Question: Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?

Title: Right to carry arms Content: I, being the pro,am going to affirm the resolution and prove why people should be allowed to carry arms. I will ask that voters cast their vote in this round based on who debates the resolution better and not based on your own personal decisions. Keep in mind that I have no strong views on either side, but want to practise my debating skills. Thanks! In this debate, I am going to prove to you why adult individuals should have the right to carry a concealed handgun. On to my case - I wish to offer 2 points in this round to show that the decision to make carrying arms in the US a legal right was a good one. Firstly, Criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed. The deterrent effect of concealed carry benefits the individual carrying a handgun as well as the general public because criminals never know who is armed. With the right to carry arms in place, the general public can move around the country without having to worry about criminals, and areas that generally contain a lot of people who commit crimes. This is further proved by the fact that, according to a study by Dr. John Lott, "shall-issue" laws have reduced homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1570 murders, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992. These figures may seem insignificant at first, but when you're part of one the 1,570 families who lost someone they loved, it suddenly matters a WHOLE lot more. Secondly, One of the arguments against giving the right to carry arms to adults is that the public isn't ready to handle the responsibility of a gun, and that they might take to shooting and use the tool made for self-defence to harm other innocent civilians, but, most of the adults who own concealed handguns are law abiding. This is proved by the fact that according to a report by engineering statistician William Sturdevant published on the Texas Concealed Handgun Association website, the general public is now 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses, and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses, in comparison to before. This, therefore, refutes any argument about the public not being able to handle the responsibilities of a gun. I now give the (online)stage to my opponent, and wish him/her good luck.

Title: Gun Free Zone on College Campus Content: I am currently an enrolled student, and also have a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. To be more specific about my position on this, I believe that it is wrong for Public Colleges/Universities to not offer any kind of process in which an individual may gain legal rights to carry a concealed handgun on campus when he/she goes to class. Of course, I also welcome faculty/teachers/staff to be allowed that offer as well. It's not just for the students. I do agree that we should not just hand guns to everybody, but there are some select individuals who I believe are deemed trustworthy to handle that kind of responsibility, even though you must be very responsible. As of now, I'm going to say that I believe that if you already have a concealed handgun permit, and are allowed to carry virtually all public places(Stores/Malls/Movie Theaters/ etc.) Then why should campus be any different? Of course if we agree that there should be a process to make it legal for certain people, I understand maybe not everybody agrees that a CCW permit is enough. I'm perfectly open to discussion as to what kind of requirements do you think in individual must pass to make it legal, but that's all details. For now, I wanna say that I am open to the idea that there should be some legal process offered by the public University to allow a certain individual conceal carry rights, so as long as he/she meets the following requirements, x,y, and z. For now, I think we can just take advantage over the system that is already in place to allow people to carry in public places and require a student/faculty to possess a valid CCW permit. It is wrong to deny a person rights just because some other people have abused it in the past. As a person who believes in America the way it was meant to be, a Republic, not a Democracy, then individuals including minorities should have constitutional rights in public places. Private Universities are another story. But Public Universities should abide by constitutional law. To start off with the argument, I'd like to say that criminals and anyone wishing to do harm will probably break the law regardless of the fact that we deny everybody the right to carry. We cannot protect people with just a sign saying that it's illegal to carry a firearm. This leads me to believe that there really is no logical reason to think that Gun Free Zones themselves would have any affect other than disarming the people who abide by the law and have everything to lose(no felons, no misdemeanors, no criminal recored etc.) Of course I'm referring to Gun Free Zones on college campus's. I do however, think that Courthouses are at least smart with that law by setting up preventative measures such as metal detectors and making sure the place is full of armed police officers. Because of the mass shootings and other various forms of gun violence that have appeared on College campus, it is clear that Gun Free Zones don't prevent everybody from coming in with a gun. The Gun free zone clearly does not actually disarm everybody, and it only seems to be the people we should be afraid of the most who are going to still carry anyway. I'll get into stats and facts in the later rounds. For now, this is my position as clear as I can make it with some rational reason why I don't think "everybody" should be disarmed. I welcome an opponent, preferably one who completely disagrees because obviously I 'd be preaching to the choir otherwise. So anybody who wants to challenge me, bring it on brother... or sister.

Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: I believe concealed-carry should be legal, And for law-abiding citizens, They should be able to own a gun. This is to protect themselves in public, Home-defense, And protecting against a potential tyrannical government. You have mentioned stricter gun laws and an "assault weapons" ban. Feel free to try and change my mind if you have convincing arguments.

Title: Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Content: To start out carrying a concealed handgun in public is permitted in all 50 states as of 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation. Some states require gun owners to obtain permits while others have "unrestricted carry" and do not require permits. Proponents of concealed carry say that criminals are less likely to attack someone they believe to be armed. They cite the 2nd Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms," and argue that most adults who legally carry a concealed gun are law-abiding and do not misuse their firearms. Opponents of concealed carry argue that increased gun ownership leads to more gun crime and unintended gun injuries. They contend that concealed handguns increase the chances of arguments becoming lethal, and that society would be safer with fewer guns on the street, not more. The only state/district in the USA that prohibits carrying and concealing firearms (Washington DC) has more than double the highest violent crime rate in the US. This does not include American Samoa and the north Mariana islands. SOURCES:/ http://www.usacarry.com... https://www.census.gov...

Title: Gun Rights for law abiding citizens should be protected. Content: I am in favor of gun rights for law abiding citizens. The constitution of the United States protects our right to carry firearms. Citizens of the US should be allowed to own and carry guns, for the following reasons: a) A situation where the government is armed and the people are not can lead to frightening abuses of power. b) Criminals will obtain guns whether they are legal or not. If guns were illegal, criminals would know this, and take advantage of unarmed civilians. finally, and most importantly, c) The constitution of the United States says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Therefore, people must be allowed to own and carry guns NO MATTER WHAT, as the constitution is the "supreme law of the land."

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

Title: America should require gun ownership and all citizens should be part of a national militia. Content: I believe all citizens (who can legally own a firearm) should be required to own a firearm. I believe every citizen should be able of carry a handgun (with current chcl restrictions) without a permit. I believe all citizens between ages 20 and 50 should be required to train in a militaristic capacity (physical fit tests, fire arms qualifications, etc) and required to participate in atleast one firearm training/competition per month to keep skills sharp. The citizen militia should not be deployable like the armed service, but required to function like the national guard in times of need and tragedy.

Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: Carrying a concealed weapon should not be legal. Sure, There are some citizens that would use it correctly. But there are also a lot who wouldn't. If carrying a concealed weapon was legal, People wouldn't be able to know if someone was telling the truth when they said they had a weapon. This is dangerous because if the other person knew there was no weapon, They could run away. But if carrying a concealed weapon is legal they could never know for certain. People can still defend themselves if the weapon is not concealed.

Title: gun rights should NOT be taken away. Content: ok i somewhat agree that it should be a privelege. but you cant not give someone a gun because you think they will commit crimes. If you do not have a liscence you should not be able to own any more than a simple small calliber hand gun. not every thing should need a liscence. If you do actually commit a crime you should have temporary or permanent gun restriction, depending on the crime. when i started this debate i expected someone who would say that no regular citizens should own guns. arguing against you makes things more complicated.

Title: Gun Rights Content: I will be arguing that your everyday citizen should be allowed to access guns. I will NOT be arguing against all gun control, such as background checks, age requirements and the requirement of permits. My opponent will be arguing that your everyday citizen should not be allowed to access guns.

Title: Conceal to carry Content: I believe that you have the right to conceal and carry if you please. If they go through the paper work and all the back ground checks they should be able to without anyone harassing them about it. If they have any type of criminal records at all they shouldn't be able to have one. People make it a big deal when someone carry's a gun into somewhere and people see it. Like if they got permission from the government to carry ii they have a right to bring it wherever they go. Lot of people usually us it when they go on trips or something. When they go to place there not usually from they may liker to have it or when ever traveling down the road and break down you never know if what someone might do to you. If they stop somewhere and people that have kids see it they make a big deal about and how there kids shouldn't be seeing that kind of stuff. You never know what kind of people you may run into when you are out on the road and now a days I would be scared at times and places I go. That is why I think that they should not be harassed about carrying a gun into public places.

Title: Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates Content: My stance is that allowing citizens to carry handguns on their person reduces crime rates. The first round is for acceptance, and I will begin with my initial arguments during the second round.For this debate, the following is assumed: Citizens are allowed to open carry and/or concealed carry registered handguns. Citizens must apply for a permit to carry handguns. Precautionary measures such as background checks are used to prevent criminals obtaining handguns, and safety classes taught as part of the application. All handguns will be registered upon purchase. All handgunsare to be carried in secure holsters. Owners of private property are allowed to restrict handguns on their premises.

Title: Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses Content: First of all, thank you for debating me. While we completely disagree on this issue (and evidently many others from a view at your profile), it'll give us each an opportunity to express our beliefs in a fun, educational manner. You mentioned in your post that it would make you very uneasy to know that anybody walking around you might have a concealed firearm. What about when you walk out in public at stores, restaurants, and maybe even work? There's a good chance that you have passed many people who are concealing, and college campuses should not be different from any of these other establishments. The people with the CC permit are responsible and have had much training and extensive background checking to ensure that they are of sound body and mind. Here is a list of what most states require: • The holder being at least 21 years of age • No felony convictions; or Class A or B misdemeanors within 5 years • No domestic violence conviction • Being a legal citizen of the United States • Not chemically dependent (ie. Known alchoholic or drug user) • Not delinquent in child support payments • Is legally allowed to purchase a handgun • Has no court protective order or restraining orders against them • Has not been diagnosed by a physician as suffering from a major psychiatric disorder or hospitalized for psychiatric problems While these requirements do not guarantee anything, they set a very low possibility of the wrong people getting their hands on a permit. I am confident that one clean shot is an attainable goal for a skilled shooter and would not be an issue, regardless of how stressful the situation. The assertion you made about these folks loosing their concentration tells me that you personally have had little or no experience using a firearm. While it is possible that a crazy criminal(and very tricky one at that) could get their hands on a CC permit, why would they go to the trouble. If they're crazy enough to shoot someone, than who cares if they have a permit or not, they're going to shoot someone either way - permit to carry a gun or not. A look at the statistics shows that more guns does equal less crime. While it is simple to say fighting fire with fire won't work, it simply isn't true. Since the fall semester of 2006, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of all public colleges. Also, concealed carry has been allowed for several years at both Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) and Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA). This has yet to result in a single act of violence at any of these schools. Numerous studies, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times LESS likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes. I agree with you that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Right to Bear Arms amendment, they were not thinking about schools. However, these are VERY different times. The thought of a student taking a gun into a school back then never even crossed their minds. The idea that did cross their mind was the right for citizens to protect themselves from danger regardless of their location, and that's exactly what allowing guns on campuses will do.

Title: Everyone over 21 has the right to have a firearm. Content: I think people over 21 should carry a firearm for protection because many citizens think that it is better taking care of themselves than the police. It may take a long time for the police to respond if someone is assaulting you or any other violation. It won't be that easy to have a firearm of course, they would have to go through the government to have a background check on the person.

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

Title: Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Content: Welcome to the debate. I will be arguing in favor of concealed carry by law abiding citizens. I welcome you to use the first round for an opening argument. You may argue against an individual carrying or that it is detrimental to society as a whole. As always, verifiable facts with sources will be weighed more favorably than made up hypothetical anecdotes.

Title: Think about it. The second amendment is no longer applicable to modern life. Content: Unfortunately, there is a flaw in your reasoning, why should said individual carry the gun at home or on their person anyway, people don't need to have the right to KEEP firearms. You don't need to own a firearm to take part in recreational activities. The firearm could be secured in the clubhouse, and the part about bearing arms generally refers to bearing arms against people, not deer, pieces of paper and clay disks. Your argument is invalid. I look forward to your rebuttal!

Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: concealed carry is only legal in some places/states. It is concealed on their body, So people wouldn't know that they had it in the first place, And you can generally tell someone who is suspicious. "Sure, There are some citizens that would use it correctly. But there are also a lot who wouldn't. " Concealed-carry holders are the most law-abiding group in the country. So much that they actually commit crimes 16% less than POLICE OFFICERS! This shows how law-abiding they are. They frequently go to ranges and safety classes and know how to properly operate and when to use their gun. So let me get your position straight: You think concealed-carry shouldn't be legal, But do you think owning a gun should be legal, Or what further procedures/restrictions/bans would you like on certain guns? Please explain your position.

Title: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Content: You are absolutely correct my opponent. People can own handguns because of the Human rights. If you have a stranger in your house with a weapon such as a knife, you can get killed without even fighting. What my opponent said is that guns allow their owners to use them for protection. In this case, guns are necessary. However, think about this. If that stranger in that house had a gun pointing at you, would you still have a chance to shoot him and still be alive? There is only about less than 1% chance that you can shoot the stranger. The cause of this scenario is the law that allows people to have guns. Handguns depend on how the owner uses it, and in these days, people use them in bad ways. The ironic part of the law that allows people to own guns is that people are using them in bad ways, and police officers always have a hard time taking control of crimes that include gun shooting. People who own handguns always say this: People should be able to defend themselves from danger. However, people can use knives or other weapons to protect themselves. Allowing people to own handguns is only making it harder for people to defend themselves from danger.

Title: People should have the right to own a gun Content: It is my position that people should have the right to own a gun if they can pass a background check. If you disagree then please present your side and keep things civil.

