refute his case. His case is only on gun bans, and he only refutes my case. So out case is on one issue, then we have rebuttals. I wanna try that format, so we really only argue one subject, and rebut another.

No semantics, trolling, etc.

1st round acceptance
Debate Round No. 1


**Note my case is for conceal carry, my anti banning guns is in the rebuttals. My opponents case is in favor of banning guns, and anti conceal carry in rebuttals.**

Deterrence (use with argument below)

A common misconception throughout Europe is less guns equal less crime, and the same argument applies in current US media, all claiming guns and conceal carry are evil.

Now before we claim criminals can be deterred, we must first ask can they be deterred? The answer is yes, as many economic studies (studies done by economists) find when increased punishments or possible problems occur when doing the crime the negative outweigh the positives of committing the crime, and then they are less likely to commit the crime. Now we must ask why are they deterred by this? The answer is self explanatory, but I shall point out the obvious: They want self preservation, they want to be able to get away with their deeds. Also many surveys conducted show that criminals are more scared of people with guns then police officers, as if the gun is hidden they may be attacked back without warning (polices warning is the uniform).

Now, lets look at a thing Lott calls a "hot burglary." This is when a criminal strikes when a person is already at home. In Canada and England, where gun control is very strict, almost half of the burglaries where hot. In contrast, 13% in america where hot. Now what is the reason? Because they think they may get shot, they say robbing at night when people are home is the best way to get shot, they would rather case a house. This proves they fear guns.

Now, lets use some examples of deterrence. Lott uses the literal example of apples and oranges. He says if the price of apples increases while the price of oranges decreases apples sales will decrease, while orange sales will stay the same or increase. This shows the human oh it has consequences effect.

Is open carry and conceal carry different, when it comes to deterrence? When a concealed carry permit holder has a gun, it is harder to actually tell if they have a gun. Criminals wont know if they are attacking an old lady, or an old lady packing a .45 Springfield in her purse. This raises the risk to criminals, hence also their preservation. Whereas open carry is much less scary, as you know who not to annoy, and not to annoy anyone around him (as he may help the other person). The conceal carry laws threaten the criminals more.

The empirical data

Law Passed Murder fell 7.7%, Rape fell 5.3%, Aggravated assault by 7.01%, robbery 2.2%, Burglary .5%, Larceny 3.3%, Auto 7.1%. [1] (1977-1997 data)

Other data, his 1999 data, shows a better outcome of a 10% decrease in murder, and the other categories too had a larger decrease in crime, hence CCW in hi later data was slightly revised in new data sets. Lotts early data can be found in #2.

Now lets look at PA. They had a drop in murder of about 26%, and overall violent crime drop of 5.3%. Now, one of the criticisms of this basic trend is just because the drop happened after the law, we can also look at other variables, the most common one is arrest rates. Lott makes many dummy variables, tables, and to the best of his ability shows CCW laws where a significant portion of the decrease. [1] Another reasons he concludes the drop is because when there is a spike in people who have permits there is a decrease in violent crimes.

To get more local statistics, lets look at his findings in some states. In Oregon, for example, murder dropped 37% after the law was passed. Now, there are other variables he accounted for in the third addition making his data superior to the first. He did other dummy data sets, and still finds CCW had a large portion of the deterrence an drop in crimes. [1]

Now, it is logical to assume they actually decrease crime due to my deterrent argument above. The CATO study also finds similar reasons why it would actually decrease crime. They also fund similar accounts of data, and they conclude the Florida CCW law was positive and the other states that passed these laws also had a positive showing.

Another question that must be answered: would it increase or decrease mass public crimes? Now, as this is a valid fear, see the recent shootings in Chicago I believe, or Virginia tech. But to define shootings/killings, we must look into what is defined by. It is defined as a public shooting in a place where 2 or more people are killed or injured. Now based n his data in figure 5.1, he found the likelihood of a state to have this happen was about 60%, a little more. After the conceal carry law was passed, data and trends suggests the state now has only a 1% chance of these types of shootings in areas where conceal carry holders are allowed. [1] I may have misphrased the argument here: the likelihood of deaths or injuries when the crime occurs. Essentially saying conceal carry laws make it harder for the psycho to kill when in the area where a conceal carry permit holder resides.

Now, another question would be does it lower crime committed with guns? This argument used is common amongst people trying to go against conceal carry laws. But this is not the case. In the new 2010 edition of source 1, it finds a 9% decrease in murders with guns after non-discretionary laws are passed. Murders with non handguns dropped at a similar rate, 8.9%.

"If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly." [1] [2] (1997 study)

Summary of argument:

source: [1], and "the conceal handgun debate", john lott.


It is logical to assume even without the data CCW laws would decrease the crime rate, but the empirical data makes an indestructible case. With this information we can conclude CCW lowers crime. Now, lets hope my opponent can attempt to prove opposite and gun bans save lives, which they do not.

