Lawful concealed carry is a good thing
Debate Rounds (5)
I will be arguing in favor of concealed carry by law abiding citizens.
I welcome you to use the first round for an opening argument. You may argue against an individual carrying or that it is detrimental to society as a whole.
As always, verifiable facts with sources will be weighed more favorably than made up hypothetical anecdotes.
My aim throughout this debate is to demonstrate that:
-Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals
-Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings
-As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes.
--Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals
"Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms . See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 ."
--Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings
I had 8 links to incidents where armed resistance ended a shooting but they would not work in this format unfortunately. See the bottom of this page for a few URLS.
According to FBI statistics:
When civilians stopped a shooting event there was an average of 2.3 deaths.
When law enforcement responded, at an average time of 3 minutes, 14.3 deaths occurred.
--As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes
My apologies that this is a copy and paste. I have to wake up for work in 5 hours.
"A front-page story in today's New York Times tries to stir up alarm about liberalized carry permit laws, which let people carry concealed handguns if they meet a short list of objective criteria. To illustrate the hazards of that policy, the Times cites crimes committed by permit holders in North Carolina. How many crimes? Excluding traffic offenses, the Times counts 2,400 over five years, of which 200 were felonies. More relevant (since critics of nondiscretionary permit laws worry that they contribute to gun violence), "More than 200 permit holders were also convicted of gun- or weapon-related felonies or misdemeanors, including roughly 60 who committed weapon-related assaults." That's a dozen gun assaults a year. How many permit holders are there in North Carolina? According to the story, "more than 240,000." So 0.2 percent of them are convicted of a non-traffic-related offense each year, about 0.017 percent are convicted of a felony, and only 0.005 percent are convicted of a gun assault. The Times concedes that the number of permit holders convicted of crimes "represents a small percentage of those with permits." More like "tiny." By comparison, about 0.35 percent of all Americans are convicted of a felony each year--more than 20 times the rate among North Carolina permit holders. It seems clear these people are far more law-abiding than the general population, a finding consistent with data from other states. Such data are not surprising, since law-abidingness, as measured by a clean criminal record, is one requirement for a carry permit."
alfred311 forfeited this round.
I wish to remind everyone of the Fort Hood shooting that just occurred. How did it end? The shooter met armed resistance and killed himself. Unfortunately, since the armed resistance was from a police officer, the shooter had 15 minutes uncontested. Point being, the shooter could have been stopped much sooner if the military retained the right to keep and bear arms.
First of all I fully agree to the 2nd amendment, I will argue against your vague position that "concealed carry is a good thing"
I hope voters will recognize what we are debating about and not the legality of concealed carry/2nd amendment
First of all, gun isn't free, you need to shell out a lot of money to buy guns, bullets, not to mention training regularly for precise shooting and renting a place for such activity. Money that can be use for other much important things like house,food and clothing. Yes, everyone have the right to bear arm, yet the reality is only people with money can do so.
In addition to that, racial discrimination play a big part when it comes to carrying a gun. Admit it, you don't want to see a mexican or african-american guy carrying in your street, why? because of their race. I don't want to explain the sociology of crime but we all know that poverty breeds crime and most of this race are poor, thus, many of them are connected to some crime of sorts. I'm not being a racist here but you can Google for yourself the statistics of crime committed by a certain race here in America.
Lastly, ever heard of the post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychiatric illnesses caused by killing someone? yes you might be able to defend yourself or your family by some thugs who want to hurt you/them. But the consequence might haunt you for the rest of your life. Soldiers experience this, police and private securities are no exemption, how much more to an individual not trained to "kill" someone. There are some ex-soldiers who go berserk and kill their loved ones because of this disease. The recent fort hood shooting is just another case of many incident like these.
These are just some of the bad things that can happen in carrying or owning a gun. Again, just what I have mentioned, I didn't debate against the legality of owning a gun but the "bad things" owning a gun can do to a person and society
Correct, this debate is about whether or not it is beneficial.
Your arguments are all straw man arguments. Please post something more concrete next time.