Title: To be against the right to possess a fire arm is to be, unwittingly, against self defense. Content: I have to say, as a Brit, I have always been baffled why any society would happily permit ordinary citizens to carry firearms and why so many Americans seem so attached to them. Therefore, I found my opponent's contributions most enlightening, thank you, Magpie. As it happens, I was discussing this very issue with a couple of lawyers in a pub opposite The Royal Courts of Justice last night. Neither of them could conceive of a compelling reason why gun ownership should be permitted within the general populace of our own country. One explained that he had always wanted to visit the United States but had never done so for fear of being shot (which is possibly an unjustified fear) and the other reminded me of a case that came before the courts a few years ago. As I mentioned earlier in this debate, some British farmers, after thorough vetting and subject to strict conditions, may obtain a firearms licence from the police. One such farmer, Tony Martin, used his gun to shoot two teenagers who were trespassing on his property and whom he suspected had come to burgle his farmhouse. One of the youths was killed and the other was wounded. Mr. Martin claimed he was acting in self-defence but he was arrested, charged and duly convicted of murder. Passing three life sentences on the farmer, the judge said: "The law is that every citizen is entitled to use reasonable force to prevent crime. Burglary is a crime and a householder in his own home may think he is being reasonable but he may not be reasonable and that can have tragic consequences." http://www.guardian.co.uk... It appears to me that this story is pertinent to my opponent's points 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 17. If someone in their own home faces an intruder, he is entitled to protect himself, his family and his property. My opponent and I both agree that self-defence is a basic human right, not just a legal one. The question is, how one exercises that right. Firstly, the fear of being a victim of a crime does not, in itself, entitle one to take pre-emptive action against a suspected criminal – that is not self-defence. If, however, you do become a victim of crime, any action that is taken to defend oneself must be reasonable and proportionate. Let's say a couple of young walkers had strayed off the public footpath onto Tony Martin's land (which is easy done when farmers plough across them). They would be trespassing which is a crime. However, they would pose no obvious threat to the farmer or his property so if he shot and killed them, he would surely be guilty of murder. But what if these ramblers appeared in the farmyard? Clearly, they had not merely strayed from the path; they had deliberately made their way there over a large area of private land. Still, would Mr. Martin be entitled to shoot them dead? They may be burglars in disguise or they may have just come seeking permission to camp on his land or to enquire if he had any fresh eggs or vegetables for sale. I contend that if he did shoot the hikers, Mr. Martin would be guilty of murder. However, what if the two young visitors were not wearing hiking boots and carrying rucksacks but instead dressed like ordinary teenagers, perhaps wearing sneakers and hooded tops? He may be suspicious as to the motive of their visit and he may, possibly rightly, suspect that they had come to commit a crime. But that would be a matter for his own personal judgement and it would not entitle him, morally or legally, to pre-empt a crime by shooting them. To do so would be, and in Mr. Martin's case, was, considered murder. Now, to address in brief my opponent's remaining points. 1 – The Assize of Arms of 1183 was mentioned merely to put America's current gun laws in their historical context and to illustrate their archaic background. 2 – In civilised countries basic human rights are enshrined in, and protected by, law. The right to life and the right to defend oneself are both human rights. However, in the act of self-defence one human does not have the automatic right to deprive another human of their right to life. 3 – Again, this point was made to illustrate how irrelevant the existing gun laws are in modern America. 5 – Agreed, if I couldn't reason with the enraged father he could strangle me to death. However, – scenario number 5 - in a country where firearms are freely available, he would probably just bring a gun with him and shoot me. The net result is the same. (Note to self, remember to get some condoms on the way home!) 6 – The RTL may be fundamental, so is the right to have consensual sex, at the age of 18 in some countries and as young as 12 in others. These rights may be fundamental to all humans, but they have conditions attached to them. 11 & 16 – The reality is that gun crime would decrease in the US if guns were restricted. "Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to be used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense." - Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67. 17 – A murder is still a murder; nobody in the anti-gun lobby would defend the actions of a thug that beat an old lady to death with a cricket bat rather than shooting her with a gun. This final point also applies to my opponent's disabled war veteran / mindless thugs / swimming pool story. I have a couple of observations on this tragic tale, however. Given that the old soldier was outside in a wheelchair, he would unlikely to have been able to make it back into the house to fetch his gun without being intercepted by the thugs, who would have suspected he wanted to call the police. If, however, he was in the habit of carrying a loaded gun with him in his wheelchair, he would be very unlikely to shoot all the thugs without them returning fire and killing him – he still ends up dead. Also, if he had opened fire and the thugs hadn't been armed and he shot them all just for swimming in his pool, this would be murder. The correct course of action would have been to grant them permission to swim in his pool and, after a while, slip indoors, call the police and let them sort it out. Finally (phew! this was a long one…) I had no idea that gangs of crazed paedophiles overran American orphanages on such a regular basis as to require them to keep an arsenal of weapons! These mentally deranged kiddy-fiddlers must be a determined lot as I assume that they would have already got through the security fencing and overpowered the security guards and their dogs. In this case, yes, I would break open the gun cabinet and fire a warning shot, which, if they were unarmed, I'm sure they would heed.

Title: Gun Rights Content: Hoping for a good debate. I believe that people should have the rights to have guns if they meet the qualifications. I know a lot about this matter so be prepared for a strong argument.

Title: Gun Bans Content: My position is that people should have the right to bear arms. Whoever disagrees with me can present their case. Let the debate begin.

Title: CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at Colleges/Universities Content: I believe students with CCW permits should be allowed to carry gunsMy opponent must prove it isn't a good idea.Good Luck.

Title: Gun rights; for, against, or compromise in between Content: I'm am for gun rights. All law abiding citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. There have at least 1million cases per year where guns have been used to defend oneself.

Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: I believe in the right to conceal-carry in public, As well as protection against a tyrannical government. Feel free to try and change my mind. *BE COMMITTED TO THE DEBATE, NO FORFEITS PLEASE! *

Title: The individual should not have the right to possess a firearm. Content: Structure: Round 1: Accepting the debate/clarifying any points. Round 2: Opening argument (no rebuttals) Round 3: Responding and Questioning Round 4: Responding and summary. By the 'right to possess a firearm' I am specifically referring to the right to bear arms in a private sphere as provided by the second amendment in the USA. My arguments against this 'right' will deal with both specifically the USA as well as a more general take on the problems posed by private ownership of weapons. I know this debate has been had before, but as I am fairly new on the website and to the debating community I hope someone will give me the chance to share my take on the issue!

Title: Gun Free Zone on College Campus Content: I do not think that "everybody" should be disarmed and I doubt you will find anyone willing to make that argument. My argument is that while I support a persons right to carry a gun, but I also believe that a school should have the right to decide whether or not they want firearms on their property. I think that just like people should have the right to carry firearms, people and properties should have the right to decide it they want guns on there property. In my opinion the fact that a person has the constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm does not negate the fact that people have the right to say they don't want firearms on their property. Also, the fact that a public university is "public" property doesn't mean that it has to abide to the same laws as the public places you mentioned. I too will get more into stats and facts in later rounds but for now i just want to keep it short. I look forward to arguing with you.

Title: Gun Control - Less Regulation Content: I believe that Gun Control is an infringement on your rights as an American citizen. I believe that the liberal argument that, "since they are newer the rules don't apply" is false. I believe that most of the Anti-Gun Control people are uneducated and try to use as little facts as possible. I believe that Concealed Carriers do stop crimes and although that may not be stated outright as a right of the people, it is a good law and it should not be taken. Finally, I believe that there IS is such a thing as a "safe gun."

Title: To be against the right to possess a fire arm is to be, unwittingly, against self defense. Content: Many thanks to my opponent for replying in such a comprehensive and somewhat amusing manner! My opponent wrote: "A right is endemic to the individual. Govt. can - and often does - suppress a right, but it cannot erase it" and "I and I, alone, can determine when and how and in what circumstance it will become necessary to defend myself." This is a classic argument put forward by gun lobbies around the world, especially in states where gun ownership is restricted. They believe they have a "fundamental right" to carry firearms for the purpose of self-defence. However, in countries where carrying guns is illegal, the majority of the population (at least if it is a democracy) do not believe that this is a fundamental right – if they did, they would vote in an administration that promised in it's manifesto to make carrying firearms legal. In a democratic society, one cannot pick and choose the laws one abides by. For example, a paedophile may believe that he has the fundamental right to have consensual sex with a fourteen year-old old girl. However, this would be illegal in the UK and the US and he would face prosecution if he were caught. He could, though, go and live in a country such as Spain where the age of consent is only thirteen and have sex with adolescent girls perfectly legally. Similarly, a British citizen who believes that carrying a gun for the purpose of self-defence is a fundamental right could go and live in the US and take pot shots at trespassers to his heart's content! Nevertheless, everybody does, indeed, have the right to self-defence and that is enshrined in the laws of all civilised nations. However, that right is mitigated in the sense that the amount of force employed should be proportionate to the threat. My opponent gave two examples where he had used firearms to defend himself. As it turned out, no harm was done to the intruder but it could have been very different. True, burglary is a criminal offence and burglars should be punished. However burglary does not carry the death penalty, and even if it did, it would be for the judicial system to decide the offender's fate – not the victim of the crime. Carrying guns just escalates the level of violence in society. I will give you an example of what I mean from my own personal experience. On a recent visit to the US, I was involved in an argument with a man over a girl in a beach bar. As the confrontation became more heated it became clear to me that we were not going to settle the matter amicably and I mentally prepared myself for a fistfight. However, the other bloke suddenly pulled a gun on me! As I wasn't armed, there was no way for me to defend myself and I was, therefore, obliged to forfeit my right to self-defence and the other bloke walked off with the blond stunner in question – which isn't fair, but at least nobody was killed as they may have been if I had been carrying a gun myself. My opponent continued: "Hitler voiced an argument, very similar to yours. The German people tu(r)ned in their guns. Gun deaths did go down - slightly. Alas OVEN deaths went up - slightly." This is another old chestnut from the gun lobby - if Jews, gypsies and the disabled had been armed, they may have been able to resist being imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps. True, these unfortunate people may have been able to offer some resistance to Hitler's Storm Troopers, but the Nazi paramilitary's superior firepower would have meant that the "Untermensch" would just have been killed in their homes rather than in concentration camps. The only advantage I can see to this is that the resulting saving in gas would be good for the environment! My opponent's then wrote: "The availability of cancer surgery makes an American cancer victim thousands of times more likely to die from cancer surgery than a cancer victim in the mountains of Chile, where surgery is unavailable. I therefore affirm that the right to live in a country relatively free from cancer surgery related deaths outranks the right of a citizen to receive cancer surgery." Please forgive me if I have failed to follow the reasoning behind this, but I think my opponent is making the point that life is full of risks and that a cancer sufferer may die from the surgery that was intended to save his life. I suppose this is true. Similarly a cancer patient in Santiago being transferred to hospital by ambulance for surgery could be killed in a road accident en-route because the driver had spent all morning in the bar supping pipeï¿½o! That is why society has rules, such as not driving under the influence of alcohol, which we all should abide by. That said, drinking and driving is legal in some countries and so is carrying firearms for self-defence, but neither are fundamental rights. My opponent's final argument that most gun deaths occur as the result of criminal activity and that citizens should be allowed to carry firearms to defend themselves from these villains. I do not deny for a moment that shootouts are more commonly associated with warring gangs than squabbling neighbours in leafy suburbs. However, if the availability of guns were restricted, the number of shootings would decrease. Here in the UK, anyone found carrying a gun receives a mandatory five-year prison sentence. If the gun is loaded, the sentence will be considerably higher. Even carrying a knife is illegal and is likely to land you in jail. Crime still exists, of course, and some criminals still carry weapons, but they are the hardened minority – for the average crook, the risk of being caught in possession of a firearm just isn't worth the biscuit.

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

Title: We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed Content: My opponent appears to have forgotten his own resolution. "We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed". What this means is that he believes, that a society in which every adult( I'm assuming adult. He didn't specify but semantics aren't really my thing) is legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon on them at all times would be a safer society. I am not arguing against the right to carry a gun. I myself have two. I just don't believe a fully armed society is better for anyone. My opponent has not addressed any of my points so extend my argument into the next round. My opponent did not post the source of his information, but nevertheless I've found it. http://gunowners.org... Let the record show that I do NOT argue against most of his facts as they make my case for me. Our current stance on gun control is working. Like I stated before 10% of violent crimes don't involve guns. My opponent thinks the world operates like Grand Theft Auto and every criminal has a gun. The truth is 90% of them can't afford it. But see if you're arming everyone, that number goes through the roof. Even if you make the case to say that ex-cons won't be issued firearms, every murderer has a first kill.

Title: Gun ownership is an integral aspect of the right to self defence Content: Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defence. (This can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons, deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc.)

Title: Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Content: Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms.

