The Instigator
cweeks9109
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
EHS_Debate
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime

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 7 votes the winner is...
cweeks9109
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,021 times Debate No: 10389
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (7)

 

cweeks9109

Pro

I believe that the right to carry, reduces crime rates and should be made legal in all 50 states, with limitations to who would be able to carry a firearm of U.S citizens above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes with a firearm. Further more I would also argue that with correct instructions firearms can be very safe and recreational activities.
EHS_Debate

Con

I would like to thank-you my opponent for allowing me to debate with him or her, as this is my first serious debate.

I would like to point out before I begin that it is the burden of the PRO to prove that ALL 50 fifty states should be allowed to carry a firearm and that by doing this, crime will effectively be reduce.

Because my opponent has not provided any definitions for his or her debate it is safe to assume that the definitions I post in ROUND 1 will thereafter will referred to as the definitions of the debate.

Definitions:

50 states:
Implied by the PRO to be the United States of America.

Right to carry a firearm:
Commonly referred to as each individual allowed the right to carry or house a firearm.

Firearm:
A small arms weapon, such as a pistol or rifle.

Crime:
An action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

I would like to begin by refuting my opponents case.

(1)I believe that the right to carry, reduces crime rates and should be made legal in all 50 states, with limitations to who would be able to carry a firearm of U.S citizens above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes with a firearm.

First off, this does not support the resolution in any way. There is no evidence backing up his position. However, this is just a brief roadmap of my opponents contention. I will point out that U.S. citizens could easily receive guns. Once the gun is bought, there is no concrete way of tracking the gun. Making it easy for lets say, a person above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes, to purchase firearms and supply other people. I will save my arguement about decreasing crime rate for later.

(2)"I would also argue that with correct instructions firearms can be very safe and recreational activities."

The fact of the matter is, a knowledgable thirteen-year-old can find his or her parent's firearm and easily turn off the safety mechanism and inflict damage upon themself or others.

As seen in the Columbia School Shooting, it is already too easy for children to get guns if they wanted. Now with every household in the 50 states carrying a firearm, as my opponent is advocating, it will be even easier.

Because my opponent has provided a small paragraph of information I will stop here. It is key to remember that my opponent must effectively support the claim that ALL 50 states be allowed to carry firearms because it reduces crime.

I have not posted any sources yet, as I am allowing my opponent to first and because I am running out of personal time for this.
Thank you for this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
cweeks9109

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.

I will start my this round by saying that obtaining a firearm is different in every state, it would be unwise to assume that the gun control laws are the same for every state. For instance, in Illinois you must be 18, to legally purchase a long gun (any gun with a barrel longer than 12 inches), and 21 to purchase a pistol. You must also have a FOID (Firearm Owner Identification) card, obtaining a FOID card requires an application to the IL state police where they perform a back ground check, after you have a FOID car you must wait 24 hours after purchasing a gun to pick it up. Logic would presume that this is not an easy way to obtain a firearm. Granted my opening statement was short and open to debate on the argument it would ensue, right to carry has nothing to do with obtaining firearms, that is not what is discussion is about. It is about whether or not right to carry reduces crim my opponent provided no evidence that people who own fire arms that carry them in on them would not reduce crime.

Has I am now realizing this being my first debate I should have defined Right to carry, but I believe my opponent to mistaken in his definition, Right to carry mean the ability to have a concealed firearm on said persons in public areas.
Housing firearms is merely owning firearms, and due to the fact that in 1993 49% of homes had at least one firearm in them (Study: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995. Accessed at http://www.saf.org....) I do not believe that 13 year old are the main issue when it comes to Right to carry. My opponent also neglected the fact that I stated "with correct instruction", I do not have enough time to provide detailed information about gun safety this link should be detailed enough (http://www.nrahq.org...).

As for the columbine school shooting, those firearms where obtained by adults and given to young adults who had the intent to cause arm to people, if some one is that determined to cause harm, will have a gun really stop them. Think of any public shooting, however sad they are, could each one have not been stopped if a trained person carried a firearm, could many of lives have not been saved? The argument could be made that couldn't the lives be saved if guns where band, and I would like the audience know that this is not the issue at hand. If my opponent would like to argue that I would be more than happy to right after this.

My opponent asked for evidence that crime would actually be reduced well Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987, these are the statistics of crimes rates in Florida to the rest of United States from 1987 to 1997
Homicide rate dropped 36% in Florida and went down .4% as United states as a whole.
Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation.
Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation.
1998 NRA Fact Card." Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, http://www.nra.org...

If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons.
(Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96.)

"As of 1999 no permit holder has ever shot a cop and, in many cases permit holders have protected polices officers life." Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pages 1, 11, 43

I will hold further arguments for now

I apologize for the opening argument, due to the fact that I haven't spent much time reading debates, I viewed it as more of a opening statement to purpose a debate and not an opening argument. But thank you for providing a formidable opponent for this debate.
EHS_Debate

Con

I thank my opponent for creating this debate.