[1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010.
[2] Lott, Jr., John R., and David B. Mustard. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." The Journal of Legal Studies 26.1 (1997)
[3] Snyder, Jeffery R. "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun." CATO, 22 Oct. 1997


"Criminals wont know if they are attacking an old lady, or an old lady packing a .45 Springfield in her purse."
First of all just because a conceal carry law is passed doesn't mean everybody and their sister is going to buy a gun. Second of all it's not like the only people with the guns are old ladies. The criminal attacking her might just as well have a gun (which he is probably more skilled at seeing as he is a criminal.) This law not only lets old ladies have guns, but it lets robbers, thieves, pickpockets, and murderers also carry guns quite easily.
Imagine a room with 100 people. It could easily be peaceful with no problem whatsoever. In the most dramatic situation there could be a fist fight. Now imagine giving every single person in this room a gun. What started as a fistfight now turns into a shootout with every single person shooting.
Imagine a robber robbing a store with a gun. A civilian now easily can also have a gun. So they might try to take the law into their own hands and try to shoot the criminal. This could turn into a massive shootout and bullets flying everywhere because everyone has a gun that they are shooting

Now look at this chart of murder rates per country per 100,000 people. Some of the lowest murder rates are in countries with the strictest gun control, like Japan(0.45), China(1.21), United Kingdom(1.57), ICELAND(with 0 murders but extremely strict gun control.) Then look at the countries with the highest murder rates, yet have virtually no gun control. Democratic Republic of the Congo(34.99), Venezuela(47.21), Columbia(40) Zimbabwe(34.29). The U.S.(5.22) is arguable about whether it is high or low, but when you look at other countries, you can tell that the murder rate should be much lower.

Guns should not only be restricted but they should be banned because what is the point of giving people deadly weapons when you can remove all the deadly weapons. This means remove all weapons from the criminals too. One of my opponents arguments is deterrence. There should be extreme punishment for the posession of a gun. Using deterrence, guns can easily be removed by society.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 2


Defense of arguments:


My opponents case here is not everyone will have a hidden gun, which is correct indeed. But missed the point, and actually does work. Now, lets assume a small portion of the state had this permit, oh 1%. Now, my opponent will argue this will do nothing, as the criminal will just say unlikely and run, but this fails under the logic presented. This would be a deterrent, under any study, [1] as any criminal would rather not take the chance with an armed victim (even if the chances are low, and a conceal carry amplifies the effect as they do not know who is armed).

My opponent then uses the "what if" argument on what if they shoot everyone :O. Well, this under Lotts arguments [1] is called a what if argument, also he calls it the blood will run in the streets falsehood. Now, the argument fails as if this happened all of the permits would be revoked, and well sorry this has never happened before. The training the people take prevent these accidents. My opponents argument, well, never happens even in states with 1 million permit holders. If you look at the facts, conceal carry permit holders are more law abiding then the average citizen, and actually have their permits revoked less then 0.5% of the time, yes LESS THEN 0.5%. [1] My opponents argument, is well false and is essentially propaganda spread by politicians.


Extend arguments.


--Crime rates--

My opponent goes onto say lookie! Gun control means less crime look at this. Well great! You misread stats and, well, forgot other variables. In China, for example, you get executed horribly for murder, and they are all essentially in a police where crime is instant death. Under deterrence theory almost no one would commit crimes. My opponent then cites Japan, UK, Iceland. First, In japan there is only one race, and having many races actually means more crimes, minorities no mater the race seem violent. Also based on socio-economics they will have low crimes, his stats are actually mainly influenced by other factors. Also, my opponent ignores trends, before and afters, as simple comparisons fail to see many other factors, population etc. So to actually effectively measure whether it actually decreases crime to ban guns, you mustn't compare countries, rather compare it to itself in trends. Let's use UK, an example you used. After many gun control laws and a handgun ban gun crime rose 340%. [1] The rates of ALL violent crimes soared as well. [1] As my opponents comparison argument fails on a level of other factors, the the before and after trends escape many of the compare UK to USA problems, the data I present is more valid. If you look at trends, gun bans RAISE crime once passed, simple comparisons fail on all levels.

Then my opponent cites many countries that have no gun control. 2/4 of those countries actually have a drug war, not due to guns, therefore those 2/4 fail to show gun laws having any effect on crime. The high crime is explained by drugs, not guns. My opponent then cites the Congo, yet ignores their factors. There is a war there and the army is full of rapists, hence the country here is explained by other variables not guns. 3/4 so far of her arguments are false as the high crime rates are explained by non gun variables. Then he cites Zimbabwe, which actually does have gun control no right to own a gun, need a license to own a semi automatic gun (thats most guns lol), need a license for handguns, and therefore have restrictive gun laws. [2] When my opponent cited countries, I do not think he even looked into gun laws, just lied so people see the high crime and yelp. Most guns in the Congo are banned. [3] It deserves conduct that my opponent lied about gun laws. Also, Zimbabwe has other variables such as rampant poverty in crime. I doubt guns in these countries have an effect when the conditions are terrible. Also Columbia, an example by my opponent has high gun regulation. [4] Guns are banned in velesuala, one of my opponents examples. [5] So not only did my opponent LIE by saying these countries had lax laws, but also forgets there are other variables in crime trends, not just compare totally different countries. So, m opponents argument fails because:
1. the countries that he said had high crime and no gun laws practically ban guns
2. His lets compare arguments fail on a statistical analysis.

He then claims giving people guns is a tool for murder, well so is a car, I can hit people with my car, should we ban them? This also assumes more people die in gun wars then in defense, which is false. There are millions (like 1 million) gun usages in defense each year, [1] 16,000 murders with guns in 2008. [6] Based on this guns already save more lives then they take away. So the question I pose is: Are we better off banning guns? No, guns save more lies then they end, therefore your argument is invalid.


Vote PRO, also my opponent lied with the statistics which is worthy of conduct to pro.

[1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010.


내가 이런 토론을 수상 생각합니다
Debate Round No. 3


Extend arguments vote PRO.

btw I enjoyed the debate :D


나를 위해 투표

Do it.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by SeelTheMan 4 years ago
he wins. im getting a little tired of debating
Posted by Calvincambridge 4 years ago
I love guns like koopin loves KFC
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Seel, did I win? Like, do you concede?
Posted by SeelTheMan 4 years ago
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago

remember, my case is only for conceal carry, my rebuttals for your case. Also, can we make an external source page? You can do it too. (
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by seraine 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the debate.