Title: Right to carry arms Content: Being Side Con, I wish to counter my opponent"s claim that private citizens should be allowed to carry firearms. I concur with my opponent"s criterion for judging this debate and ask all voters to not consider any outside information not explicitly brought up in the debate or the sources. That being said, Side Con"s three contentions are as follows: 1. Concealed firearm use leads to lethal violent crime. 2. Concealed firearms easily find their way into the hands of convicted felons. 3. Concealed firearms are not adequate self-defense. Contention 1: Concealed firearms lead to lethal violent crime. The NRA loves telling the public stories of heroic storeowners hiding guns in their desks, successfully taking down thieves and various other assailants with lethal or non-lethal blows. Concealed firearms are thus portrayed as saviors. The NRA, however, does not tell every story. Meet Philip Davis, an Alabama police officer on duty on December 3rd, 2009. Davis pulls over pharmacist Bart Johnson for speeding. As Davis gave Johnson his ticket, Johnson "fired one shot" (1) from a concealed firearm, killing Davis instantly. Johnson had "obtained a concealed weapons permit in 2007," a permit he had renewed in 2009. Davis is one of 516 people killed by individuals with concealed weapons, weapons legally concealed (2). Looking at an even broader scale, we find an alarming amount of violence arising from handgun use. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, handguns were the weapons used in 70% to 80% of all homicides committed from 1993 to 2011 (3). Using the lower number, 70%, we can therefore estimate criminals killed 148,676 people with handguns. And this does not include non-lethal shootings, nor the violence of the past year. Considering the weapons themselves, we find a very dangerous prospect: handguns are exceedingly easy to use. This is not to say a knife or a baseball bat cannot be deadly, but a semi-automatic handgun has a greater range and ease of use than either. All one needs to do is pull back a safety and pull the trigger repeatedly. Furthermore, the clip size of handguns can lead to multiple deaths in mere seconds. An AR-24 Armalite 9mm pistol has a 15 magazine; assuming the gun-wielder is a poor marksman, needing two shots to kill someone, he/she could still take out 7 people (4). So how does this link to the resolution? Quite simply, as useful as concealed firearms seem for self-defense, they are definitely used for criminal, homicidal purposes. They are a threat to public safety. And though some lives have been saved by handguns, just as many, if not more, have been lost. Contention 2: Concealed firearms easily find their way into the hands of convicted felons. Most would not have a problem with law-abiding citizens owning a concealed handgun. Yet, often times, the handgun user is NOT a law-abiding citizen, but a convicted criminal regaining his/her gun rights. Several states, such as Washington and Cleveland, allow released felons to regain their gun rights as long as minimal requirements have been met. Since 1995, 3,300 convicted felons in Washington have regained their gun rights (5). 13% of these felons have engaged in further criminal activity with these firearms including first-degree murder, drive-by-shootings, and child rape. The process barring these individuals from acquiring firearms is atrocious. Aside from those felons incarcerated for first-degree murder and other such crimes, "judges have no discretion to reject petitions" (5) for criminals regaining their gun rights. The federal government can do little to stop this gun proliferation; due to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, the federal government must leave gun restoration policy to the states. And, as we've seen, many of them are not doing good jobs. Contention 3: Concealed firearms are not adequate self-defense As this contention clashes directly with my opponent"s first contention, this suffices to rebut his argument. First, we must realize guns are rarely used for self-defense. The NRA claims guns have been used to stop approximately 2.5 million crimes a year; analysis by the National Crime Victimization survey actually finds handguns are used for self-defense a mere 67,470 a year. In 2010 alone, there were 8,275 firearms based homicides, as compared to 230 justifiable self-defense homicides (6). My opponent brings up an alleged deterrent effect, as "criminals never know who is armed." There are a few problems with this analysis. First off, an exposed firearm is far more intimidating than a concealed one. If anyone saw someone with a Glock strapped to his/her ankle, they would likely stay away. Second, this analysis assumes every criminal will make the logical step, assuming anyone might have a gun. This is far from likely. If a criminal is mentally ill, he is not likely to take this logical step. The same applies to a criminal addicted to malevolent substances, such as PCP. This also ignores criminal desperation; if a criminal needs the money to satisfy a drug addiction, or even to put bread on the table, he will disregard the possibility of any random person having a gun. Finally, my opponent cites the research of Dr. John Lott, a "shall-issue" law enthusiast whose research is often cited by pro-gun advocates. Yet there are flaws in Lott"s analysis as well. We must consider the possibility of a conflict of interest, as Lott"s research was funded by the Olin Foundation, a subsidiary of the Olin Corporation, one of the largest gun manufacturers in the country. Secondly, Lott based his theories on econometric data points, rather than psychological data taken from case studies, surveys, and experiments with criminals; the latter data is far more compelling. Even if we look at the study itself, a revised data set of Lott"s study indicated the effect of "right-to-carry laws" had no statistical significance (7) on violent crime. Thus, this change was due to factors beyond the controls established by Lott"s analysis. Finally, concealed handguns have limited stopping power and poor accuracy in the hands of an untrained marksman. The entry and exit wound on handguns is smaller than for other weapons. Most don"t have a scope.. Even gun advocate Chris Bird notes a handgun is "the least effective fire-arm for self-defense" (8). Since these weapons are so rarely used for self-defense, rarely deter criminals, and are poor self-defense items in the first place, right to carry laws are not the best way to promote public safety. With this in mind, I would like to refute my opponent"s other argument, his second contention; Pro Contention 2: The public isn't ready to handle gun responsibility. I will keep this refutation brief for sake of clash in other rounds, but the main issue with my opponent's argument is a false correlation. Not only does correlation not assume causation, but the statistics my opponent asserts may not even have to deal with gun responsibility. The statistics only suggest people are less likely to be arrested for violent crime. This does not mean people are "better" or "more responsible." Dozens of other factors come into play. The recent economic crisis (thus limiting funds to purchase guns), the possibility of increased law enforcement, or decreases in drug abuse could all be responsible for this trend. The confounding variables severely hamper the validity of these statistics. With that, I close the first round. Thank you, and good luck. 1. http://www.vpc.org... 2. http://www.vpc.org... 3. http://www.bjs.gov... 4. http://www.armalite.com... 5. http://www.nytimes.com... 6. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com... 7. http://www.nap.edu... 8. http://www.nap.edu...

Title: Gun Rights Content: I am welcome to any challenger who wishes to argue that citizens should be able to carry or own firearms. I will be arguing, in short, that the private ownership of guns should not be allowed and thus the challenger should argue that such ownership should be permitted.

Title: Gun Rights in the United States Content: Some of you may have seen my previous argument, from which I accept my defeat. However, that will not faze my advocation for gun rights. I am a part of the National Rifle Association, however, I find information and evaluate it based on consistency from source to source and also reliability. This is a foreshadowing due to the fact I may have several sources for a single statement. I will lay down a few definitions: Murder - illegal homicide; the unlawful taking of someone's life by another person Self Defense - legal homicide; lawful taking of someone's life in order to prevent death, injury, or bodily harm by a victim. Military weapon - weapons strictly used by the military (M-16, AK-47, AUG, etc.) Assault weapon - synonymous with military weapon CCW - conceal carry weapon; the lawful licensing of an individual to carry a concealed weapon I may have left out a few necessary definitions, but I am sure my opponent and I will cover that as our argument goes on. Before this argument becomes rather confusing, I will state that: - I agree that no felon, mentally-ill or otherwise unfit person should have a firearm. - I support instant background checks and any other similar methods. - I agree minors under the age of 18 may not buy a weapon, and must be under supervision at all times by someone 18 or over when handling such a weapon. - I agree the world would be a better place without guns, but if, and only if, every single one of them are eradicated along with the numerous subcultures around them. This does not appear to be happening anytime soon. I will also ask my opponent to cite their sources, to which our voters will judge according to consistency and reliability. I will encourage voters to otherwise carefully vote according to the given criteria provided by this website. I will allow my opponent to state their case, but in order to kick-start this debate, I will state a few basic points for both my opponent and myself to base our arguments upon: - Self-defense, especially in our current world, is necessary, and given that we do not always know how deadly any possible confrontation will be, we should have firearms for our use. - Firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment that states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed." - Children are killed in gun accidents as a result of having the awestruck attitude of not knowing what a gun is, along with the inappropriate glorification of guns by video games, movies, etc. The proper counter to this is safety education on the same level as things such as sex education, driver's education, etc. - People kill people, firearms do not. Firearms are tools, and can work either toward good or evil. These are basic points I have formulated, but I encourage my opponent to feel free to state their argument and more points to debate upon. I open the floor to con for a fun and civil debate, and hopefully we may convince one another along with anyone who reads this debate.

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

Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: I believe in concealed-carry in public, And the right to protect myself against intruders and a tyrannical government. NOTE: You do not have to change my mind to win the debate. Voters choose the winner on a 7 point system, And who they think made the best arguments, Regardless of whether my mind was changed or not. NOTE: DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE OFFLINE FREQUENTLY. I WANT COMMITTED DEBATERS ONLY. NO FORFEITS.

Title: Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime Content: "My opponent claims I argued his side, but it was clear that I am for conceal carry, and it appears he is trolling as well.One reason we can assume I am for conceal carry is because both of my parents have the license, I own multiple guns, and any DDOer knows I am against all gun regulations, well most should know that. Also if you look a tmy past debate history you see constant support for the lott mustard data."1. I am a new member to this site (joined today). Thus, I am not familiar with my opponent, nor his parents.2. My opponent should not be lax in wording resolutions in a way that people unfamiliar with his debate history do not understand them."My opponent then claims, without any logic, we can assume pro is for controlling weapons, which is false. The resolution states:"Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime""You can see my logic in my round 2 post, where I compared "concealed carry handgun laws" to "lightbulb changing laws". Obviously, in the absence of concealed carry laws, we are free to concealed carry. So what happens when we introduce "concealed carry handgun laws"? Either nothing changes, or these laws place some kind of restriction on concealed carry. Throughout, my opponent has not even defined "concealed carry handgun laws" while I have, with the only logical definition presented thus far."As I am labeled pro, it is EXTREMELY clear that I am arguing for the resolution, I am PRO conceal handguns reducing crime. My opponent basically uses logic that does not exist nor relate to the resolution."It is clear that my opponent is arguing for the resolution, but he is not PRO "conceal handguns reducing crime". He is PRO "conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime". Concealed handguns are a far cry from laws regarding concealed handguns, and so he is clearly arguing a different resolution."I also clarified with my source page, as many of my sources easily explain my position. Look at this source:Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. Print.If I was arguing that it raised crime the book "more guns less crime" woudl not be a source."Unfortunately, he introduced this source after the first round, at a time when it is too late to be clarifying his true stance. In fact, I introduced my sources before he introduced his, which (by this "whoever clarifies what they're really arguing first wins" logic) means that I should win. But that's not how debate works. We need to know the bounds of the resolution before the instigator makes them up in the second round by using a certain source."Also, I am the instigator, my opponent thinks he knows more about the debate, when he is a newcomer to DDO and I made the debate myself. Anyone that read the resolution then reads I am pro would logically assume I am arguing that it decreases crime."Yes, my opponent is logically arguing the PRO side of the resolution. I am not that stupid (nor am I new to debate, I have debated team policy debate in high school for several years). However, my opponent says "I am arguing that it [concealed carry handgun laws] decreases crime" without defining "it" in the first place. He fails to define concealed carry handgun laws, expects me to know what they are, and then rejects my reasonable definition in favor of his non-existant definition."he states: "Also, my opponent's failure to provide a concrete definition of the most important term in this round is detrimental to this debate."No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FF - Rule oneOne of the things you will not semanticise is definitions, whether or not who wins my opponents red herring argument, he already auto FF'd/"My arguments are not semantics. I am merely stating that good definitions are neccessary for good debate, and that my opponent has failed to provide good definitions and has rejected the good definition that I provided.Wrapping up, my opponent does not acknowledge that definitions are crucial to debate. Instead, he issues an incredibly vague and ambiguous resolution and clarifies his position in the second round, leaving me in the dark all the while. Vote against vague resolutions, vote against bad debate, and vote against the instigator.

Title: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Content: Private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. In the United States, people are able to carry handguns. This is because handguns are there to protect the owner from danger. However, there are lots of crimes that involve guns. The first reason why people should not be allowed to carry guns is because nobody can tell who is going to kill someone with his or her gun. There is no guarentee that you will not get shot. To reduce the number of crimes, private ownership of handguns ought be banned.

Title: States/local municipalities should have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens Content: First, thanks for accepting, and sorry this is a little short; I don't have a lot of time. :) I'd first like to address the contention of my opponent, who states that state and local governments should have the ability to regulate handgun ownership because if not, hand guns are likely to fall into the hands of someone who will commit a crime (i.e. ex-cons) or those who are mentally unqualified to carry a weapon. In response to this I'd like to ask my opponent, would giving the power to the federal government allow people who are mentally ill or an ex-convict to purchase a hand gun? Of course not; in fact, our government would ensure this would not happen. I'd also like to point out my opponent has provided no evidence to back up this claim. I'd now like to go on to my own arguments. -First, states should not have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens because this would restrict the liberties of only certain people, which violates the Constitution, whose Second Amendment clearly states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Next, it would be easier for the federal government to regulate hand guns, as everything would be uniform; there would be no uncertainty as to what is allowed where.

Title: There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms Content: I will be arguing that self-defense is a basic human right, and that government and other power structures have no place ordering everyone to limit use of guns in a free society. I would like to see no government-issued permits for concealed or open carry, and no state-imposed limit on private use of guns ( apart from criminal prosecution if you commit a crime with them. ) Governments should be subservient to their people, and people should be free to achieve their potential by their own means, as long as they don't interfere in other people's business. You will be arguing against this, go. Bear in mind that government registration and confiscation of guns has preceded most mass slaughters in the last century.