First off, my opponent offers a definition of right to carry:

"mean the ability to have a concealed firearm on said persons in public areas."

I concede to this definition and would like to have it now noted that the affirmation has to abide in this definition in evidence and arguements.

Example of Campus allowing concealed carry, and then not allowing concealed carry.

Board Chairman Patrick McConathy explained the board's decision to disarm all law abiding adults on campus by stating that the "members of the CSU system board believe this is a reasonable, rational and responsible decision for our system." The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators agreed, stating "there is no credible statistical evidence demonstrating that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms reduce crime."

My opponent suggests that if, in referrence to the Columbine Shooting, people were armed there could have been a halt to the shootings. We actually do not know this. In an experiment by 20/20, selected students from a college were chosen to take part. The students, varying from age, fire-arm training, and ethnicity were given a pistol loaded with paintballs and told to sit in a lecture hall with other students listening to a class session. (Note, one at a time these students were tested). The subjects were told that they would need to use a gun to defend themselves, but not when. When the attackers barged through the door, none of the subjects could kill or even down the intruder before being shot and killed. This experiment suggests that even if people were armed at the Columbine Shooting, they could never recieve the training needed to act accordingly in a life or death situation.

My opponent mentions earlier that I neglected that he stated, "with correct instruction". However, as I have shown, one can never fully prepare themselves in life or death cases such as this. Even then, you can't expect the instructee to pay full attention. Example, driver liscenses. Teenagers are required to take a test and go through training, but why do teenagers make up the most of the car crashes that are reported in the United States? Because you can not fully know what the intentions are of a person when they want to get something.

My opponent provides this as evidence.

"Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987, these are the statistics of crimes rates in Florida to the rest of United States from 1987 to 1997
Homicide rate dropped 36% in Florida and went down .4% as United states as a whole.
Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation.
Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation.
1998 NRA Fact Card." Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, http://www.nra.org...;

I would like to ask first off, is this a concealed carry law? I can't affirm that because the source my opponent provided is blocked on my webbrowser. Second off, in order for this to work in favor of my opponents case, it must be assumed that every number in this piece of evidence is in direct correllation with the Right to Carry Law enacted by Florida in 1987. With that aside, notice these pieces of statistics that contradict my opponents case:

"Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation.
Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation."

As a result of the Right to Carry Law, Firearm Homicide went up 15% as a nation? Handgun Homicide up 24%?
The increase of homicides in these areas, which relate to the resolution, show that because of this Law, homicides went up. The increase of homicides in 49 states, far outweighs the decrease in 1.

"If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons."
(Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96.)

I would like to note that there is a fallacy within this piece of evidence listed above. If this evidence came from the source posted after it, then it is not credible. The book was written in 7/26/96, so the year 1996. The evidence notes that it incorporates statistics from 1987 to 1999. Because this is an obvious contradiction, unless I am mistaken, this piece of evidence is not credible and can not be used.

I will now state my opinion.

It is the job of the government to protect our rights. To protect our natural rights. How is this justified if the government allows all of the nation to carry weapons? How safe will our society feel then? It is the obligation of the people to give up a portion of their freedom so that they can have the government protect their rights. Examples of this are the United States Navy, Army, Airforce, State Police, and County Police. By advocating for concealed weapon carry, one is saying that the government is not doing their job in protecting the rights of America. What would the need of a sheriff be, if every person in town carried a weapon. It would not turn our country into a safe haven. Likewise, concealed carry laws would create tension among everyone.

My opponent advocates concealed carry.

It can be the will of the negation to propose a better fitting solution. Since concealed carry is extremely unreasonable, I advocate for the allowing of weapons to be allowed in houses, but not concealed carry. I believe that in this respect, no one feels tension of being shot in public, because the guns are in the houses. I believe that this is a more suitable explanation of how it can reduce crime better than concealed carry.

=Experiment=

20/20 provided another experiment. They sent one of their correspondents into a gun show, with no gun liscence and a set budget. Within a few hours, the man had purchased several firearms, without ever being asked for his liscence. This shows that if someone wanted a gun, they could get a gun. Concealed carry will inevitably create a negative effect and cause tension among people, it will also allow people with hurtful intentions to easily aquire a firearm.

I understand that I have not posted any sources, aside from 20/20. That is because my computer has blocked every website that has to do with guns. I have disproved one of my opponents sources, which should hurt his credibility somewhat.

For these reasons and many others, I still stand in firm negation of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
cweeks9109

Pro

I would like to start this round by stating that there are a few things I would agree with my opponent.

