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

positive: Right-to-Carry States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports) Right-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in "More Guns, Less Crime", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings: While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime.... non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime. Non discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business. States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns. There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%. Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men. The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens. The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this "halo" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area. The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns." thanks charles h mousseau jr NRA member

positive: Right to carry arms 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.

positive: On Campus Concealed Carry Negative Case Contention 1: Concealed weapons permission is unnecessary on campus. Although many point to such incidents as the Virginia Tech shootings to justify the need for concealed weapons, most college campuses are relatively safe compared to other areas in the United States. In 2002, the Justice Department discovered that crime on campus is 20% lower than the national average for individuals of the same age category as college students, and that 93% of the violence that occurs against students takes place off campus. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org...). This means that, as a whole, students are more while they reside on campus than they are in the outside world. This has two impacts. First, it demonstrates that concealed carry laws are absolutely unnecessary on campus because the crime rate is extremely low. Since there is no need to solve a problem that does not exist, concealed carry permits should not be extended to the campus. Second, it actually demonstrates that concealed carry laws have an increase in crime; most college campuses are safe without the concealed carry provision, but the outside world, which permits concealed carry, is not as safe as college campuses are. This means that concealed carry provisions may be the reason that crime is higher in the outside world, so increasing the number of guns on campus could potentially replicate the disaster. Gary Kleck, a gun-carrying advocate, concedes, "Both gun carrying and gun violence are thus phenomena almost entirely confined to the world outside schools." Contention 2: Crime would increase on campus. Students who own guns are more likely to be mentally unstable and dangerous than their nonviolent peers. While the college rates for illicit drug use, alcohol abuse, and mental instability is high, studies have shown that individuals who are prone to carrying guns on campus are likely to be more involved in such debauchery than the average student. Two studies of college students discovered, for example, that students with guns more likely to engaged in such risky behaviors as binge drinking, use of crack and cocaine, having DUIs, vandalizing property, and clashing with the police. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org...). This means that the students who will actually benefit from the law will be those prone to felonious behavior. Given that most students will not carry guns, and that the students who do possess them will not possess the proper mental faculties to rationally prevent themselves from committing crimes, and that these students are more likely to engage in risky, illegal behavior than the average non-gun carrying college student, crimes on campus will be much easier to commit than they were previously. This means that giving risk-prone students access to weapons could potentially increase violence and other felonies on campus. Since this violates the rights of all, this is a reason to reject the gun laws. Contention 3: Concealed weapons would detract from the educational environment of the school. Given that the mission of colleges is to provide a safe, comfortable environment for a student to obtain an education, and that guns create an aura of fear on campus, permitting concealed weapons on campus would foster mistrust and detract from a student's ability to gain an education. Rather than proving that the campus is safe, the students at a college would attempt to minimize interactions with other students for fear of inciting them to emotional violence. A study conducted to determine the fear of the dissemination of guns discovered that 71% of people would feel threatened by the increase of guns in their community, and that 85% of non-gun owners were opposed to the spread of guns because they felt that it would foster mistrust and lessen their security. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org...) This increase in fear would decrease educational freedom by minimizing educational interactions, so concealed weapons should not be permitted on campus. Contention 4: Increasing the number of guns on campus could cause confusion and thus foster a greater loss of life. Consider the following hypothetical scenario: A shooter enters campus and threatens a student, who proceeds to pull out a weapon of his own to confront the aggressor. Students nearby also begin to arm themselves and enter the ensuing fray because they feel that their friends are in danger (we cannot assume that students will only arm themselves against the shooter.) By the time the police arrives, the officers can never reliably know which student instigated the conflict, which students are actually dangerous, and which students were trying to defend themselves. This scenario demonstrates the fact that increasing the number of guns on campus would generate confusion and could cause police officers to threaten even the innocent gun-wielders simply because it would be impossible to identify the actual threat. However, if only one shooter had been armed, the police could easily identify the individual and arrest him, thus minimizing the likelihood of his escape and decreasing the potential loss of life. So, because concealed weapons are unnecessary and detrimental to safety and security, you should negate. Rebuttals First, he mentions Virginia Tech and Columbine