Title: U.S. Ctizens Have And Ought To Have The Right To Bear And Keep Arms Content: In this debate, my opponent and I will argue the accuracy of the resolution (The people of the United States have and ought to have the right to bear and keep arms) as it relates to U.S. law. Rules:1.) The first round for Con is: acceptance and a positive argument.2.) As I am the holder of the burden of proof, it stands to reason that Con will not make any positive arguments (one that builds Con’s case, rather than countering mine) in the last round, as I would have no chance to answer them.Important definitions:1.) Right to bear and keep arms: an enumerated right of a U.S. citizen for the personal ownership and use of a firearm. Of course, this is exactly what Con and I will dispute, but for now, this definition will simply give clarity to the meaning of the resolution and the intended result of my argument as Pro (I.e. to prove this definition). 2.) Firearm: A weapon (in this debate, it will be restricted to handguns, long guns, and automatic rifles) capable of firing a lethal projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant. [1]Sources:(1) www.thefreedictionary.com

Title: The U.S. public should not be able to obtain firearms Content: As citizens of the United States we are guaranteed the right to carry firearms from the second amendment. I don't think this right will ever be changed. However I recognize that this is a should debate so I will debate the resolution.I predict My opponent will make many flawed statements throughout this debate. Those statements I will underline and refute.Ccitizens of the U.S. can now relatively easily obtain firearms for whatever purpose they wish.This is not true. To legally obtain a firearm one must register there weapon and posses a licence to carry weapons. So as we see not all Americans can easily obtain firearms as pro suggests.I think we can all give up our guns to get rid of the negative affects that guns have on our society.I ask my opponent to please list the negative effects that guns have on our society. I also ask him to think if these problems with society would still exist even without the guns.1. If the public did not have firearms then pepper spray or a close quarters weapon would do fine as self protection.If police men used only pepper spray or close quarter weapons then they would not be much effective and would die more frequently. These type of weapons are not going to stop terrorists nor are they going to equip law enforcement with the weapons needed to take down someone sniping citizens. These weapons also may not protect a person if they are getting robbed. Lastly we want to reduce our risk of harm as much as possible. Far ranged weapons reduce our risk of harm because we are not close enough to have a physical confrontation. If citizens were only equipped with pepper spray and knives there risk of harm would increase and people would not be so willing to defend themselves because of the increased risk of harm.2. If the public did not have firearms, public shootings that kill innocent people and greatly affect many others would not be possible.My first response to this is of course we we did not have guns we couldn't shoot people. But does the removal of guns remove the possibility of innocent people being killed? No even if citizens could not legally posses guns there would still be those who purchase illegal guns. The citizens would have no way to protect themselves against these people. Also guns don't kill people people kill people. that means there are more ways to kill people than with just guns. If someone wants to kill people they don't need a gun. SO my point here is that even if we ban guns that action is not going to stop a killer from killing people because guns are not the only weapon capable of killing people. 3. Many countries such as South Korea already do not allow their public to have firearms. Therefore the public relies on close quarter weapons and martial arts to protect themselves.Let's not forget that there is a black market here. Lets not also forget that the police are equipped with guns. In most situations martial arts does not protect a person from a robber with a gun.4. Gang wars would not be nearly as life costlyGangs are most of the time going to use weapons. be it close range weapons to beat their victims or guns. Lets realize that most gang members get their guns illegally so they can't be traced. So what is a gun ban going to do? Nothing but increase the amount of guns purchased illegally and increase the amount of money in the sellers pocket.5. If the public did not have firearms the assassination of the President would be impossible.This is one of the most flawed statements made by pro so far. If I can prove that assassination of a president is possible without a gun this point fails miserably. A assassin can simply use a bow and arrow, a Molotov cocktail,a bomb etc... this point fails.I understand that pros intentions are good but changing our second amendment rights and banning guns are not going to stop people from killing others at all. A gun ban is not going to make our communities safer. At most this will give robbers more of a motive to steal since they may not have to deal with a treat of a gun. Banning guns is not a logical way to stop crime. The defense rests.

Title: Citizens should be able to own guns. Content: I will be arguing that the average citizen should be allowed to obtain guns for self defense (and other purposes), but NOT that there should be no gun laws at all (i. e. age limits and background checks). I please ask that whoever accepts will not forfeit immediately. My opponent will be arguing that the average citizen should not be allowed to obtain guns.

Title: Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime Content: Let me show a few things. "He [pro] defined "concealed carry, or CCW" but neglected to discuss the "law" component of his proposition. Thus, I will take the liberty of defining this term to be "any law which imposes limits or restrictions on concealed handgun carry." I feel that this definition is fair and reasonable, and will result in an educational, fruitful debate." ~ My opponent This is clear semantics. It is clear what I meant by conceal carry, other sensible people agree. [1] My opponent says I failed to define, but as a rule states no semantics with definitions, therefore he breaks the terms of the debate. He automatically FF's, and any voter can see this. Also, as stated, it was easily clear to what I was arguing with the resolution and the side I took (PRO), so my opponent seems to be just derailing a perfectly good debate. As paradigm lost said: "Point out that he [my opponent] is playing a game of semantics and thus is derailing a perfectly good debate. Sensible voters will be able to see what the resolution is and how it's argued." [1] With this information, any voter would vote pro. Vote PRO, extend arguments. [1] http://www.debate.org...

Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: I believe in the right to bear arms. I believe in concealed-carry. Now present your arguments.

Title: Gun Control Content: COUNTER-REBUTTALS (Number corresponds to Op's Rebuts in num order) 1) People do have the right to protect themselves, I will concede this point. That right ends where another person's rights begin, however. Constitutional rights have limits on them; the classic example being that I cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't one, because it may cause a panic and get people hurt. The same is true in regards to the right to bear arms. If certain firearms serve no purpose other than to cause harm, or provide unnecessary firepower, then it is a sound and logical choice to ban them since they have the potential to cause great malice without serving a practical and benign need to the everyday citizen. Your rights end here, because it is a danger to the public health to have such weapons at large in society. You also alluded to home defense, and I will address this. The presence of a weapon in the home, instead of increasing home safety, actually leads to a higher chance of someone in your home being the victim of gun violence; whether it be from domestic violence, a curious yet unfortunate child, or the escalation of force a criminal might use if you pull a gun on him. Again, this is why weapons handling and the bearing of arms is best left to the professionals in law enforcement agencies and the military. [1] 2) I do not doubt the US constitution on this issue, I only doubt the interpretation that certain elements of society make of the second amendment. If we were to interpret the second amendment in the most literal sense, we as citizens would be allowed to own and operate any piece of military equipment we could afford. Recoilless rifles, grenades, heavy machine-guns, mortars, etc. The list of destructive weapons that would be allowed to enter society goes on, but it's a moot point because fortunately we're smart enough as a society to not take the wording in the constitution literally. We recognize that there are some legitimate circumstances where private citizens have the right to own firearms. Now in regards to the second part of your statement, I would like to reiterate that my position in this debate is that I want more gun control, not that I want to ban firearms outright. So we must establish that gun control does not equal gun prohibition, and that I am not arguing for gun prohibition. The three categories I listed are legitimate purposes for firearms ownership, and I will explain why. -Personal Defense: Firstly I'd like to point out that not everyone should be entitled to own a handgun for self-defense. In most situations ownership of a handgun will actually bring more harm than good to your household, however, there are certain situations where handgun ownership for the purpose of self-defense is practical and has sound reasoning. One example that comes to mind is a shop owner, who must personally carry over $10,000 in cash from his safe to the bank once a month. This man should be allowed to carry a handgun while he performs this task, because he is putting himself at a great risk when he carries so much money on his person. [1] -Hunting: Hunters often play a vital part in keeping the population of certain species of animals at an acceptable level. Thus hunters should be able to continue playing their part in conservationism. Furthermore, hunting firearms are designed for hunting animals and not killing people, therefore the rate of fire on these weapons are slower than military grade weapons and the bulky size of many of these rifles make them impractical for close quarters fighting. [4] -Showmanship Shooting and Other Sports: The weapons used in showmanship shooting are very similar to hunting firearms, and to the people that participate in these sports, this is their livelihood. Since these weapons pose little danger to the public health, and the trade is a livelihood to many showmanship shooters, this is a legitimate reason to own a firearm. 4) Even those with a rudimentary knowledge of firearms know that there is a huge difference between an assault rifle and a handgun. The 9mm rounds used in handguns are not capable of piercing the protective body armor that police officers wear, and handguns are not capable of sustaining the same rate of fire as an assault rifle, nor do they have as many rounds per magazine. Assault rifles are weapons designed specifically for combat, the ammunition is designed specifically to destroy vital organs and end life. Handguns are designed as personal defense weapons, and can be concealed on an everyday person for purposes of self-protection in cases where it is warranted. To say that a handgun has the same potential of causing human death as an assault rifle is absurd. Furthermore, I will reiterate once again that the centerpiece of my argument is that we need more gun control and not gun prohibition. 5) We can easily do this, because it follows simple market principal. If you lower the supply and accessibility of illegal firearms, then the demand for them goes up and they eventually become unaffordable to criminals. As I stated in my opening arguments, it is painfully easy to obtain illegal firearms. Criminals can simply go to gun shows and exploit a law, which allows gun shows to sell weapons without licenses or background checks. Barring that they can purchase weapons directly from people with federal firearm licenses illegally. By simply changing the law and regulating gun shows and strengthening the ATF so they can inspect federal firearm license holders more efficiently, we can drastically reduce the supply of illegal firearms. [2][3] REBUTTALS 1)Rights As I stated in the counter-rebuttals, your rights end where another person's begins. The only reason gun control legislation can pass is because the courts and the constitution recognize this crucial fact. If we give you the ability to easily obtain an assault rifle to defend your home with, we're also providing that same easy access to the people that are willing to turn around and sell these guns to criminals for a profit. Not controlling the proliferation of dangerous weapons into public is a danger to the public, because these weapons will be used by criminals to commit crimes. If these dangerous weapons provided some benign use to the public, then it would be a risk worth taking, but they are not and so it is only logical to prohibit their sale. 2)Responsibility It is good to see that my opponent agrees that gun control is a necessity to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminal element of our society. Unfortunately he seems to consider knives and rocks to be as deadly a weapon as firearms. Crime will never cease, there will always be crime. It is crime that involves gun violence that is the main issue here, for that is what we seek to curtail by enacting further gun control legislation. 3)Freedom My opponent suggests that regulating firearms will lead us down the path to communism. This is absurd. The constitution does not give you the right to endanger the lives of others, and that's what we'd be doing if we had no gun control. Imagine a nation where the Bloods and the Crips do drive-by shootings with .50 caliber machine guns mounted on their Cadillacs. This is the America without gun control, and the America my opponent seems to want. Oh wait, it's okay because we can just give even bigger guns to private citizens and let them shoot it out. Then we'll have to give the police even bigger weapons I suppose, perhaps we'll just settle for replacing their police cruisers with tanks. Nothing could possibly go wrong with this idea. [1] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... [2] http://gunvictimsaction.org... [3]http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.huntinginvirginia.net...

Title: The Right to Own , Keep, and Bear Arms Content: The Right to Own, Keep, and Bear Arms is an individual right, and one that law abiding citizens should be free to exercise without fear of the government restricting this right. That the right to self defense is a basic human right, and should not be infringed upon. That his right actually makes society safer, not more dangerous, to live in. The first round will just be for acceptance, the following three will be for the actual debate. I accept any challenger, but please keep this a respectful debate.

Title: 18 year olds with concealed handguns Content: Why don't you want a concealed handgun permit so you can carry and be able to protect yourself. There are many cases in which a 18 year old can save their life or somebody else's if they have a concealed handgun. But because of the law they can't have one and said 18 year old dies gets injured or other person dies or gets injured. SO my question is why wouldn't you want 18 year olds to have handguns?

Title: Right to bear arms confers right to carry openly. Content: If the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms, as the Supreme Court officially ruled in 2008, then it is a fairly logical extension of that right that one should be able to exercise it openly. Making concealment a condition of that right hardly makes it a right at all. Free speech rights allow an individual to openly scream absurdities through a megaphone in Times Square. A right to bear arms, analogously, should also preserve the right to openly express that right.

Title: Gun Rights in the United States (remade) Content: Some of you may have seen my previous argument, from which I accept my defeat. However, that will not faze my advocation for gun rights. I am a part of the National Rifle Association, however, I find information and evaluate it based on consistency from source to source and also reliability. This is a foreshadowing due to the fact I may have several sources for a single statement. This is a repost from the previous exact argument with some idiot who didn't even debate right... I will lay down a few definitions: Murder - illegal homicide; the unlawful taking of someone's life by another person Self Defense - legal homicide; lawful taking of someone's life in order to prevent death, injury, or bodily harm by a victim. Military weapon - fully-automatic or burst-fire weapons strictly used by the military (M-16, AK-47, AUG, etc.) Assault weapon - synonymous with military weapon CCW - conceal carry weapon; the lawful licensing of an individual to carry a concealed weapon Civilian - someone who is not part of law enforcement or regular military I may have left out a few necessary definitions, but I am sure my opponent and I will cover that as our argument goes on. Before this argument becomes rather confusing, I will state that: - I agree that no felon, mentally-ill or otherwise unfit person should have a firearm. - I support instant background checks and any other similar methods. - I agree minors under the age of 18 may not buy a weapon, and must be under supervision at all times by someone 18 or over when handling such a weapon. - I agree the world would be a better place without guns, but IF, AND ONLY IF, every single one of them are eradicated along with the numerous subcultures around them. This does not appear to be happening anytime soon, since it's pretty much integrated into American culture and various cultures throughout the world. - Basically, I want to keep gun laws how they are according to above where necessary. Gun laws vary state to state, and where gun crime is low, I believe there is no need to implement these laws. I will also ask my opponent to cite their sources, to which our voters will judge according to consistency and reliability. I will encourage voters to otherwise carefully vote according to the given criteria provided by this website. I will allow my opponent to state their case, but in order to kick-start this debate, I will state a few basic points for both my opponent and myself to base our arguments upon: - Self-defense, especially in our current world, is necessary, and given that we do not always know how deadly any possible confrontation will be, we should have firearms for our use. - Firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment that states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed." - Children are killed in gun accidents as a result of having the awestruck attitude of not knowing what a gun is, along with the inappropriate glorification of guns by video games, movies, etc. The proper counter to this is safety education on the same level as things such as sex education, driver's education, etc. - People kill people, firearms do not. Firearms are tools, and can work either toward good or evil. These are basic points I have formulated, but I encourage my opponent to feel free to state their argument and more points to debate upon. I open the floor to con for a fun and civil debate, and hopefully we may convince one another along with anyone who reads this debate.

