Should it be legal to carry concealed weapons in public?
Debate Rounds (4)
My position is that it should not be legal to carry a gun in public.
1. Permitting one to carry a gun in public increases crime.
2. Allowing people to carry concealed weapons in public makes confrontations deadly.
3. Second Amendment rights have limits.
4. There are not strict enough background checks that keep dangerous people from carrying concealed weapons.
5. People are more likely to carry guns if they believe that their opponent is also carrying a gun.
6. People should not need guns to protect themselves, they should leave that to trained professionals (aka the police).
7. Allowing people to carry concealed guns makes people who don't carry guns feel less safe.
I) Prohibiting concealed carry will not stop individuals with criminal intentions (including mass shooters). An average person is rarely stop-and-frisked by the police, so the chances of stopping an armed criminal in advance are virtually nil. As police cannot be everywhere, the law-abiding citizens can defend against armed criminals only when they are armed themselves.
II) As was discovered already by the Romans, in the long term, totally relying on government hired professionals for your safety can be very dangerous. Only one generation after switching to a professional army, the Roman republic was overthrown. Certainly, for the present such a scenario sounds like a crazy dystopian fantasy. But there was a time when Romans (whose republic lasted much longer than the U.S.) thought the same.
I) Say there is someone who is planning on robbing a bank. They were going to bring a knife, or maybe even nothing at all. Before they went, a thought crossed their mind: "What if a bank teller/someone in the bank is carrying a gun? I guess I better get one too just in case I need to use it." Now, the point of that story is that allowing everyone to have guns makes criminals more likely to take a gun with then when they commit their crime.
II) That whole argument is completely irrelevant. That stuff happened in ancient Rome. Who would you personally rather have protecting you, a trained police officer or a random stranger you've never met who may or may not have used their gun before?
Essentially, you are arguing not only against concealed carry, but also against citizens' right to own arms. But, even assuming that the Congress votes to drop the Second Amendment or the executive branch decides to ignore it altogether, how would they disarm millions of people? Just publish the ban and expect all criminals meekly surrender all guns in their possession? Or disarm only the law abiding citizens and let only police and criminals keep their weapons?
II) "That stuff happened in ancient Rome."
Not a year goes by without people with arms in some country imposing their will on people without them. Of course, many Americans think that their country is totally exceptional (as, in my experience, does every other nation). But I bet that in 1860 most Americans thought the civil war is "stuff that happened in XVII century England". Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I am not saying that we should take guns away from everyone, I am merely saying that we should not allow them to carry their guns with them in public places. What if a weapon misfires and someone get shot? That would be a big law suit. Do you remember Plaxico Burress? Let me refresh your memory. An NFL player goes out to a club and his gun misfires in his pocket. Not only is he injured, but he gets suspended from the NFL. Guns are dangerous, and allowing people to carry them in public is not very intelligent.
II) I do not believe that America is exempt from anything. Although history does have a tendency to repeat itself, we cannot live in the past. We must learn from it and move past it. Plus, times were very different in Ancient Rome. Rulers were very corrupt and harsh. Although we have had corrupt rulers, it was nothing like Ancient Rome (that however is another debate for another day)
To learn from the past means to take proper precautions so that the past errors are not repeated. That is what the Second Amendment was written for.
"times were very different in Ancient Rome. Rulers were very corrupt and harsh"
Were the rulers, say, in the Weimar Republic significantly more corrupt than in the U.S.?
"Allowing everyone to carry concealed weapons in public makes criminals more likely to bring a gun when they commit a crime."
Why? If a criminal already possesses a gun, he is likely to bring it along anyways. However, the fear that his target or the people around might be also armed can deter many potential criminals.
In any case, there is no need to speculate. We can simply compare the homicide rate in places where concealed carry is banned (like Chicago) to places where it is not. Or, to make sure we are comparing apples to apples, we can compare places with similar demographics (like Montana and its northern neighbors - Alberta and Saskatchewan). If concealed carry dramatically increases the crime rate, I'm sure that the data would show it.
kellydrake18 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|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:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. As to arguments, I don't think Pro's arguments were necessarily the strongest or most convincing they could have been. However, Con seemed to just not have an adequate response, and gave up her last round of argumentation. Pro gave several justifications for carrying weapons. Con gave no evidence of harms caused by concealed weapons except her own opinion, which Pro contradicted with his own opinion. In the absence of anything else compelling from Con, Pro's unrebutted arguments stand, so arguments to Pro.
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.