The Instigator
Asyco
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
WillRiley
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Why do you think Open and concealed carry of guns is okay?

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 2 votes the winner is...
WillRiley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 516 times Debate No: 67780
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Asyco

Con

So, before I start I want to say that this debate isn't about the legality of guns or licensing, it's purely about open and concealed carry of guns.

I’m sure you agree that guns are dangerous, and that they should be used responsibly. If you can a gun, and you were to drop it in the floor, and a child was to pick said gun up and pull the trigger, one of three things may happen. Either the child will shoot theirself, another person or both. You are also opening yourself up for attack. A person who wants a gun put can’t afford one sees that you have a gun, and approaches you from behind and takes your gun. You have now put yourself and everyone around you in possible danger.

There is also the other side to the argument, that is, why are you carrying a gun in the first place? Do you plan on using it, or is it purely a statement? If a statement, why would you need to have ammunition for it? One would assume you only need ammunition if you plan on using it.

WillRiley

Pro

Thank you for creating the interesting topic. I hope that we will have a productive and civil exchange. During the course of this debate, I will attempt to refute your points.
Refutation
If you can a gun, and you were to drop it in the floor, and a child was to pick said gun up and pull the trigger, one of three things may happen. Either the child will shoot their self, another person or both.
The vast majority of people are smarter than to do that. In order to do this, you would have to have your gun loaded, a round in the chamber, and the safety off. You would then have to have a gun put somewhere where it could fall, then have it fall. Then, you would have to have the child pick it up and pull the trigger while pointing it at someone.

The sheer amount of variables in this situation make it an absurdly unlikely scenario.

You are also opening yourself up for attack. A person who wants a gun put can’t afford one sees that you have a gun, and approaches you from behind and takes your gun. You have now put yourself and everyone around you in possible danger.

I doubt that you can find a single instance of this happening, and I am almost positive that this is not common enough for it to pose legitimate threat to society. The vast majority of people who carry, especially open carry, have holsters, and it is not the easiest thing to just rip a gun out of a holster. (That is likely attached to a large cowboy or trained veteran.) Also, this only applies to open carry, not concealed.

There is also the other side to the argument, that is, why are you carrying a gun in the first place? Do you plan on using it, or is it purely a statement? If a statement, why would you need to have ammunition for it? One would assume you only need ammunition if you plan on using it.

I'll tell you why I would carry I gun. It's not because I'm "Making a statement". Its because I want to be prepared at any time to defend myself and others from all of the bad people in this world. Of course, concealed carry is not to make a statement since only you know about the gun. It is for defense, and that is a constitutional right.


Back to you Con.
Debate Round No. 1
Asyco

Con

Thank you for taking the debate. Just out of curiosity, and I know you have taken the side of pro, but what are you actual beliefs on the carrying of guns? Just a “I’m for” or “I’m against” will be fine.


Rebuttal

The vast majority of people are smarter than to do that. In order to do this, you would have to have your gun loaded, a round in the chamber, and the safety off.


What data do you have to back up that statement? People are stupid, and all it takes is one mistake. Also, further down you say that carrying a gun is for defence, jet here you’ve just said “you would have to have your gun loaded, a round in the chamber”. If one was to plan on using the gun for defence, you would not have time to mess around with loading the gun. So you really contradict yourself there.


You would then have to have a gun put somewhere where it could fall, then have it fall. Then, you would have to have the child pick it up and pull the trigger while pointing it at someone.

The sheer amount of variables in this situation make it an absurdly unlikely scenario.


A gun could fall out of it’s holster, the strap could break. There are many other factors do, that don't necessarily pertain to the gun falling or being dropped. For instance, if a person was to faint, and a child saw the gun on the person. An open carry gun is very easy to take out of the holster. You admit yourself that it COULD happen by saying “The sheer amount of variables in this situation make it an absurdly unlikely scenario.” with “unlikely” being the key word. The fact that it could happen is enough to say that it shouldn’t be allowed.


I doubt that you can find a single instance of this happening, and I am almost positive that this is not common enough for it to pose legitimate threat to society. The vast majority of people who carry, especially open carry, have holsters, and it is not the easiest thing to just rip a gun out of a holster. (That is likely attached to a large cowboy or trained veteran.) Also, this only applies to open carry, not concealed.


Im sure you can find many instance of it happening, and I think it’s more than common enough for it to pose a legitimate threat on society. According to a study by “New Scientist”


Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.”


http://www.newscientist.com...


These are pretty hefty figures.

I'll tell you why I would carry I gun. It's not because I'm "Making a statement". Its because I want to be prepared at any time to defend myself and others from all of the bad people in this world. Of course, concealed carry is not to make a statement since only you know about the gun. It is for defense, and that is a constitutional right.