Title: Resolved- All legally and clinically sane citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. Content: Resolved- All legally and clinically sane citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. First of all, let me thank my opponent for accepting this debate, if in fact he does accept it. The right to keep and bear arms is a right given by birth, not only a right protected by the laws of many countries. This isn't an issue about regulation, the amount of firearms allowed, munitions used, whether or not the firearm is auto/semi-auto, etc.- this is simply an issue of the right to keep and bear arms. No man- armed or disarmed- has the right to keep from another this right, which in some cases is essential to self defense, acquisition of food through hunting, and/or sport. When criminality is taken into consideration, criminal elements are those who do not abide by the law. Lawfully acquired and stored weapons have little to do with this criminal element, and those who commit crimes with legally acquired weapons are nonetheless criminals. Because of this there is not question as to whether or not laws should be enforced, rather whether or not non-criminals should be afforded the same ease to acquire weapons that criminal enterprises afford other criminals. If the right to bear arms is not respected by the government, and law abiding citizens are disarmed, there is a legal disparity between criminal elements and law abiding citizens- not to say that armed citizens are a deterrent to crime, rather they should have the right to defend themselves from these criminals if a situation should arise. As gun rights advocate Jeff Snyder states, we cannot condition the liberties of regular citizens according to the actions and desires of criminals. There is a fundamental error in the school of thought that tries to save society from itself by identifying a problem, and rather than treating the personality of those causing the problem, the instrument is attacked. You cannot get rid of crime by getting rid of guns, and you cannot treat maladies and ethics issues in society by attempting to control the minds of the citizens by restricting access to some and allowing access to others (in this case). The "individual rights vs collective rights" argument is irrelevant when you consider the above paragraph and other statements I have made, so I will not argue that route. I don't believe this is a right afforded to us by law, rather a right that should NOT be taken from us by law- however, it is only a recent argument that the right afforded to Americans under the Second Amendment of the Constitution is a collective right. Through part of the 20th century, and throughout the 19th and 18th century before then, any mention of the Second Amendment was viewed as an individual right. Not one Court or commentator argued that this was a collective right, rather than an individual one until the 20th century. Thomas Jefferson stated that the right to bear arms is necessary for the citizenry to protect itself from the "tyranny in government". Now, I know these are different times, and people have different views of the world, and it would be considered undemocratic and even terroristic for a disgruntled minority to rise up against the majority supported government, but were the government in a position of unchecked and unregulated power, and the majority of the people, towns, and states in opposition to the Federal government this right would be essential to carrying out a proper uprising as nations have done in the past when their governments have become oppressive. Were a legal means of access to firearms not available, these people would have to resort to molotov cocktails, stone throwing, and criminal elements who in fact are armed… say like Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. These groups are fundamentally opposed by the people in philosophy- especially Hezbollah in Lebanon- but because these groups are armed, equipped, and organized they have the power of opposition. I will close with the following statements. One from the Declaration of Independence, and one from Abraham Lincoln respectively: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

Title: Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime Content: Unfortunately, it is clear that we agree. Furthermore, it is obvious that this disagreement stems from a misinterpretation of the term "concealed carry handgun laws", which I defined in round 1, contrary to the definition that my opponent never provided, but was apparently assuming. For clafification, the definition that I provided, and which was not responded to, was that a concealed carry handgun law is "any law which imposes limits or restrictions on concealed handgun carry. " My reasoning for assuming my definition are as follows:Without any "concealed carry handgun law", there would be no laws regarding concealed carry. And just as there are no laws regarding changing lightbulbs, everybody would be free to concealed carry (or change lightbulbs, whatever floats your boat) in absence of a "concealed carry law". Upon introducing such a law, the only way to go is downhill - in other words, if we can concealed carry with no limitations when there is no law, it follows that any "concealed carry handgun laws" would result in the opposite of that - restrictions on concealed carry. In light of this reasoning, it is more sensible to label the PRO side as arguing the position that concealed carry laws (which restrict concealed carry) reduce violent crime, and to label the CON side as arguing the position that these laws increase violent crime. Thus, our mutual agreement should result in a CON vote. Also, my opponent's failure to provide a concrete definition of the most important term in this round is detrimental to this debate. Not only did it result in a debate with no clash, but by choosing a resolution that was vague and undefined, my opponent could choose to agree with whichever side I picked. In other words, since the resolution is so vague, had I argued that concealed carry restrictions decrease crime, he could have easily said "I agree with that! " This ambiguity is harmful to debate, and is another reason to vote CON. In conclusion, I have established that the vagueness of the resolution and definitions provided (or not provided) by the instigator essentially render fruitful debate impossible. Additionally, if you define "concealed carry handgun laws" as I have, for the reasons I provided, our mutual agreement is agreement with the CON side. I therefore urge a CON ballot.

Title: Replace the second amendment with universal healthcare Content: Gun ownership is not a right. Citizens should be allowed to have guns for hunting, sports and if they feel they really need it, personal protection. But criminals and the mentally challenged should not have guns. We need a better and universal background check system. Owners should be licensed and guns should be registered. Gun owners should be responsible for crimes committed with their weapons. Individual citizens do not need assault weapons and they should be banned for public sale. I would even go as far as making assault weapons illegal as in can be confiscated. As far as healthcare, if you are a US citizen you should be covered for healthcare. How this is best achieved is an open question. My position is a single payer system but I can see where this may be difficult to achieve in America. Obamacare was a good start but needs fixed.

Title: Citizens should be allowed to own guns. Content: Citizens should be allowed to own guns. I am for the right to own firearms. The con of this debate must prove why we should not own firearms.

Title: Driving on public roads is a right not a privilege. Content: My argument is based simply on the difference between the right to have something, and the right to do something. Now, my opponents primary argument is based on the flawed assumption that, if we own or have paid for something, we have a right to use it as we wish. This is quite clearly flawed, as one can see from a simple examination of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Now the traditional interpretation of that amendment is that American citizens are legally allowed to purchase and retain firearms. However, this has not prevented laws from restricting the use of those firearms, when that use is dangerous. I, as an American citizens, am therefore allowed to own a gun, but not to shoot a person with that gun, when not in self-defense. There is thus a clear legal distinction between ownership and use, which comes into play when the use of an object could be dangerous to other citizens. Therefore, at the point where a particular person driving would be a danger to all of those around them, they do not have the right or privilege to drive on public roads, because to do so would be a public danger. Driving on public roads is therefore a privilege, because it is contingent on the exercise of that privilege not being dangerous. The moment it is deemed to be dangerous, that privilege is revoked. Such a thing could not occur if driving was a right. I await your response.

Title: A handgun is uniquely valuable in self defense in one's home Content: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled, "Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as 'functional firearms', by which they mean ones that could be 'readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary' for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms."[3]

Title: More gun control Content: Please only make a brief introduction of your position. Just to make things clear on where I stand. I am against new gun control proposals. I believe that the right to own weapons is one of the most Important rights a man can have. Without the right to personal security all other rights are in jeopardy. Please, No foul language.

Title: The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. Content: We will be using the plain dictionary definition of the word "infringed". [1]The reason for this debate, is that all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting the carrying, or concealed carry of at least some semi-automatic weapons. While the US Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.An armed populace is a free populace. Tyranny cannot gain hold where the people have not only the will but the means to throw off a tyrannical government.In countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower.The United States should readopt the approach our founders took: An absolute liberty to keep and bear arms.References1. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Title: Open Topic Content: You haven't been debating for a year on this site... Your profile only says 4 months. Anyways, challenge accepted.The topic will be "Gun Rights should be restricted", so Pro has to argue that access to firearms must be reduced, while I argue that firearms remain available for people over the age of 18.I also want to make a few rules, since everyone in the site does so.1) BoP will be shared. Lyksina has to argue that firearms be reduced in availability, and I have to argue that guns should remain accessable to most people.2) No kritiks, semantics, or trolling of any sort.3) Running out of time to post counts as a loss. (There are 48 hours for posting arguments)With that set, let's begin!

Title: is gun rights fair Content: yes, you are right and thank you. Ok yes, people do have the right to defend themselves. because lots of times it comes down to tht point a citizen protecting himself. I will say this I am a boyscout NRA certified. but does that necessarily give me the right to walk around town with a gun in my pants. I hear they are even thinking about letting guns in school. Look at what happened at Virginia teck. I felt so bad for the kids. he was old enough to have a gun, but what even makes me more sick is his plan on getting the gun. the constitution is right is giving us the right to defend ourselves, but so sad to what happens if we abuse it. now can you please do me a favor and define what gun rights should mean in a reasonable sense.

Title: Gun rights for common people -should be allowed or not . Content: First; my apologies for my crassness in the comment section. I wasn't expecting a reply. I can't offer a stark, 180 degree standpoint, but I can offer an alternative view. Gun rights are a useful tool to have, and while it should be scrutinized and regulated, it shouldn't be restricted to the common man. The right to self-defence endangers nobody, and most who buy guns understand that they while they do have the right to have them, they don't have the right to use them irresponsibly. Keeping a weapon in your house for home defence (assuming it is properly stored and you know how to use it) is a perfectly valid excuse, especially if you live in high-crime area. People have the right to defend themselves.

Title: All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights. Content: I will be arguing that all law-abiding citizens should be able to obtain a gun license. Con will be arguing that citizens should not have access to guns unless their job requires it. Burden of proof is shared.

Title: Citizens ought to possess handguns. Content: First of all, I have a question about the way you worded the resolution. The word "ought" means "to be under a moral obligation to do or be". So what the resolution says is that citizens are morally obligated to possess handguns. Did you mean it to be like "Citizens ought to be able to possess handguns" or was that intended? I was just wondering. As to the debate itself, you make the assumption that just because someone has a gun, they, or someone close to them, will abuse it. Just because someone owns a gun does not necessarily mean that they will be prompted to take greater risks than they otherwise would. There are regulations that are preventative of the harms that you talk about. People who buy firearms are required to have a clean criminal record, as well as take a course in firearm safety. And if someone is bent upon causing another person harm or death, they do not need a gun to do so. There are other ways of hurting or killing people than with a handgun. If we were to apply your reasoning, owning household items such as electrical cord, cooking knives, and baseball bats are morally repugnant because they could be potential weapons. Also, many people who own handguns do so only as a measure of self-defense, in case a situation would arise in which they would need to defend themselves or their family from attack. Is denying them that protection just?

Title: To be against the right to possess a fire arm is to be, unwittingly, against self defense. Content: Brian: Thank you for this great debate. Brian's enumerated abbreviated points and my responses: 1. The right to arms originated in the Assize... 2. the right to arms for defence was drafted… 3. … it is unlikely, …American citizens need arms to fight an invading army. 4. the only reason a citizen would use a firearm: to kill or maim another civilian... 5. Say, you impregnate a girl and her father… grabs you by the throat- 6. My opponent maintains the right to bear arms as fundamental… 7. They believe they have a "fundamental right" 8. A Brit who wants to carry a gun could go to USA and shoot trespassers. 9. everybody does have the right to self-defence... proportionate to the threat. 10. True, burglars should be punished, but doesn't carry the death penalty...if it did, the judicial system must decide the offender's fate – not the victim. 11. Carrying guns just escalates violence. 12. I wasn't armed, so I couldn't defend myself but nobody was killed. They might have been if I had a gun. 13. True, these people may have been able to resist Hitler's Troopers, but the Nazi superior power would have meant that they would have been killed in their homes. not in ovens. 14. I have failed to follow ‘analogy‘. 15. … drinking-driving as well as carrying guns is legal in some countries but are not rights. 16. … if guns were restricted, shootings would decrease. 17. …in the UK, carrying a gun gets five-years in prison. My responses enumerated by point: 1. This is unrelated to the RTL and the assoc. right to defense. 2. Rights are not drafted (given). Rights are owned. Regardless of govt. you/I would still have a right to life. You confuse the constitution‘s 2nd amendment. with the right to defense. The amendment merely documents the right. 3. This is irrelevant to defense and strays from the issue. 4. As I said, a gun is for worst case scenarios. I would have been raped at age 14, had I not had and used a gun. In my 2nd situation merely having a gun was sufficient. Guns, like knives, can be used to maim and kill, but it is not fact, that this is their only use. In discouraging hostile governments. from attacking their armed neighbors and criminals from harming innocent citizens, guns actually save lives. 5. Brian omitted option-4 in his scenario. The father could have killed him. Having a gun does not require its use. His attempt at peaceful solution was good. Brian's problem is that enraged father may reject reason, in which case Brian is dead. 6. Brian is wrong on 2 counts. 1. The basic right is a RTL. 2. The higher rate of gun deaths in the U.S.A. is part of the reason that we, must be armed. 7. I don't advocate violating laws. 8. UK citizens, by law, may not carry arms. Laws are not my issue. The reason for such laws is the issue. I believe that the reason for those laws is protection of criminals. Victims do not benefit from anti self protection laws. Even is the criminal is unarmed, he still has the advantage. He selects the victim, circumstances, and venue, to favor success. So, even without a weapon he will prevail. If we arm ourselves, even those who are unarmed, benefit from others who are. The criminals don't know. 9. This is Brian's most telling response. He recognizes the right to self defense, proportional to the threat. But, we cannot know what kind of threat we must be prepared for. Carrying a snowball may discourage a child from throwing one at you, but a bouquet of flowers will do little to dissuade a thug bent on serious bodily harm. 10. This point shows their belief is that preventing the criminal from harming us, violates the criminal's civil rights. That self defense as a preemption of the law. When I confronted an intruder, who obviously by his own foul rhetoric, was there to rape me. I shot him point blank in his face. He was likely very injured. Should I be ashamed? In the second case I brandished a gun and the intruder fled, when I withdrew my gun from the drawer. In checking the bedrooms, he was probably looking for someone to rape. In both cases they made a conscious decision to enter my house. A conscious decision that the biscuit was worth the risk. 12, My opponent regards options to be negatives. This is Marxian thinking. He can't conceive of having a gun but choosing to not use it. He asserts that only not having a gun, kept him from a shootout. For those of like mind, I advise they not exercise their right arms. 13.This is, perhaps, the most poignant example of my theory. How stupid of the Jews, etc. to RESIST. Perhaps, they'd have died, but it would have been as heros instead of sheep. 14. The point of my analogy is the ridiculous notion that GUN DEATHS are more onerous than other deaths. DEATHS = DEATHS, regardless of cause. 15. Gun ownership is in itself not a FUNDAMENTAL right. The fundamental right is SELF DEFENSE being part of our RIGHT TO LIFE. The gun is a means to exercise that right. 11. & 16. This completely ignores the reality in the U.S.A. The states with the most guns per unit population , have far fewer gun deaths. The cities where guns are outlawed or extremely limited have the highest. 17. It's good that criminals go to jail in the U.K. for arming themselves - illegally. The problem is on the other side of the issue. The victim can be beaten to death in her own home, and the anti-gunners are proud of their civility. This case actually happened: An ex-marine sitting in his wheel chair - absent his legs - was enjoying a nice afternoon, basking in the sun. His home is in Wash. D.C. where gun ownership was virtually unlawful - except for criminals, of course. Three thugs decided to climb the fence and swim in his pool. When the paraplegic marine protested, the thugs decided to beat him. They then shot him and dumped him into the pool. He drowned. His brother, a writer, wrote a column deriding guns. To me this is a strange reaction. The thugs could just as well have killed him without the gun, but if the marine had had a gun the results could well have been different. Of course, the anti-gunners would have wept for the unsuccessful thugs. My final direct question to Brian: In the hypothetical situation where an orphanage, in your charge, is being attacked by crazed pedophiles, would you break open the gun vault to allow the staff to fend off the mob? Just a simple, no spin, yes or no will suffice. The answer to this question will reveal a visceral fear of guns, a bias in favor of the criminal over the victim, or an unrealistic expectation that criminals and other thugs will respond, favorably, to reason. Or, it may just prove my point that "TO BE AGAINST THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM IS TO BE UNWITTINGLY (OR CONCIOUSLY) AGAINST SELF DEFENSE! Thanks for the stimulating debate, Brian. Looking for the opportunity to do it again.