as reasons that guns should be permitted on campus. While these incidents were horrific, the reason that the public knows about them is that they are unique. The media does not cover every day shootings in the poor downtown areas because these are expected to happen, while crimes on campus are often covered because the stories are unique and sensational. This means that although he can provide you with a few specific, well-known incidents, we should prefer my statistics in the first contention that explain that most campuses are safer than other areas of the United States, meaning that while a few incidents do occur, on the whole, concealed weapons are unnecessary. Moreover, you can cross-apply my fourth contention about confusion here, because the incidents would have been magnified if some students had engaged the shooters in a conflict. Finally, this problem does not require guns to solve; more incidents can be prevented by increasing the amount of police security and support for students on campus (directly solves his "police" argument.) In his second point, he mentions that some campuses with permits have not had any major incidents. First, this could be explained by the fact that most college students do not wish to own guns, and that they cannot have such permits anyways because they need to be 21, so the prevalence of guns on campus is probably very slim. Second, this is empirically false as there have been over 1,400 cases in the state of Florida alone in which CCW permit holders have conducted violent felonies. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org...) For example: Tucson, Arizona, October 29, 2002. Robert Flores, Jr. shot and killed three professors, and then himself, in a rampage at the University of Arizona School of Nursing, where he was a failing student. Reportedly, he had told classmates about a year before that he had obtained a CCW permit. Finally, he claims that only those individuals who could carry weapons elsewhere would be permitted to have weapons on campus. Turn this against him because most students across the nation cannot obtain concealed weapons permits until the age of 21, meaning that the majority of college students could not even defend themselves in the case of a violent felony anyways. Second, this increases the likelihood of felonies as individuals outside of campus with permits would be able to safely roam onto campus with their weapons, meaning that they could easily use them against students. Thus, negate and reject concealed carry permits.

positive: On Campus Concealed Carry Negative Case Contention 1: Concealed weapons permission is unnecessary on campus. Although many point to such incidents as the Virginia Tech shootings to justify the need for concealed weapons, most college campuses are relatively safe compared to other areas in the United States. In 2002, the Justice Department discovered that crime on campus is 20% lower than the national average for individuals of the same age category as college students, and that 93% of the violence that occurs against students takes place off campus. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org......). This means that, as a whole, students are more while they reside on campus than they are in the outside world. This has two impacts. First, it demonstrates that concealed carry laws are absolutely unnecessary on campus because the crime rate is extremely low. Since there is no need to solve a problem that does not exist, concealed carry permits should not be extended to the campus. Second, it actually demonstrates that concealed carry laws have an increase in crime; most college campuses are safe without the concealed carry provision, but the outside world, which permits concealed carry, is not as safe as college campuses are. This means that concealed carry provisions may be the reason that crime is higher in the outside world, so increasing the number of guns on campus could potentially replicate the disaster. Gary Kleck, a gun-carrying advocate, concedes, "Both gun carrying and gun violence are thus phenomena almost entirely confined to the world outside schools." Contention 2: Crime would increase on campus. Students who own guns are more likely to be mentally unstable and dangerous than their nonviolent peers. While the college rates for illicit drug use, alcohol abuse, and mental instability is high, studies have shown that individuals who are prone to carrying guns on campus are likely to be more involved in such debauchery than the average student. Two studies of college students discovered, for example, that students with guns more likely to engaged in such risky behaviors as binge drinking, use of crack and cocaine, having DUIs, vandalizing property, and clashing with the police. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org......). This means that the students who will actually benefit from the law will be those prone to felonious behavior. Given that most students will not carry guns, and that the students who do possess them will not possess the proper mental faculties to rationally prevent themselves from committing crimes, and that these students are more likely to engage in risky, illegal behavior than the average non-gun carrying college student, crimes on campus will be much easier to commit than they were previously. This means that giving risk-prone students access to weapons could potentially increase violence and other felonies on campus. Since this violates the rights of all, this is a reason to reject the gun laws. Contention 3: Concealed weapons would detract from the educational environment of the school. Given that the mission of colleges is to provide a safe, comfortable environment for a student to obtain an education, and that guns create an aura of fear on campus, permitting concealed weapons on campus would foster mistrust and detract from a student's ability to gain an education. Rather than proving that the campus is safe, the students at a college would attempt to minimize interactions with other students for fear of inciting them to emotional violence. A study conducted to determine the fear of the dissemination of guns discovered that 71% of people would feel threatened by the increase of guns in their community, and that 85% of non-gun owners were opposed to the spread of guns because they felt that it would foster mistrust and lessen their security. