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

Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free.

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  
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: 8/21/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 748 times Debate No: 78911
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




In this debate we will begin by talking about open carry. Open carry is the practice of carrying a weapon in plain view, not concealed, for personal safety. I am for this. I feel that if you can pass the background check to buy a firearm legally, you should be able to carry a weapon as the Second Amendment gives us the rights to bear arms to protect ourselves from an oppressive government and those who seek to do us harm. Here is Ky policy on open carry. This statement statement is about what is justified to use deadly force by the Louisville Metro Police. This is basically outlining when someone would need to use their weapon. Also we will talk about what carrying guns in places could have prevented in our nation.

Deadly force: Force, which the officer knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical
injury. Head, neck, throat or clavicle injuries caused by an impact weapon of any sort can lead to death or
serious physical injury.

Reasonable belief: When facts or circumstances the officer knows, or should know, are such to cause an
ordinary and prudent officer to act or think in a similar way under similar circumstances.
Active aggression: A threat or overt act of an assault (through physical or verbal means), coupled with the
present ability to carry out the threat or assault, which reasonably indicates that an assault or injury to any
person is imminent.
Serious physical injury: A bodily injury that:

=623; Creates a substantial risk of death to the victim.
=623; Creates a prolonged impairment of health or prolonged disfigurement.
=623; Creates a prolonged loss or impairment of a bodily organ.


I'll take this up. I await your opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


ANichols0063 forfeited this round.


All right I'll start small with hopes my opponent won't forfeit next round.

1. Carriers should be required to obtain a permit to show basic levels of competence with their firearm of choice.

2. Lack of permits would make it time-consuming for LEOs to distinguish lawful citizens from felons. It takes seconds to show a permit.
Debate Round No. 2


1. Carriers that are required to obtain a permit only have to show BASIC levels of competence. Just because you know how to use and maintain your firearm properly doesn't mean that you are mentally stable. The most psychotic individuals seem sane until the light is upon them.

2. Lack of permits do not make it more time-consuming. Even with permits people still shoot people unlawfully and most LEO's still have to define a motive that the individual has for carrying a gun. Without a permit it would actually reduce time because they are cutting out the checking of the permit for authenticity and validation. It might take seconds to show a permit, but all LEO's ask why the suspect is carrying the gun, usually where they are going, and if they can examine the firearm.

*In states like Kentucky, which doesn't require a permit to open carry, there was 47% ownership of fire arms in 2010. In that year they only had 116 gun murders. In California, a state that prohibits open carrying of a loaded firearm, they had 21% gun ownership with 1,257 gun murders. Regardless of population that is still a large number in and of itself. This statistic shows a basic correlation to: more guns=less gun murders.

Also lets use scenarios that carrying firearms could have prevented tragedies.
1. Columbine- One student on campus carrying a firearm, concealed or not, could have stopped the perpetrators.
2. Sandy Hook- One armed teacher or security guard could have stopped him.
3. Aurora theater- one armed movie go-er could have hit him with at least one of his 10-16 rounds.

These are three instances that people's lives could have been saved by just ONE person carrying a firearm. If five people had a firearm, they individually would have only gotten of a few rounds. Not the massive amounts they did.

Also people forget that guns are the only thing that can stop a gun. There was an incident on a train a few days ago where three men subdued a man wielding an AK-47. The only way the subdued him was because his gun jammed. If it hadn't, they, along with the many others on the train wouldn't have survived.

You cannot stop a gun with a knife, frisby, brass knuckles, ink pen, or even martial arts. If someone is firing a weapon, you are at the discretion of their aim. If more people carried guns, people would be less likely to try and commit these acts of violence.


1. Not sure where mental health comes into the picture of obtaining a permit. If the system was flawed enough that a mentally ill person could pass an NICS check, then another check on a permit is going to be just as useless. I firmly believe that anyone who wants to carry a gun, open or concealed should be required to take a basic course which shows that you know how to manipulate the gun and put the rounds where they need to go, instead of not knowing what buttons and levers do what, and not being able to hit the broadside of a barn from the inside. No one should be able to just go buy a gun and then immediately start carrying it. That's reckless and dangerous. Taking a permit course helps new owners avoid novice mistakes and how to go about carrying a gun properly.

2. Lack of permits does in fact make it more time consuming. 5 seconds with a permit and that's all the officer needs to let him know that the group of people carrying guns down the street aren't felons. Just set them up so they can be scanned like a drivers license

3. Correlation does not equal causation. Given California's multi-ethnic background it has an extremely high gang population ( ) compared to Kentucky page 13 ) Kentucky has 0-2 gang members per 1000 and California has 6+. Not exactly a fair comparison, and your "findings" can easily be pinned on gang activity.

And then you say guns are the only thing that can stop guns, and then give an example of how 3 unarmed men stopped a guy with a gun.

And let's just not look at these shall we.

I also distinctly remember the gunman at the Tuscon shooting being stopped by a man without a gun.
Debate Round No. 3


ANichols0063 forfeited this round.


I'm going to expound on my first argument a bit.

All sources here :

Failing to require a permit to showing competence and ability with a firearm(s) is grossly irresponsible because the lack of said carrier's abilities can be an enormous public health concern.

"According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department"s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time."

This is coming from a demographic that is REQUIRED to show ability with a gun on a regular basis in order to carry it. Allowing citizens to carry with no training is undoubtedly going to cause a higher rate of civilian casualties.

These reasons alone should be enough to require a permit that shows competence of the carrier.
Debate Round No. 4


ANichols0063 forfeited this round.


Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by FrozenLichBox 3 years ago
While I agree with your argument, I may take you up on this one. Not immediately (I already have too much to do), but soon, if you want.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro just dropped too many arguments. All of Con's rebuttals are extend. Conduct and arguments to Con as a direct and indirect (respectively) result of the forfeits.