Title: Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Content: Before I begin, I wish to remind con and the voters that the right to keep and bear arms does protect some form of publicly carrying a weapon. A state may not excessively prohibit concealed carry and open carry. One or both MUST be allowed. As that is not the topic, that is all I have to say on that (for proof of that statement, look up Peruta V. San Diego). My aim throughout this debate is to demonstrate that: -Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals -Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings -As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes. --Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals "Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994]." --Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings I had 8 links to incidents where armed resistance ended a shooting but they would not work in this format unfortunately. See the bottom of this page for a few URLS. According to FBI statistics: When civilians stopped a shooting event there was an average of 2.3 deaths. When law enforcement responded, at an average time of 3 minutes, 14.3 deaths occurred. --As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes My apologies that this is a copy and paste. I have to wake up for work in 5 hours. "A front-page story in today's New York Times tries to stir up alarm about liberalized carry permit laws, which let people carry concealed handguns if they meet a short list of objective criteria. To illustrate the hazards of that policy, the Times cites crimes committed by permit holders in North Carolina. How many crimes? Excluding traffic offenses, the Times counts 2,400 over five years, of which 200 were felonies. More relevant (since critics of nondiscretionary permit laws worry that they contribute to gun violence), "More than 200 permit holders were also convicted of gun- or weapon-related felonies or misdemeanors, including roughly 60 who committed weapon-related assaults." That's a dozen gun assaults a year. How many permit holders are there in North Carolina? According to the story, "more than 240,000." So 0.2 percent of them are convicted of a non-traffic-related offense each year, about 0.017 percent are convicted of a felony, and only 0.005 percent are convicted of a gun assault. The Times concedes that the number of permit holders convicted of crimes "represents a small percentage of those with permits." More like "tiny." By comparison, about 0.35 percent of all Americans are convicted of a felony each year--more than 20 times the rate among North Carolina permit holders. It seems clear these people are far more law-abiding than the general population, a finding consistent with data from other states. Such data are not surprising, since law-abidingness, as measured by a clean criminal record, is one requirement for a carry permit." http://www.kgw.com... http://www.frontpagemag.com... http://www.theblaze.com... http://www.buzzfeed.com...

Title: Gun rights in general Content: We will debating about the idea that civilians should be given to right to have licensed guns. I am pro gun rights as they help in self-defense, arm non-government security officials and help in crises such as revolutions and war. Self-defense Guns can be used for self-defense. Suppose if a robber enters your house and asks for the cash, you can open the drawer you have your gun in and shooting his hand with the weapon while calling the police. On the other hand, without guns it is risky to use sticks and knives, as we are prone to damage ourselves and our attack would be slower and less damaging. Non-government security One example would be plainclothes bodyguards. A high-profile target such as a politician or a journalist could have a normal person become a bodyguard with a licensed gun, and as there will be no records of the bodyguard it will be harder to estimate the strength of the security around the target. Crises One thing about guns is that we can use it for target practice. Suppose if I get a licensed gun and then weekly practice shooting, I would be good at it and can apply for law enforcement agencies or keep it for a difficult time. If we have a revolution happening, and the police fires at a crowd of protestors that includes you, you could easily fire back. Or in the situation of all-out war, you would be a better soldier than other ordinary citizens. Even if you are not a good shot, you would at least know how to reload and hold a gun, or know the gun recoil and therefore keep a firm grip.

Title: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Content: With every right comes it's proper restrictions. People can't always get what they have a right to and sometime they are not due their rights. Therefore, I had to be opposed to: Resolved: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. For purposes of sticking to the resolution, I will offer (in contentions) people who "shall" have their rights infringed for good reasons. I. Minors We all know minors who can and can't handle "Arms", however, in todays society, we can't be giving EXTREMELY dangerous weaponry to people that may not know how to use them. This includes ALL ages including 2, 3, 7, 9, 17, or even 13 year olds. II. Felons What more do I have to say... Why give a dangerous weapon, a serious responsibility, someone who has already PROVEN that they are not capable of handling such responsibilities. Bearing arms isn't a right, it SHOULD be a privilege. A right, is something that you should ALWAYS have. FURTHERMORE, as proposed by the resolution, you have to see that if a felon commits a crime with a gun, then it should obviously be taken away. BUT, the resolution says that the guns are "to KEEP"... When such atrocity has been committed, the gun MUST be taken away. III. People on planes, in buildings, and in school. Not only do you have to worry about WHO can have a gun, but more importantly WHERE. People on planes, in buildings, and in school should NOT be allowed guns. If they were, the safety of ALL would be at risk. ================================================================= IV. Not all "Arms" are appropriate for the average citizen. Simply put, there could be the most responsible person in the world, and yet, there are "Arms" that even THEY should not have. "Arms" is defined simply as weapons, so what falls under that category includes normal weaponry such as rifles, shotguns, and pistols. But what ALSO falls under that category includes tanks, machine guns, C4, dynamite, and even types of atomic bombs. The constitution DOES say arms but when you take the rule of law word for word, you must adapt to the proper and safe interpretations of the law. In other words ladies and gentleman, "Arms" need to have restrictions toward certain people, and certain places. The law can't take the constitution seriously if it puts the people of America at risk for their good health (and lives)... Because of all of this, I urge a CON vote. Thank You!

Title: No one has the right to own guns except memberes of the police and military Content: "Protection of self, of one's loved ones, of one's home and community is the root of the American tradition of gun ownership," said the NRA in explaining why private citizens should continue to be allowed to own guns. It is true that all of the important things in one's life need to be protected. If we want to continue to defend ourselves then don't adopt the proposition stating that no one has the right to own guns except members of the police and military. I'm representing the negative side in this debate. I will provide you with facts that will prove that the status quo is working for our country, and guns should stay available for private citizens. The reasons that citizens of the United States should keep being able to own guns are, for protection and defense, for hunting and other recreational activities, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, it is in the constitution, and many people work in the gun industry. Our first reason is protection and defense. Private citizens have a constitutional right to live without fear in their own home. Studies show that having a handgun present at home stop many burglaries. In our own state, there was a tragic incident this summer. It happened in Cheshire where three innocent citizens were murdered. It is not guaranteed that if there was a handgun at this household that this wouldn't have happened. But, if there was, these people may have had another chance. Also, a recent poll showed that 71% of adults who own handguns only own them for protection. That's almost ï¿½ of gun owners who only keep a gun at their house for protection and self-defense. United States citizens living in urban areas of our country need handguns badly. As it is, 82% of American adults believe crime is a serious problem. According to the NRA, privately owned firearms are used to stop crime attack between 2 and 2.5 million times every year. In the majority of these cases, no shot is fired. The Journal of the Medicine Association of Georgia says that as many as 75 lives are protected for every life lost by a gun. Protection and self defense are just one of the many reasons why it should remain legal for private citizens to own guns. Our second reason is for hunting and other recreational purposes. Hunting has and will continue to be an American culture. Most people consider hunting and target shooting a sport. If guns were banned then it wouldn't be fair to the many United States citizens who participate in these activities. Hunting has been an American tradition since around the time of the Ice Age. Hunting was how the Native Americans survived. It is estimated that about 30,113,994 people in our country hunt. Taking away guns would not only take away sport but American tradition. Our third reason is that banning guns wouldn't stop crime and violence. If guns were banned, it would be hard for the government to enforce that everyone gets rid of their gun. Therefore, criminals would still have hidden guns. Also, someone who is willing to commit a crime won't follow any new laws. If guns were banned, then murderers and criminals would use the next most convenient weapon. Instead of guns, knives, axes, clubs or other weapons would be used. Also, new weapons may be created. As you can see, if guns were to be banned, crime and murder rates wouldn't necessarily decrease. Our fourth reason is that we have a Constitutional right to own guns. Our founding fathers decided on ten important amendments, and the second amendment has to do with owning guns. The second amendment says, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This clearly states that private citizens living in our country have a right to bear arms. The constitution has been around since 1789. If these laws have been working for around 218 years then they are good laws for our country. This is another reason why guns should not be banned. Our fifth and final reason is many people work in the gun industry. As it is tons of Americans have been losing their jobs over the last several years. If guns were banned than all the people who's work has to do with guns would immediately lose their jobs. Our country cannot afford for more jobs to be lost this way. This is one more reason of why guns should not be banned. In conclusion, we believe that the status quo is working for our country and guns shouldn't be banned. Our reasons for keeping guns available for private citizens are, for protection and self-defense, for recreational activities and hunting, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, this right is in the Constitution, and many citizens work in the gun industry. As you can see by the information above, guns should not be banned from private citizens. We will sum all of this information up with a true, significant quote we have all heard a few times in our life, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

Title: Our gun rights Content: Thanks! This is my first debate on this site, so I'm happy to receive some positive feedback. I think it's relatively easy to protect citizens and keep weapons out of the hands of criminals while still allowing responsible gun ownership. The biggest problem in the USA with regard to guns themselves is ease of access: it's ridiculously easy to get a license and purchase a firearm. Background checks do not unnecessarily infringe upon a citizen's right to privacy, and should be universal. A federal gun registry and mandatory inventories would also go a long way with relatively little impact on law-abiding gun owners and dealers. One of the biggest difficulties law enforcement have in the US is their inability to find out where a weapon came from, and thereby locate - and shut down - points of criminal access to firearms. However, I would argue that it's not just criminal access to firearms that's the problem, its the general proliferation of, and cavalier attitude toward, guns. Several people are injured or killed each year by young children who somehow gained access to their parents' weapons. In addition, both citizens and law enforcement are too quick to resort to firearms. The US has staggeringly high rates of deadly use of force by police and by citizens in self-defense (not to mention "self-defense" cases such as Trayvon Martin's case), and yet this hasn't made society any safer - quiet the opposite. A societal shift in attitude is required. Violence should be the last resort, but that's not the way it's treated. I could discuss the 2nd amendment for hours (wasn't it originally designed to help prevent the escape of delinquent and freed slaves?), but I won't because I know very little about the American constitution. What I would ask you is this: why are Americans (generally) so touchy about the 2nd amendment in particular? Nobody really seems to mind the violent crackdown on free speech (as long as they disagree with the views of those being cracked down upon), and there hasn't been much of a fuss about the erosion of rights to privacy, habeas corpus, and right to political and religious freedom in response to the terror "threat." The US still can't seem to figure out what it thinks about universal human rights (especially with regard to gender, sexuality, race, and religion), and continues trying to reverse the legal precedent that the right to bodily autonomy supersedes the right to life. Basically what saying is that there seems to be an undue obsession with the right to bear arms, far disproportionate to other rights, even those which are generally considered more important, such as the right to freedom of speech, thought, and association or the right to a trial. The US government awards itself the legal ability to murder American citizens at will without trial or oversight and nobody makes a peep, but as soon as you mention gun control everybody loses their minds. What do you think about that discrepancy?