While you are correct in saying "gun isn't free," when it comes to concealed carry you don't need something high performance since the average defensive gun use is at less then 15 feet. So a gun for concealed carry just has to shoot reliably, that's it. That's why when it comes to the cost of a gun, compacts have by far the cheapest average price. There are a large number of them in the $150-$300 range. While I get it that that amount would be difficult for some to squeeze out of their monthly budget, those in poverty have a much greater need to own something for self defense.
That argument is in fact quite racist while also being irrelevant. This is about concealed carry. In other words, I would not even be aware that the individual was armed. And as stated above, those in impoverished environments have a greater need to have a firearm. The law abiding should always have the right to defend themselves regardless of race.
Yes I've heard of it. I'm in the Navy. I know some people who have it. I also know a number of people who have been in their fair share of firefights who don't. Your argument is invalid as it assumes you will get PTSD from using a gun defensively. And as you said: "you might be able to defend yourself or your family by some thugs who want to hurt you/them." Choose one: option a.) your family is torn apart by the murder/rape of one or more family members. Or b.) your family watches a criminal get his chest ventilated. Which do you really think would be more likely to cause PTSD?
"These are just some of the bad things that can happen in carrying or owning a gun." On the contrary, all of your arguments were irrelevant and not "bad things" that can happen owning a gun. You could have said something about having a negligent discharge and that would have at least been a valid argument. Instead you talked about how poor people can't have guns, armed minorities make you uncomfortable, and that you'd rather be a victim.
Late last year, Illinois finally began issuing concealed carry permits. Gun control advocates were metaphorically, up in arms claiming there would be blood in the streets. But what really happened to the crime rate? It's down 25% and Chicago experienced its lowest murder rate since 1958 for the first quarter of this year *1.
In 2013, President Obama commissioned a $10 million dollar study on gun violence *2. That study found that firearms are used in self defense anywhere from 500,000 to more than 3 million times per year. It's impossible to have an exact number as a lot of them go unreported. Since brandishing a firearm is illegal, most people would rather just let the assailant run off and not report it.
Our debate is not about the legality or crime of an individual person carrying a gun but the consequences of owning a gun to the person and society. And no matter how you use your guns whether it is for self defense or protecting your family from rape or murder, the after effects are still there. Soldiers kill for the sake of their country, most noble thing to do, and yet they still suffer from PTSD. A person killing someone to protect their loved ones MIGHT suffer the same illness. One "bad" thing of owning a gun but I am not saying that everybody can get PTSD from shooting someone or I'd rather be a victim but you cant dismissed the fact that it CAN happen.
Moreover, the expenses of commissioning research and study for gun can also be detrimental to the society. Instead of using the money for more pressing issues, such as education and medical programs, $10M dollars are wasted just to prove or disprove a point. How about the money wasted by politicians because of the never ending debates about gun. Drafting a bill for amending gun laws inst free. This is certainly bad for the society, the economy and the country as a whole.
In reference to my last argument, there are 500k to 3M instances per year where a firearm is used in self defense. That's potentially 3M violent crimes prevented per year. This has obvious individual benefits while also providing a huge benefit to society. Specifically in deterred crime and dead career criminals. At an average cost to tax payers of $30k per year per inmate, a ten year sentence for a violent criminal would cost tax payers $300,000. Multiply that by the thousands of criminals killed per year in self defense and you can plainly see that society benefits economically.
So in summary; as an individual, you are more protected from criminals. As a society; crime and prison costs go down.
Furthermore, having a gun close at hand can turn ordinary disputes and arguments fatal. Even legal gun owners can be involved in a crime. Crime of passion mostly involves gun that is legally acquired. No one really excuses someone to commit a crime even you are carrying a gun legally.
To conclude, the issue here is not weather guns are beneficial or not. Anyone can exercise their rights to have one, but please do not be blinded by media or any pro gun group that it is all pros and no cons. Having one entails responsibility and precaution. To think that it will magically help your problem from the ills of society is absolutely crazy. Go get a gun, it is your right but always remember the responsibilities attached onto it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.