So, you plan on using it? When? On an unarmed person that is trying to/is fighting you? On someone you think is about to pull a gun, but turns out it’s just their phone? Once you hare carrying a gun, you are putting the temptation there to use it.
WillRiley

Pro

Rebuttal
What data do you have to back up that statement? People are stupid, and all it takes is one mistake.

I don't necessarily have data to back up my claim, however, the lack of substantial data against it makes probable that it is true. Also, if you would have read my previous round better, you might realize that it does not take one mistake, but several, as well as some chance happenings.

Also, further down you say that carrying a gun is for defence, jet here you’ve just said “you would have to have your gun loaded, a round in the chamber". If one was to plan on using the gun for defence, you would not have time to mess around with loading the gun. So you really contradict yourself there.

Since you are obviously unfamiliar with guns, I will tell you about this. What I meant by that was that you have to have the clip pushed in and one in the chamber. In order to get a round into the chamber, you have to pull the slide back. Most civilians choose to keep their guns without a round in the chamber, since you can pull a slide back fairly quickly. Also, you fail to mention the safety at all.


A gun could fall out of it’s holster, the strap could break. There are many other factors do, that don't necessarily pertain to the gun falling or being dropped. For instance, if a person was to faint, and a child saw the gun on the person. An open carry gun is very easy to take out of the holster.

Voters, please take note my opponent is attempting to argue that guns should not be able to be carried based on the possibility of someone fainting, then having a child take the gun off of the person while unconscious.

You admit yourself that it COULD happen by saying “The sheer amount of variables in this situation make it an absurdly unlikely scenario.” with “unlikely” being the key word. The fact that it could happen is enough to say that it should’t be allowed.

Can you even comprehend the foolishness of that statement? The fact that it could happen is enough to say that it shouldn't’t be allowed. Are you serious? By your logic we would ban cars because of accidents! You would have us ban every object that posed a possible danger. Should we ban glass because if it breaks it can cut people? Should we ban electricity because it electrocutes people? Where does it end?

By your logic, maybe we should just ban children. After all, they seem to be the ones causing the problem!
In 1919, there was a litteral flood of molasses down several streets in Boston-

"The human cost of the disaster was even grimmer. The wave of molasses moved so quickly and so forcefully that anyone who was unlucky enough to be in its way didn’t stand much of a chance. They were either knocked over and crushed or drowned in the goo. The flood claimed 21 lives, and another 150 people suffered injuries. Any flood would have been disastrous, but the viscous nature of molasses made rescue attempts even trickier. Medics and police officers arrived on the scene quickly but had to slog through waist-deep goo to reach victims." [1]

Should we ban molasses? After all, it killed 21 people.

“Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.”

People who scuba-dive all the time are more likely to drown and people who use guns all the time are more likely to be shot. A statistic like that conjures up images of gun owners being shot to death by criminals. However, this is not an acurate picture. People accedentally shoot themselves or their friends fairly commonly while hunting. Also, this statistic was intended to be a to my saying you could not find that scenario. Obviously, I was right, being that in your scenario, the attacker can not afford a gun and attempted to steal one from someone who was carrying one.



So, you plan on using it? Yes.
When?
Whenever the life of myself, my family, or innocents are in danger.
On an unarmed person that is trying to/is fighting you?
Maybe to pistol whip them, but unless my life is in immanent danger, I will not kill anyone.
On someone you think is about to pull a gun, but turns out it’s just their phone?
Do you think that gun owners are cops or characters in a Western? You don't shoot someone who you think is going to draw, you shoot someone that is attacking you.
Once you hare carrying a gun, you are putting the temptation there to use it.
False. Its not like I am just going around itching to shoot someone. In fact, I am afraid that I would hesitate and get myself shot, rather than shooting someone else. Gun owners are regular people, not psychopaths.

Voters, during the course of this debate, I believe that I have shown my opponents reasons for banning the carry of firearms unreasonable and unlikely, and in some cases, near impossible.
Thank you.






Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Asyco 2 years ago
Asyco
TheJuniorVarsityNovice. Can I ask you, how is Mental Floss a more reliable source than New Scientist?
Posted by Asyco 2 years ago
Asyco
rich123 , no I don't.
Posted by rich123 2 years ago
rich123
Asyco, do you own a firearm?
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
The resolution should be a positive or negative statement. Why do I think something, is beyond easy to affirm, whereas if it should be law is a whole other matter.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
AsycoWillRileyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did sort of have a point... you can't reasonably attempt to defend your resolution by applying so many circumstances that the argument becomes unwieldy. A fainted person with a gun, and the child gets hold of it. I... really just can't bring myself to give points t that.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
AsycoWillRileyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro easily win this debate. He clearly dispels all claims made by con, especially those of probabilistic nature. however I did have to give con a conduct point because Will was being kind of condescending later on in the debate