Title: This House believes in the right to bear arms Content: My opponent has stated he is making "the assertion that the people of the United States have the right to own and use firearms." I as Con fully intend to refute this claim that "the people of the United States have the right to own and use firearms."DEFINITIONS:RIGHT:"legal entitlement to have or do something[1]"ARMS:"Weapons and ammunition; armaments[2]"[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...PREMISES:(A)Legally Americans don't have the right to bear arms in the sense that most people think of. The "right to bear arms" related to strictly militias. I will explain why thoroughly below.ARGUMENTS:(1)The origins of the "right to bear arms" is based on the lack of a military industrial complex. Often in modern America, we forget that the idea of a professional military in the United States is little over a century old. Traditionally in the United States, the federal government drafted citizens when the United States needed to fight a war[2]. It wasn't until the periods of after World War I that the idea of maintaining a professional military was thought. The period after World War II, the Cold War, cemented the idea of the United States maintaining a professional military. [2]http://www.history.com...Previously, before World War I, states had their own irregular militias which would be called on for service by the federal government first before a draft was initiated. These militias would eventually be what we term in today's time, the National Guard. But in the early days of the United States and during the period when the British governed the colonies, the militias were of great value for the defense of towns. Some states when so far as to require the citizenry to carry firearms. An example of this would be in Maryland how every able man under law was required to carry a gun on his person[4]. The law existed because there was no professional military or large National Guard existent at the time. Citizens were organized themselves into militias to defend their towns. They did not wear uniforms in most cases and were not trained that well at all. [4]http://www.neverbluefarm.com...These militias would be the base of the Continental Army during the American Revolution and the base of the army during the War of 1812. This is why the Continental Army lost majority of the battles during the American Revolution because these militias were intended for a limited defense of a town not a prolonged war. The "right to bear arms" specifically is related to these poorly equipped and poorly trained militias. This is very clear by what the second amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[5]"[5]http://constitutionus.com...(2) I have no intention of arguing for gun control or anything similar stating guns aren't safe or Americans shouldn't be wielding firearms. I am here to argue that the idea that Americans have the "right to bear arms" for private use is not true and certainly is not a right. The "right to bear arms" related to the public usage of firearms in order to defend the United States via militias which were irregular and unprofessional military forces. This can easily be seen in English Common Law:"The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defense, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable. It seems, indeed, to be considered, by the ancient laws of this kingdom, not only as a right, but as a duty; for all the subjects of the realm, who are able to bear arms, are bound to be ready, at all times, to assist the sheriff, and other civil magistrates, in the execution of the laws and the preservation of the public peace[4]"Knowing that the "right to bear arms" related to militias and the public usage of firearms, this refutes the claim that the "right to bear arms" applies to most Americans because they are not part of an irregular military force such as a militia.

Title: Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime Content: The instigator is insisting that discussing definitions amounts to semantics, when defining terms is so core to debate that it is the first of the timeless Socratic questions. [1]He continues to assert that it was clear what he was arguing, while providing no support for his definition of "concealed carry handgun laws" and dropping all my analysis. Please flow over my logic, in particular the following:"Since I am CON, I am against concealed carry laws, and without concealed carry laws, it is obvious that anybody can concealed carry. This equals more guns and less violence, as my opponent agreed."I urge you to vote for concealed carry and vote CON.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;

Title: Gun rights Content: My assertions regarding this topic are as follows: - US citizens have the right to bear arms - This right should be defended and even extended - The right to bear arms is a beneficial policy Both pro and con have equal burden of proof, each having to prove the others standpoint wrong. First, the citizens have the right to posses and utilize firearms in protection of themselves and other citizens. This is not so much an argument as it is a preliminary statement. Our constitution grants us this as a right to defend ourselves. Until such a time as this amendment is revised or revoked, the right to a firearm for personal use is granted. Thus I do not understand my opponent's contention about 'What is a right?'. Second, this right should be defended and even extended within governmental and legislative policies. Current policies of government restrict the above rights beyond what is constitutional and beyond what is logical. Many will argue, "At the time that they wrote that amendment, they didn't have automatic weapons." At the time of the formation of our nation, most gun owning Americans had either the Brown Bess, or the Kentucky Long Rifle. The Brown Bess was the AK-47 of the day, and the Long Rifle the M16 of the day. The founding fathers knew what they were saying when they gave freedom to bear arms to their citizens. As threats to ourselves and our nation increase, the tools we have to defend ourselves also should increase. Lastly, the right to bear arms has proven to be a beneficial policy. I point to my evidence provided in the first round, cited by sources provided in the first round. (Located in the comments. My bad.) I am not sure what my opponent was trying to point out with his reference to a nuclear warhead, and I think it would be beneficial for him to elaborate on that point. I now invite my opponent to attempt to prove any of my points wrong.

Title: U,S citizens should be allowed to carry weopons freely. Content: I will first go to my own case and then to my opponent's case. Contention 1: Carrying weapons freely is already legal in the U.S. 1st of all, I will state that "U.S. citizens are allowed to carry guns" because it is a protected right in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon." Thus, U.S. citizens are already allowed to carry weapons freely. Rebuttal: "because if U.S citizens are allowed to carry guns, it would threaten the lives of other neighborhoods, too" Um, any examples or sources? U.S. citizens are allowed to carry guns now and at least 34th in intentional homicide rate by country per 100,000 people. Thus, the U.S.A. has already proven that carrying guns in not as threatening as thought. "For example, this year, a man from Korea (oh, why my country?!) had too much stress that he even decided to kill people. As a result, he went to Texas, bought a gun, and just went shooting everyone he saw. " Sources? I don't know when or if this happened but just because someone has stress doesn't mean they will shoot someone. Many people have lots of stress and they are not inclined to shoot everyone. This is an extreme case of being over-stressed while having guns. " What I'm trying to say is, people around you can kill you any minute." No, they can't. We have so much security these days that there are very few guns besides in the few crime-popular cities such as Lose Angeles, Oakland, etc. Thus, guns should remain legal. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Content: You misunderstand me, my fault for not being specific in round one. I am only talking about every US citizen having the rights to OWN guns not to rob banks with them or even use them in anything else than self defense. the topic says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. not what you have described as reasons for the law not to be carried out fully. George Mason during that debate also showed his distrust of Congress and the possibility that it would not fund the arming for the militia as an excuse for the creation of a standing army, which could later to be used as an instrument of tyranny by Congress. I defend the statement of all citizens having the right to bear arms cause its intended purpose is to use the guns in self defense at a time of civil conflict. Just cause you have the right to have access to a gun doesn't mean its legal for you to use it for anything other than self defense. As for children owning guns parents have custody of their children and make decisions for them their fore nothing that belongs to a CHILD is actually theirs.

Title: Gun Rights Content: Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate! Nicolo Machiavelli once said that there were five reasons why it was absolutely essential for individuals to enjoy a right to keep and bear arms: to protect one's self, to keep rulers honest, to hunt, to defend the state against foreign invasion and to maintain one's republican character (lol). After all, how could any liberty be more vital than the second amendment? It makes every other civil liberty Americans enjoy possible. If not for a citizens' right to keep and bear arms, they would be at the mercy of their own government with their rights existing only at their government's pleasure [1]. I'll begin my rebuttal by responding to my opponent's claim that only cops, convenient store owners and those who carry large amounts of money should be able to own guns. While it's clear that a legitimate argument can be made for why cops are allowed to own guns - why convenient store owners in particular? Why not bookshop keepers or grocery store owners or Taco Bell? Convenient stores (which typically do not deal with large sums of money) are just one type of many stores; many stores deal with even larger sums of money on a daily basis - such as Macy's. Further, what constitutes a "large amount" of money? And what if a 17 year old had this large amount - would they be eligible to carry a gun? These standards to me seem far too loose and non-specific. I don't see the relevance. Additionally, there seems to be a double standard in terms of responsibility and trust. For instance, it would appear that Con's advocacy for money-handlers to be allowed guns is so that they can make sure nobody steals from them. However, doesn't that just give them the power to steal from another who is not allowed to protect themselves? And then of course there's the question about tyranny of government. If ONLY the cops (or other government groups) are allowed to own guns, then isn't that not only a violation of our second amendment rights, but also just a straight up forfeiture of protection? After all, the government is nothing but a group of powerful (mortal, fallible) individuals. People have the right to protect themselves. Our right to own guns should not be stifled by people who have proven too irresponsible to hold that right. Instead, their rights should simply be revoked and they should be punished as individuals for any trouble they've caused. People care to own guns for a variety of reasons. Because those reasons aren't meant to intentionally harm others, we shouldn't expect that one's intention in owning guns is to commit a crime. Not only do guns not cause crime, but they help stop it. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck, handguns are used for protection nearly 2 million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes. The point is that in this world there are people who can be identified as "prey." As the old saying goes, "God didn't make all people equal — Mr. Colt did." A 1985 survey by the Department of Justice of inmates across the nation reported that 56 percent of the felons agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." Statistics also show that banning guns only encourages crime. According to a study by SUNY-University at Albany criminal justice professor Colin Loftin, Washington D.C. banned handguns in 1976, and by 1991 its homicide rate had tripled. Meanwhile, the national homicide rate rose only 12 percent [2]. Now, obviously my opponent realizes that law enforcement and the military need to have weapons. In that case, I think it's perfectly reasonable that citizens should be able to arm themselves with the same protection (as I said, to ensure that American freedom is protected). If you think that this is an unreasonable protection, we only have to look to American history to see why this concern is relevant. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act that made it illegal for citizens to speak out against the national government. During World War II, Japanese Americans - citizens and resident aliens alike - were stripped of their property and herded into concentration camps without cause or trial. Perhaps American freedom isn't as safe as we all thought [1]. So, that brings us back to Pro's proposal for gun control. He submits that only those handling money, convenient store owners and cops should be allowed guns. Well not only do people reserve the right to have a gun for reasons other then these, but gun shop owners, gun makers, gun collectors and the like all have the right to have their products bought and sold. This economy works on the basis of supply and demand. If people didn't supply these guns legally with current gun laws as they stand (the federal government requires gun store owners to perform background checks on all consumers wishing to purchase firearms already), then individuals would just buy these guns illegally on the black market. This would create a huge illegal market and expand the influence of corrupt organizations like the mafia and street gangs which would sell these firearms illegally. Further, it kind of eliminates the purpose of a gun (safety and protection) to keep the limited from the people who need them or feel safer with them (since, as I've said, they've been proven to deter crime). People should be responsible and held accountable for how they utilize their right to bear arms. With that said, I'll send this debate back over to my opponent for now. Good luck! [1] http://media.www.thebatt.com... [2] http://www.mcrgo.org...

Title: Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Content: I accept the challenge, concealed carry is detrimental to the public,I will state my argument after yours

Title: The Right To Bare Arms Content: Alright, good argument but let me straigten this out. You say we have a professional army, well they are under the government control, if they government turns bad then they will too. So, we as citizens should have the right to bare arms if that happens. Second thing is that I am a student in a high school, and pretty much a lot of students agree with me, I would feel safer if a trained and certified teacher was armed. Anyone can walk into the school and start shooting at free will. If a teacher had a weapon, then we would have a chance to fight back. Question is, would you rob, rap or try to kill someone when you know that they have a weapon? My family has a gun in a safe area in each room that you need a password to open. That is what everyone should do so it won't get stolen. So, to close, I believe that there should be tighter security background checks, people should have a sure secure area to put your gun in, and protect yourself.

Title: Guns should be legal for home defense in the U.S. Content: The status quo is that in every state guns are now legal for home defense, and the Supreme Court has upheld the right of using guns for self-defense of the home. I will argue that the legality should be maintained. My opponent will argue that the Constitution should be changed, if required, and laws passed to prohibit the use of guns for self-defense in the home. I will argue that the use of firearms should be subject to reasonable background checks and training requirements, but that generally people who want a gun for the purpose should be able to legally own one. Currently about 42% of U.S. homes have guns. [1. "Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 2/11/13. http://justfacts.com...]I'm looking forward to a good debate on the subject.RulesThis opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round.Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R4.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.

Title: Loose Gun Control Content: Thanks for introducing ths debate. Good luck. However, my opponent has not given any resolution whatsoever. I will assume we will just debate whether or not the average person should be allowed to own a gun. I'll have one very short point for this round. First however, I'll go over his arguments. His points had no real structure or fomatting, so I'll just pick them out as I seem them. 1. If everyone had a gun it would reduce crime a. Warrant please? b. When 68% of murders are committed with a gun (1), allowing more people to have them is just adding fuel to the fire. If we want to reduce this type of death, the answer is to have less guns, not more. 2. If two people (supposedly in a conflict) both have guns, neither has control. Control is meaningless. If person 1 is intending to harm person 2, knowing person 2 has a gun, there will be no face-to-face confrontation where "control" would be necessary. Person 1 will make sure he attacks from behind, ensuring that person 2 does not have a chance to retaliate with his own gun. 3. Criminal wont break into a house where the owner has a gun. No, he probably wont. What you dont realize though is that he probably wont break in if the owner doesn't have a gun either. He likely waits for the owner to leave, then makes his move. 4. Most guns are unregistered No sources behind this. But more importantly, no impact whatsoever. Why does this matter? He never tells us. 5. Right to bear arms a. The right to bear arms is about source 2, contrary to what you may believe. b. Even if you dont buy that (though I dont see how you couldn't), we only limit the right to bear arms, we dont eliminate it. We only require a permit for ownership. Thats the main reason that most gun control laws haven't been overturned on grounds of your argument. My argument 1. Guns worsen self defense As previously shown, if one is looking to harm you, knowing you have a gun, they're more likely to refrain from direct combat and instead attack from behind. This gives you a lesser chance of defending yourselfas you are now defending from a surprise attack rather than a frontal one. Furthermore, if the attacker himself has a gun, you're screwed whether you have one or not, as all he has to do is get the first shot off and you're too blinded by pain to respond. I've purposely kept this short, but I'll expand if my opponent has a decent response. I urge a con vote, thank you. 1. http://www.pbs.org... 2. http://coto2.files.wordpress.com...