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org......) This increase in fear would decrease educational freedom by minimizing educational interactions, so concealed weapons should not be permitted on campus. Contention 4: Increasing the number of guns on campus could cause confusion and thus foster a greater loss of life. Consider the following hypothetical scenario: A shooter enters campus and threatens a student, who proceeds to pull out a weapon of his own to confront the aggressor. Students nearby also begin to arm themselves and enter the ensuing fray because they feel that their friends are in danger (we cannot assume that students will only arm themselves against the shooter.) By the time the police arrives, the officers can never reliably know which student instigated the conflict, which students are actually dangerous, and which students were trying to defend themselves. This scenario demonstrates the fact that increasing the number of guns on campus would generate confusion and could cause police officers to threaten even the innocent gun-wielders simply because it would be impossible to identify the actual threat. However, if only one shooter had been armed, the police could easily identify the individual and arrest him, thus minimizing the likelihood of his escape and decreasing the potential loss of life. So, because concealed weapons are unnecessary and detrimental to safety and security, you should negate. Rebuttals First, he mentions Virginia Tech and Columbine as reasons that guns should be permitted on campus. While these incidents were horrific, the reason that the public knows about them is that they are unique. The media does not cover every day shootings in the poor downtown areas because these are expected to happen, while crimes on campus are often covered because the stories are unique and sensational. This means that although he can provide you with a few specific, well-known incidents, we should prefer my statistics in the first contention that explain that most campuses are safer than other areas of the United States, meaning that while a few incidents do occur, on the whole, concealed weapons are unnecessary. Moreover, you can cross-apply my fourth contention about confusion here, because the incidents would have been magnified if some students had engaged the shooters in a conflict. Finally, this problem does not require guns to solve; more incidents can be prevented by increasing the amount of police security and support for students on campus (directly solves his "police" argument.) In his second point, he mentions that some campuses with permits have not had any major incidents. First, this could be explained by the fact that most college students do not wish to own guns, and that they cannot have such permits anyways because they need to be 21, so the prevalence of guns on campus is probably very slim. Second, this is empirically false as there have been over 1,400 cases in the state of Florida alone in which CCW permit holders have conducted violent felonies. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org......) For example: Tucson, Arizona, October 29, 2002. Robert Flores, Jr. shot and killed three professors, and then himself, in a rampage at the University of Arizona School of Nursing, where he was a failing student. Reportedly, he had told classmates about a year before that he had obtained a CCW permit. Finally, he claims that only those individuals who could carry weapons elsewhere would be permitted to have weapons on campus. Turn this against him because most students across the nation cannot obtain concealed weapons permits until the age of 21, meaning that the majority of college students could not even defend themselves in the case of a violent felony anyways. Second, this increases the likelihood of felonies as individuals outside of campus with permits would be able to safely roam onto campus with their weapons, meaning that they could easily use them against students. Thus, negate and reject concealed carry permits.

positive: Gun Control Unlike what the liberal media wants you to believe, UK crime rates is another primary example in making argument against gun control " England introduced one of the most draconian gun control / ban policies in the western world, thereafter it is routinely on the top two of the most violent countries in the developed world and is significantly more violent than America! Note: I will reiterate that by stating "more guns means less crime" some people automatically assume it means that everyone should have a gun. That is not true; when we are talking about gun freedom and less crime, not everyone must have a firearm in order to lower the crime rate. What makes a society safe is the very freedom given to each and every individual to bear arms. This very notion in turn perpetually deters criminals and crazy individuals from committing crimes. US Violent Crime Rate on the Decline with More Guns In recent years, Americans have been buying guns at a record number. This is in spite of the fact that violent crime rate in the US is on a sharp decline according to the FBI"s very own study. Courtesy of FBI: "When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level." US violent crime rate fell from 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992 to 386.3 per 100,000 in 2011. During that same time period, the murder rate fell from 9.3 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000. This was during an era when gun laws in the United States generally became much less restrictive. So why is such a massive media mobilization and attacks against firearms from the media and the government? Is it because of they are taking advantage of the American people"s emotion over rational and Facts, using the recent tragedies? After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn"t do it. I sure as heck wouldn"t want to live in a society where the only people who have guns are the police, military, and criminals. The 2nd Amendment: Gun Ownership is protected by the Constitution Most anti-gun advocates do not realize that unlike people in many other countries that have had their firearm forcefully taken away, the second amendment to the bill of rights is an unchangeable and unquestionable authority above the President and the Congress. Others rightly argue that because this is a right to self-defense, it is