If a trained police officer barges into a room, knowing exactly where the "test subjects" where seating there would be little anyone could do. How do I know this, well if you watch the case study you see that the trained police officer goes into room gun drawn and goes after no one else but the "test subject". It would also be very hard to defend yourself if you where wearing baggy pants and do not have you firearm in a holster like logic would presume for just such situation, I forgot to mention the over sized white tee-shirt you are wearing.

That case study stacked the odds in favor of the attackers, there was noting anyone could do in such a biased situation. My opponent compares teenage drivers to conceal and carry permit holders, this argument should be refuted because A. provides no evidence that teenagers have highest percent of car wreaks due to lack of paying attention, couldn't it be because they are the least experienced drivers?

As for my opponent say my statistics on Florida do not help my case, explain to me how Florida in 1987 homicide rates dropping as a whole does not help my point? Yes they went up as a country but what if the rest of the country did not share the same laws that Florida did, how is it proven that the country as a whole homicide rates would drop. They certainly did not go up in Florida which is on of my opponent's arguments for what could happen.

My opponent states that it is the job of the government to protect our rights, but what about our lives? They also state that by advocating conceal and carry it is saying that the government isn't doing there job. Well the Supreme Court states that "It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection." The court case was "TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES". So the Supreme Court as said that they have no legal obligation to protect the individual. So what do you do when cops just aren't around or the police believe that there is a greater cause to attend to than your life? Also what my opponent either doesn't know who has not acknowledged yet is that by me arguing for conceal and carry in all 50 states I am really only arguing for conceal and carry to be legal in Illinois and Wisconsin, because those are the only two states in the entire United States that do not have some form of conceal carry, so if he/she believes that having conceal and carry in Illinois and Wisconsin would create tension in the United States as a whole then that would be saying a lot, but if conceal and carry would create tension then would we not already be feeling it now?

I have already stated that if someone wants to get a firearm they are able to get one, but yet again this has nothing to do with being able to carry a firearm.

Finally if I was deranged enough to want to cause harm to innocent people with a firearm and I owned firearms in my house, how would not being able to carry them stop me. Do you really think that a minor felony is going to stop someone who wants to murder people? Actually having conceal and carry permits is one of the few ways that could stop me.

As for my "falsified facts", I would like to suggest the human error of typo, until my opponent look up document I took this off of I don't see how he can call it false.
EHS_Debate

Con

I would like to begin by clarifying three issues within this debate, no matter how important they are.

(1) If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons.
(Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96.)

Posted by my opponent. At first notice this suggests that it is a statistic of the nation of the United States. But to clarify, it only deals with Florida, "* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. "

http://www.justfacts.com...

Notice that it also seems that my opponent has altered the statistic, stating from 1987 to 1999. But when the actual evidence is looked at from its source you can see that it says 1987 to 1994. My opponent states that it could have possible been a human error, but we can't know for sure.

(2) "Also what my opponent either doesn't know who has not acknowledged yet is that by me arguing for conceal and carry in all 50 states I am really only arguing for conceal and carry to be legal in Illinois and Wisconsin, because those are the only two states in the entire United States that do not have some form of conceal carry."

My opponent must be referring to the map shown below in the link.

http://www.wmsa.net...

However, this map states that there are

65.7% of the US population lives in "Right To Carry" (Vermont,
Alaska & 37 "Shall Issue") states,

28.1% in "Right Restricted"
(9 "May Issue") states, and

6.3% in "Right Denied" (2) states.

This means that 11 states may or can't issue right to carry laws. That means he is also arguing for these 11 states. I believe that my opponent has also not given examples of why these specific states would benefit. I have provided enough evidence to at least discredit my opponents source about Florida and shown that it can also be used both ways.

(3) "If a trained police officer barges into a room, knowing exactly where the "test subjects" where seating there would be little anyone could do. How do I know this, well if you watch the case study you see that the trained police officer goes into room gun drawn and goes after no one else but the "test subject". It would also be very hard to defend yourself if you where wearing baggy pants and do not have you firearm in a holster like logic would presume for just such situation, I forgot to mention the over sized white tee-shirt you are wearing."

My opponent has correctly identified the experiment I have cited. However, the test subject was not the first fired at; in fact, he had ample time to unholster his weapon and fire the weapon. The attacker was trained (for safety reasons of course) and fired first at the lecturer of the class, then took a while to spot the person in the crowd with the weapon. As for clothing, you can't expect every kid in the room with a concealed weapon to wear his shirt tucked in and have "non-baggy" pants.

As for a side note, a couple of the test subjects actually missed the attacker when shooting and hit one of the people running out the door behind him. This shows that, just like a police officer, you need years of training to become accurate enough to shoot at someone that is standing in front of a crowd of people. So, after clarifying this aspect, it is safe to assume that this experiment accurately portrayed what would happen if concealed carry was allowed in colleges.