Title: Replace the second amendment with universal healthcare Content: I don't agree that gun ownership is a right, granted by the government or inherent. It is a privilege with responsibilities like driving a car. Those who are unfit don't have a license, we are expected to carry insurance and are responsible not to drive drunk or pay for any accidents we cause. I am suggesting only the fit be allowed to own a weapon and they must keep that weapon secure so it's not used in a crime. Where do you stand on assault weapons? I'm not suggesting the government has the right to control healthcare. Perhaps the answer is let the market provide healthcare like Obamacare. I believe we as citizens have the right to expect to be cared for when we need it. Every citizen should be covered, guaranteed. I don't know how that happens.

Title: Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime Content: "This is clear semantics. It is clear what I meant by conceal carry, other sensible people agree. [1] My opponent says I failed to define, but as a rule states no semantics with definitions, therefore he breaks the terms of the debate. He automatically FF's, and any voter can see this. "Au contraire, definitions =/= semantics. Definitions are the framework for this debate, and essentially are what this debate has boiled down to. Furthermore, he says that "other sensible people agree", however, it appears that there are only 2 of these other people. This is not a significant number or a compelling reason to vote PRO. "Also, as stated, it was easily clear to what I was arguing with the resolution and the side I took (PRO), so my opponent seems to be just derailing a perfectly good debate. "And as stated, it was not clear at all. There are good laws and bad laws, restrictive laws and freeing laws. When he says "concealed carry handgun laws" he leaves it up in the air to decide what laws he is talking about, and what they do. "As paradigm lost said:"Point out that he [my opponent] is playing a game of semantics and thus is derailing a perfectly good debate. Sensible voters will be able to see what the resolution is and how it's argued. ""Again, just because there is another DDO user who agrees with the instigator, doesn't mean that "any voter would vote pro. "On the Definition:Throughout, my opponent has not defined "concealed carry handgun laws". I provided a reasonable definition in the 1st round, which he rejected out of hand, labeling it as "semantics". He has dropped my logic and analysis that which demonstrates that any law pertaining to concealed carry must either (a) do nothing, or (b) impose restrictions on concealed carry. Since I am CON, I am against concealed carry laws, and without concealed carry laws, it is obvious that anybody can concealed carry. This equals more guns and less violence, as my opponent agreed. In close, my opponent has accused me of derailing this debate, but he has in reality derailed it from the beginning by picking a resolution that is highly amiguous. He has then proceeded to drop my reasonable definition without proposing an alternative.

Title: gun rights should NOT be taken away. Content: Look, I am a republican, supporter of the second-amendment, etc. Please do not USE the second-amendment to say why we have the right to bear arms. I will debate the validity of having the RIGHT to own a gun. In my position as con, I will argue that people have the PRIVILEGE to own a gun :) Ok? Good, so to begin we must decide what a right and what a privilege is: Right: something guranteed that you do not have to deserve Privilege: something granted that you have to deserve I agree, the ability to own a gun is good. But it is also bad. 1.) You must get a license to own a gun, therefore, a gun is a privilege not right 2.) Those who want to commit crimes should not have the right to own a gun. If the right to bear arms was in fact a privilege to bear arms, then less people would be able to grab a gun and shoot someone.

Title: There is a correlation between the laxity of a country’s gun laws and its suicide rate – not because... Content: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary top the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Any country is much more able to defend itself from aggression if many of its citizens are able to use guns, keeping them for leisure and sporting use. Some countries actively require adult citizens to maintain weapons in their house, and periodically to train in their use. Of course, such widespread ownership of weapons is also a safeguard against domestic tyranny.

Title: Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms. Content: The right to bear arms is fully protected with concealed carry laws. The US Constitution does not specify what guns and what types of carrying methods should be lawful. It specifies only that "bearing" is a right. A restriction that disallows open carrying and allows concealed carrying is, therefore, fully consistent with the US Constitution's right to bear arms.

Title: Gun Control is wrong and the government shouldn't infringe on the Second Amendment Content: I would like to accept. First, allow me to help clarify the terms. 1. "Gun control" shall be defined as a limit posed by the government that restricts a citizen's rights to own firearms. 2. The resolution can be rephrased as "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".BoP should be shared.I will be arguing for "The right of the people to bear arms should be limited."My main arguments:I. It is inherently dangerous for society to freely possess weaponry.II. Self defense is not a legitimate excuse to freely own all firearms.III. The NRA is not closer to the "solution" of ending all dangerous shootings than everyone else.IV. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was not meant to deal with the weaponry today. Therefore the right to bear arms should be limited.Thanks.

Title: gun rights should NOT be taken away. Content: Here is what you said "but you cant not give someone a gun because you think they will commit crimes." -You can withhold the right to own a gun to a limit amount of people to try to limit a crime such as, withhold some guns (beyond automatic) to people only those with a hunting license (or military) can get a gun only those over the age of __ no more handguns to those without a military license some guidelines that makes the right to bear arms a privilege this would reduce crime yet allow people to protect themselves "If you do not have a license you should not be able to own any more than a simple small caliber hand gun. not every thing should need a license." First let me address the license. I mis-understood. The license belongs to those selling firearms. Not those buying. So you can ignore that point. Since that is the case, I believe, as said above, I believe a hunting or military license should be needed. "If you do actually commit a crime you should have temporary or permanent gun restriction, depending on the crime." This is what currently happens, but that does not stop crime. Why? Because the right to bear arms is a right. It should be a privilege. To stop crime

Title: Constitutional right to carry arms in the U.S Content: Hi! This is my first debate, and I am looking forward to either being convinced by good counterpoints, or convincing someone else of my side. I will start off by saying how counter-intuitive the right is to any cohesive system. Why do you need to have a open carry license(to buy guns, yes, but you can also acquire these illegally) when the fact if you actually have said license or not can not be checked by any authority without your consent? Essentially this means that if you are a convicted felon for instance, and you have acquired a firearm, you are free to carry it openly as the fact that you are a convicted felon can not be uncovered without your consent, as they have no legal right to seize your weapon for check nor can they demand you to show identification. This seems like a god-awful flaw in the system to me. I can not find it in me to see this as reasonable on my own, and need help to see the other side so I can draw a conclusion on the matter.

Title: I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind Content: I believe in concealed carry self-defense, And the right to protect against a tyrannical government with firearms. If you have a convincing argument, Try to change my mind. If you are not going to finish rounds and forfeit, Please do not accept this debate. Hope this is a good one!

Title: Gun rights Content: My opponent seems to have misunderstood my concern. To have legitimate clash at this point will be difficult, which makes the unfortunately brief nature of this debate regrettable. -My opponent asserts that US citizens have the right to bear arms. Right does not imply legal allowance, right implies fundamental condition for just existence. For instance, a human has the right to freedom, regardless of whether or not the government under which he falls enslaves him. So, we face a conflict: does my opponent claim that only US citizens have the right to bear arms? This seems jingoistic and discriminatory. I believe my opponent wishes to assert that gun ownership is a fundamental right of the species (or that Americans are somehow apart from the rest of the globe). -This point is virtually null and void when we shift our gaze to a proper understanding of what a "right" actually is. I further contend that to say "The Brown Bess was the AK-47 of the day, and the Long Rifle the M16 of the day" is a baseless and improvable assertion. Should we evaluate current policy regarding electricity expenditure in lighting by comparing it to the candle? Also, the assertion that "threats to ourselves...increase". What threats? What do these threats justify? How far does this argument extend? My opponent's ambiguity fails to address any real matter upon which we may partake in concrete debate. -I address my contention with social preservation in my initial questions, which remain overlooked. (The nuclear warhead was an extreme example [intentional slippery slope] that demands clarification for the extend and necessary cut off point of proposed defense legality). Remaining questions: Why is firearm ownership a right? Why is social preservation ideal? Is social preservation objectively upheld by firearms, and to what extent? How can firearm restrictions be lifted when a direct consequence of this action will necessarily mean the loss of some innocent life? Thank you.

Title: Citizens should be allowed to own guns. Content: "Citizens should be allowed to own guns. I am for the right to own firearms. The con of this debate must prove why we should not own firearms. " The instigator has the burden of proof. You are making the claim that "Citizens should be allowed to own guns. " Using this logic, I can claim that I am petting my pet Pikachu, and ask you to disprove it. As you are making the claim, you must make the argument as to why we SHOULD have the right to bear arms. Thank you.

Title: Loosen gun control Content: Gun control, probably one of the most heated controversies in politics today,and I think a fun topic to debate on. The constitution on the United States of America allows citizens the right to bare arms. And yes today citizens are allowed to bare arms, however not extensively. I am sick of hearing about these women being ripped to pieces by homicidal men, gun control should be allowed on a more loose system. If you cannot carry a gun in areas where you are more likley going to use it what's the point in carrying one? Gun control should have a more thorough search and background system and then that should be the extent of it allow citizens who's background is clean and has children who are not mentally ill or have a history of a mental sickness background carry weapons extensively. If 3/5 women carried small caliber pistols the sexual and homicidal crime rate were these animals victimize women will drop rapidly.

Title: We as American citizens should have the right to possess firearms Content: Thanks for setting up the debate. I personally disagree with the statement that Americans should have the right to bear firearms from the experience of living in Australia and witnessing the success of Australia"s Gun laws in creating a better and less violent society. My argument will be that by violating US Citizen"s 2nd Amendment rights by enacting laws to reduce accessibility to guns, will create a safer society through reducing the incidence of mass shootings. I believe the gun rights issue is one of public safety and that the evolution of firearms technology renders the 2nd amendment anachronistic.

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

Title: gun control Content: Alright you have the right to bear arms yes. But there is no reason why we need access to every weapon available. Should we be allowed to own a shotgun yes, a pistol yes, a rifle, yes even a sniper sure, but why do you need a .50 caliber sniper rifle that marines use or why do you need ak-47s or ar-15s. You don't go hunting with those guns. Those guns are designed to kill people. And for the purpose of protection based on your states open carry laws or concealed weapon laws a pistol does the job as well. As for when your at home a shotgun will do just fine. I'm ok with gun control in the fact of not needing every weapon. Would you like a nuclear weapon as well. how about c4 is it ok if I can go down the street and buy c4. We need stricter laws on guns but not total control. We need to put in place harder background checks, mental health issues, age, and morality. Guns don't kill people kill and that is the problem. We can't trust people.

Title: Gun control Content: I personally believe that every person within the US has enough responsibility to own a gun and to not abuse this privilege. Without these weapons, many people would feel insecure within their homes. Additionally, if we were to take guns away from our citizens, the use of illegal, and unregistered guns would drastically increase. Therefore allowing our citizens to own guns is immensely important.

Title: mass murder weopons should be banned by statute Content: "the constitutiaonality is not clear of this issue... so i'm not going to debate it. for various interpretations by const scholars, which shows the variability," The way I see it, it says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". The right of the people to bear arms. Nowhere do I read "The right of the people to bear arms that are not fully automatic", so I think this includes the right to bear fully automatic arms, with the proper permit required. "if it's not a ocnstituaoinal right, then taking ak's machine guns etc isn't being unconstitutional, and that argument doesn't matter. besides, instead of tehnical legal arguments policy argments are better so the const argument is weak either way you cut it. " I just explained myself above. However, I would like to point out that this was very hard for me to understand because of grammar/spelling errors. Please do not take this as a personal attack, but rather as a pointer. "you never respondedto the idea that AKs etc don't save people in defense." What is there to respond to? Your right. If someone draws an AK47 on you, and you were stupid enough not to see it before they pulled it out, then there is really nothing you can do even if you have one too. Why, though, is an AK47 any different then a handgun? If someone draws a handgun on you, even if you do have an AK47 or the like, you are in trouble. Just because the AK47 shoots faster does not mean it is better for killing people, as I said in my last argument. If you wear an AK47 on your back everywhere you go, and someone in some dark alley puts a pistol to your head, your the one in trouble. Even if that pistol is only 22 caliber, you are still the one in danger. If you move to pull your gun out, you will find a bullet through your head very shortly. The only place an AK47 would be more affective then a handgun, then, is in a crowded place. How, though, would you hide an AK47 with hundreds of people around you? IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. You would never get a gun that size far enough into a public place to do any damage, because you would have the cops on you before you came anywhere close to a crowded place. "it's simply common sense that if someone has an AK instead of a pistol, they'll do more damage. so your main point is baseless. even if there's many people dead when a pistol is used, as you said, that only means more would be dead with a machine gun etc." Do more damage to your corpse, maybe. A tank will kill you no deader (if you will) then a hand gun will, it is simply a matter of how quickly you die, and how messy you are after you are dead. If the first bullet is placed well, you will die. One bullet is all you need, and a murderer will generally try to make the least amount noise while doing something like murder. You say there would be more people dead when a machine gun is used? Your right. Good luck getting it into a place where there is more then five people. Someone is going to see that you are carrying a gun that size, and someone is bound to get concerned and call the cops. "so... i agree guns don't kill people but people do... that doesn't mean we should allow machineguns etc. the reason we shouldn't.... is because people kill people. i never said that guns do, you put that in my mouth. an AK makes it much more potent, and spreads it." I was not putting that in your mouth, I was simply making a point. I was saying that guns don't kill people, and in reality no gun will kill you deader (if you will... sorry, it's getting old, but I don't know how else to word it...) then another, so AK47's should not be outlawed. If it is killing lots of people quickly that counts, then I think we should outlaw cars, because they can kill a lot of people in short order too. While we're at it, we should probably outlaw skyscrapers and planes too, I mean, look what they did to us on 9/11? If that wasn't mass murder, I don't know what is. Your argument that they kill people faster and in bigger quantities is no good then, and that pretty much makes YOUR whole argument baseless. Thanks, Renzzy

Title: Open carry is an opportunity to express individual rights. Content: Expressing one's rights openly to the public is an uplifting experience for a citizen. Carrying a gun openly is a valuable opportunity for law-abiding citizens to express their right to carry a weapon, connect more viscerally with their broader rights and the laws that enshrine them, and inform others of those rights.