even above the Constitution; a God given right, it should never be taken away from the people regardless. Let"s note that the Founding Fathers were not government elitists or presidents who were elected by corporate interest lobbying millions of dollars funneled to their campaigns. They were exceptionally wise men who studied the history, governments, cultures, and societies that went before them and wanted nothing but the good and prosperity of the people and their republic; that is exactly why they were ready to sacrifice their lives in defense of liberty and freedom from the British Colonialism. Therefore, any governmental restrictions on guns imposed on American citizens is unconstitutional and would literary mean an attack on the Constitution. We have to recognize that the Constitution of the United States has been one of the greatest human rights legislation in history: an exemplary manuscript that gives power to the people over the government or corporations. It has led a nation into freedom and prosperity; while forcing its government and its branches to remain faithful to its citizens. We have to repeat this: we need to understand that the Constitution as a whole is exactly what gave rise to the greatness, freedom and prosperity of not only America, but many other nations who have mimicked it as an example. The Second Amendment: "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 Founding Fathers were very clear about this: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples" liberty teeth and keystone under independence" From the hour the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable"The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference " they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." " George Washington" Founding Father and the 1st President of the United States) "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves" and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms" The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." " Richard Henry Lee " American Revolutionary Led the American Declaration of Independence Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American " The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." " Tench Coxe, 1788. "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." " James Madison " (Founding Father and the 4th President of the United States) 7. Guns Save Numerous Lives by Far and Large Self-defense is the very basic right of each and every individual, not just in the US, but around the world people should be able to protect themselves and their families. It is easy to see the lives supposedly lost to "bad guns" through the corporate controlled and biased media, but do we ever see thousands of other lives saved by firearm ownership? No, because it supports gun ownership, something liberals and enemy"s, both foreign and domestic, don"t want to let people know about! Pearl High School, Mississippi: This incident began the morning of Oct. 1, 1997, when 16-year-old student Luke Windham entered the school with a rifle. Wearing only an orange jumpsuit and a trench coat and making no effort to hide his weapon, he initially entered the school and shot and killed two students, injuring seven others. He was stopped by assistant principal Joel Myrick, who retrieved a .45 cal. handgun from the glove box of his truck, stopped him. "I"ve always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick at the time, who went on to become principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss. Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. "Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead," " columnist Larry Elder wrote in July, following the shooting tragedy at the premier of the latest Batman movie in Aurora, Colo. "We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year," " Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, a public policy expert at the University of California-Los Angeles. "We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as two-and-a-half or three million. We don"t know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it"s not a trivial number." It is reported that more than 200,000 women use guns in the US for protections from rappers, robbers and thugs. Now the question is this: are we going to take that away from the bit by bit, bullet by bullet through restrictions and legislation after legislation? 6. Banning Guns Does Not Mean Criminals Won"t Get Them "If guns are outlawed only outlawed will have guns" It is foolish to assume that any type of gun control proposition would mean criminals would turn their guns in or would not access guns. As a matter of fact they will more easily monopolize guns in a nation where guns were previously an individual right; gun sales and trafficking will most assuredly become easier only for criminals. Again, historical examples in banning drugs and alcohol point to this very fact. Simply look at the mess the "War on Drugs" has become in America. Gun control only means that the guns will be taken out of the hands of million law-abiding American, most of whom use them for protection, most of whom have never even shot a live target, never mind a human, and they go right into the hands of the criminals. While criminals will never turn their guns in, it is always the regular citizenry who will be left defenseless. For example Mexico imposes some of the most strictest gun control laws, yet over 50,000 people die in the hands of criminal on yearly basis. Another great example is the gun control laws introduced in Australia, which caused a massive spike in nearly every crime rate category. 5. Switzerland: A Low Crime, High Gun Ownership Modern Country The gun example of the country of Switzerland is so great and telling that we had to make it as a single point in our top 10 gun freedom list. The Swiss government not only does NOT impose any gun restrictions on their population but they literary demands that every household have a gun. And did you know that the Swiss government actually trains every adult on guns when they purchase a weapon. So how do crime rates fair in Switzerland? With all the guns available in the hands the Swiss people and based on the points above it should be an easy guess. Switzerland is the safest country in the modern world; one of the safest in the world. 