=General Refutations to my Opponents Arguements=

((1)) My opponent mentions that I have not provided any evidence showing that teenage drivers are the leading factor of car accidents. Well here,

"Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers. " Along with more evidence to support this claim.
http://www.rmiia.org...

((2)) As for the controversy over Florida. I did not specifically say that the statistic does not help your case. I implied that it could also be turned around and used for mine. He states that if everyone had Florida's same laws on concealed weapons, what would suggest that Homicide rates would continue to increase throughout the nation.

However, my opponent has said that the laws of all states regarding concealed carry vary greatly. He condradicts himself and tries to create a theory that all states will have the same law, and therefore homicide rates will decrease, but as he has already stated,

"but it is very hard to tell difference between the to due to the fact that everystate has different firearm laws"

As a side note, I believe my spelling and grammar constitutes a point for me. Had to state that somewhere.

((3)) I have also shown that my opponent may have altered evidence, to which he replied,

""As for my "falsified facts", I would like to suggest the human error of typo"".

This is a very vague rebuttal to something to which he simply could of said, "I made a mistake". Instead he wishes to suggest that he did it, but does not take a stand.

((4)) I brought up my opinion of why concealed carry was wrong. My opinion no needed facts. I had expected to hear some of my opponents opinion. Instead he insists on copying and pasting evidence from other sites and draws blatant conclusions on them. He states,

"My opponent states that it is the job of the government to protect our rights, but what about our lives?"

I believe the natural rights of every citizen still stands to be the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. So to answer your question, I meant all three of these when mentioning rights of citizens of a government.

I would like to ask some rhetorical questions which will hopefully have an impact on the readers judging decision. ;)

Is it not one of the foundations of our government to uphold and protect it's citizens rights? Is it not the job of the State police and County police to serve and protect us as a people? Don't these State police and County police have years of experience which allow them to become one of our protectors?

Why should we then, pass on the job of a professional policeman, to each citizen's of the United States?
Why allow the use of a life or death weapon, to be placed within a human's hands which is capable of destroying lives?

The answer is, we shouldn't.

Because I have provided thoughtful insight and evidence to support my side of the resolution, I urge a negative vote.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cweeks9109 4 years ago
cweeks9109
I dont think it is legal at all, how many storys can you find about people with conceal and carry permits that have murdered a bunch of people. The kind of people who are willing to do that, wont even bother to get a permit.
Posted by EHS_Debate 4 years ago
EHS_Debate
You have to admit that concealed carry is the more radical option. Remember that guy who carried the AK to Obama's speech.
Posted by cweeks9109 4 years ago
cweeks9109
If you take nothing else from this debate, take this A. If I have a gun in my house, and want to kill some one, nothing with change it, same as with right to carry. Other than that I respect how you think because unlike most you actually provided a vailed argument for why
Posted by EHS_Debate 4 years ago
EHS_Debate
Honestly, I believe we are slowly becoming enslaved. Our government will slowly bring us to our knees and we will have almost no economic freedom. But guns, I still don't believe concealed carry is reasonable. Housing guns, maybe.
Posted by cweeks9109 4 years ago
cweeks9109
Agreed, but I think we just found the root of this arguement of how many rights must we give up for the goverment to fuction, and at what point are we still free?
Posted by EHS_Debate 4 years ago
EHS_Debate
Kefka, that is what our government is founded upon.
Posted by Demosthenes 4 years ago
Demosthenes
People should be allowed to defend their own rights, not depend on The Man to take care of everything for them.
Posted by Kefka 4 years ago
Kefka
Before: EHS
After: Chad
Conduct: Tied
Spelling/Grammar: EHS
Convincing Arguments: Chad the man
Sources: Chad the man

I hate guns, plain and simple. But, I think Chad asserted some pretty good points that got me to think about things more clearly.

"It is the obligation of the people to give up a portion of their freedom so that they can have the government protect their rights" - EHS

That kinda killed it for you EHS, sorry. :P
Posted by cweeks9109 4 years ago
cweeks9109
you still went on about how it is the cops job after I quoted the supreme court, and true if any one votes for me on spelling and grammer well they need help
Posted by EHS_Debate 4 years ago
EHS_Debate
yeah. ill try to post tonight. if not. tomorrow after school
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Volkov 4 years ago
Volkov
cweeks9109EHS_DebateTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by kristoffersayshi 4 years ago
kristoffersayshi
cweeks9109EHS_DebateTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Kefka 4 years ago
Kefka
cweeks9109EHS_DebateTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by 1gambittheman1 4 years ago
1gambittheman1
cweeks9109EHS_DebateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by dasamster 4 years ago
dasamster
cweeks9109EHS_DebateTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by EHS_Debate 4 years ago
EHS_Debate
cweeks9109EHS_DebateTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
cweeks9109EHS_DebateTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61