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

Should it be legal to carry concealed weapons in public?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 8/31/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,061 times Debate No: 61114
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I ask that whomever accepts this must state point of view and reasons in round one. Save the debating and rebutting for rounds 2, 3, and 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 believe that, like in most controversial issues, there are valid arguments for both sides of the debate. I totally agree with some of your points (4 and 5), but there are two arguments for concealed carry which, in my opinion, outweigh the cons.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


I appreciate the fact that you acknowledged and accepted my points. I would now like to argue against your points in order.

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?


I) "allowing everyone to have guns makes criminals more likely to take a gun with then when they commit their crime"

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.
Debate Round No. 2


I) Allow me to rephrase my statement. Allowing everyone to carry concealed weapons in public makes criminals more likely to bring a gun when they commit a crime.

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)


"Although history does have a tendency to repeat itself, we cannot live in the past. We must learn from it and move past it."

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.
Debate Round No. 3


kellydrake18 forfeited this round.


I guess we are done here.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
The constitution guarantees that right. But of course democrats could care less about the constitution. That is why they put gun free zones into law. Of course the lawless see a place to ply their trade without interference from the people.In Pennsylvania we have a right to open carry without a permit.I would rather send my child to the school in Texas that posted a sign the said that its teachers are allowed to be armed with concealed weapons. And I would never send my child to a school that put up a gun free zone sign.Crazies are not stupid. If one sees a gun free sign on a school, then that is the one he goes to over the one that says teachers could be armed. Anyone who disagrees with this is living in a dream world.Sandy hook could have had a very different outcome if that principle had a gun instead of a pencil.Even the fort hood shooting occurred at a gun free zone. Ann army base. That is just how sick liberalism gets. A gun free zone at arThat muslim should have been taken out after the first few shots.Not have to wait till the local police arrive to stop him. Every liberal in congress is responsible for that happening.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 3 years ago
I sure wish you debaters would get your heads out of your whatzs !
"Should it be legal to carry concealed weapons in public? " is asking for an Opinion, not a Debate.
The answers would be, basically, Yes or No, not For/ Pro or Against/ Con.

It is, of course, already legal to carry weapons.
(Check out the 2nd Amendment, which states quite plainly
"A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed. " )

"Crimes" , "criminals" , "illegalities" , "felonies" , "misdemeanors" , etc. , don't exist. Such concepts Violate BASIC Legal & Constitutional Principles, such as Presumption of Innocence, Legal Due Process, etc. (Since people are Presumed to be Innocent of "crimes" , there can't be any such things as "crimes" . )
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 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: 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.