4. Knives and Bats Kill More People: Guns are also Inanimate Objects It is yet another evidence against any gun control laws that bats, knives and other inanimate objects are the cause for the loss of many more lives than the use of guns. Therefore it is absolutely irrational to impose any type of gun control on the population. Statistically Americans are more likely to be killed by a baseball bat than a rifle. But that is besides the point that an inanimate object does not kill, it is a criminal that kills. "To blame a gun for man"s decision is to foolishly attribute free will to an inanimate object." 3. Dangerous Psychiatric Drugs Not the Inanimate Guns In almost every shooting there has been another undeniable trend; every single one of the recent crazed shooters have been one some sort of psychiatric mind altering drugs promoted and sponsored by the corrupt media. This trend is most noticeable in the Aurora massacre, Colorado and Sandy Hook shooting. It is astonishing how the corporate media quickly points figures at the guns but not the crazed individuals who has been having his brained chewed by these dangerous drugs, which most TV stations proudly sponsor. Nearly every major school shooter has been on prescriptions drugs! 2. Governments Cannot Help the Victims Many still are under the delusion that if guns are confiscated government will protect them against criminals. Again, case after case historically we have witnessed that not to be true. When a government strips the regular citizenry from their right to defend themselves, they will almost always put innocents directly into the lion"s den;- defenseless. Most 911 emergency calls are responded no quicker than 5 minutes. An insane criminal (on dangerous anti-represented and other mental drugs of course) in most cases will have finished his dirty act in less than a minute, or at least caused enough damage to make it an unfortunate tragedy. 1. Defense against a Tyrannical Government One of the greatest and most widely misunderstood facts about the Second Amendment is that some still tend to think that it was including for "hunting". The Second Amendment was NOT put in the Bill of Rights for hunting!; the Second Amendment gives the regular citizenry the right to defend themselves, against thugs and criminals but more importantly it was put firmly in place by the wise founding fathers to protect the people against the rise of any tyrannical government; whether a single dictator, a government tainted by lobbyists, a government directed by corporate interest of banks and financiers. It is important to realize that every tyrant in our recent history aimed to Recent history is filled with many chilling examples over and over again; where they take guns, state imposed tyranny brews shortly. Millions of innocent people have fall prey to their government, in the biggest cause of human lives called Democide. "In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. "In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians under Turkish rule, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. "In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million innocent Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. "In 1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated "In 1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. "In 1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. "In 1956 Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. "Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. Top 6 Quotes " What did Tyrannical Dictators and Governments Have Said about Guns? "Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don"t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" " Joseph Stalin " Russian Dictator "Death solves all problems. No man, no problem" " Joseph Stalin "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." " Adolf Hitler "Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew"s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in "1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of "1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years." " 1938 Nazi Law (Regulations Against Jews" Possession of Weapons) "Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."." - Mao " Communist Chinese Dictator "For the first time in history does a nation have complete gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient. The world will follow our lead in the future." " Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935, in address to the Reichstag Top 10 Quotes " What Did American Patriots Say about Guns and Liberty? 10. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." " Patrick Henry" Founding Father 9. "The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." " Senator Hubert Humphrey 8. "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property" Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Payne- (American Revolutionary) 7. "It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government" " Thomas Payne- (American Revolutionary) 6. "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference " they deserve a place of honor with all that"s good." " George Washington" Founding Father and the 1st President of the United States) 5. "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them"" " Richard Henry Lee" American Revolutionary who Led the American Declaration of Independence 4. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."- Thomas Jefferson" (Founding Father and 3rd President of the United States) 3. "And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms "."- Thomas Jefferson" (Founding Father and 3rd President of the United States) 2. "To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them"" " George Mason" (Founding Father of the United States " Most influential in institution of the Bill of Rights) 1. "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take It." "Thomas Jefferson" (Founding Father and the 3rd President of the United States) The choice is clear here; It is FREEDOM or TYRANNY and disarmament is the first step towards tyranny " a recipe for disarmament of the citizens and/or their future children. If the Americans to support the rest of their freedoms they have to stand by and protect their second amendment, even if you as an individual personally does not like guns or does not like to be around them. Sources: http://infowars.com... http://NaturalNews.com... http://fbi.gov...

positive: July Tournament C1) SuicidesA) Gun StorageHarvard Injury Control Research Center analyzed a number of national random-digit dial telephone surveys and found that, “Many gun owners report storing their guns loaded and unlocked. Gun training is often associated with an increased likelihood of storing firearms in this manner.” And that, “Some 400 parents with firearms in the home responded to questions about firearms storage. Over 20% of parents had a loaded firearm and 8% stored at least one firearm loaded and unlocked. Households with teenagers were somewhat more likely to store firearms unsafely.”(http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...)In, “a national random telephone survey of 2,770 adults… of the 392 respondents who had at least one child and one firearm in the home, 22 percent had a loaded gun, 32 percent had an unlocked gun and 8 percent had a gun stored loaded and unlocked.”http://archive.sph.harvard.edu...“More than 1.6 million U.S. children live in homes with firearms that are stored loaded and unlocked. Because the guns used in youth suicides and unintentional injuries primarily come from victims’ homes, storage practices that allow for easy access to a firearm pose a threat to the safety of young people.”(http://archive.sph.harvard.edu...)Via the inability to store firearms properly; a teenager going through the extremely difficult time of adolescence has easy access to a weapon that they should not have. Whether that means that they bring it to school to show off to friends, to kill numerous classmates, or to kill themselves. Now while a substantial amount of teenagers wouldn’t take advantage of this easy access for harmful uses, the fact that any amount could is too many.This easy access to firearms poses many other problems as well. Anyone with a mental disability, or falsely identifying a friend/family as an intruder, or someone who is drunk, someone who is on drugs (not in their right mind), a marital fight, a toddler or young child mistaking it for a toy, etc. could all end in an unwanted death.This ease of access to firearms spawns more homicides, more suicides, more accidental shootings, and more deaths.B) Firearms & SuicideI.“Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001. States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment…states with more guns had higher rates of suicide.” (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...) Owning a gun is a dangerous possession to have; you will actually be three times more likely to choose to commit suicide than someone who doesn’t own a gun. (http://www.thedailybeast.com...)II.“In 2010, 38,364 people killed themselves. In more than half of these cases, they used firearms. Indeed, more people in this country kill themselves with guns than with all other intentional means combined, including hanging, poisoning or overdose, jumping, or cutting. Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal. About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death.”(http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...)What we can draw from the evidence is two things:(1) Most suicides are done by firearms.(2) Suicide by firearm is the most lethal method as 85% end in death.Now while a ban on firearms will not decrease the amount of people that will commit suicide, it will save lives.Poison:For every successful suicide by poison, there are 42 attempted suicides by poison. That’s a 2.38% fatality rate.(http://lostallhope.com...)Cutting Wrists/Arms/Legs:A 6% fatality rate, for around every 17 attempts, only 1 succeeds.(http://lostallhope.com...)Overdose on Drugs:A 12.3% fatality rate, for every 8 attempts, only one succeeds.(http://lostallhope.com...)Hanging:75% fatality rate, for every 4 attempts, 3 succeed.(http://www.medscape.com...)If someone fails to commit suicide, they are rushed to a hospital where they are treated for their injuries. Then they are taken to get treatment to help their depression, this treatment works 80-90% of the time and the victim does not commit suicide again.(http://www.save.org...)“Most suicide attempts do not result in death. Many of these attempts are done in a way that makes rescue possible. These attempts are often a cry for help."(http://www.nlm.nih.gov...)Many people who commit suicide don’t actually want to die; they just want help with their problem. Having a suicide attempt less likely to be successful gives the victim the opportunity to seek help, fix their problem, and save their life. A ban on guns fixes this issue.C2) Firearm Accidents"In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings…American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries… About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds…”(http://www.thedailybeast.com...)Firearms are extremely deadly weapons; therefore extreme caution and responsibility are necessary when handling them. Despite the aggressive training required to get a license;“Take a 14-hour course (8 hours classroom, 6 hours range) in the carrying and use of firearms given by a Bureau- certified firearms training instructor at a Bureau certified training facility… Pass the written and range exams given at the end of the course”(http://www.bsis.ca.gov...)This goes to show that despite intensive training measures, gun accidents still occur.Firearm accidents are also much more likely to occur than other harmful accidents. For example, poison containers come with lids that are generally more difficult to remove and knives require very solid pressure in certain areas on the body to be fatal, all a gun requires is a pull of the trigger.Gun accidents are the worst kind of death; they are senseless, completely devoid of purpose. They leave the person who committed the act with a terrible sense of guilt that stays with them for the rest of their life.With gun accidents sending 200 people to the emergency room every day, and thousands of people with gunshot wounds every year, we have to realize that guns are not worth the risk.C3) HomicideA)“Handgun purchase was more common among persons dying from… or homicide (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.7), and particularly among those dying from… or gun homicide (OR 3.3; 95% CI 2.1 to 5.3), than among controls. No such differences were seen for non-gun suicide or homicide… Handgun purchasers accounted for less than 1% of the study population but 2.4% of gun homicides, 14.2% of gun suicides, and 16.7% of unintentional gun deaths.”The study concluded that; “Among adults who died in California in 1998, those dying from violence were more likely than those dying from non-injury causes to have purchased a handgun…legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death”(http://injuryprevention.bmj.com...)Evidence shows that the act of purchasing a handgun significantly increases your chances of a violent death. These statistics match what you would expect from a society where guns are legal. If someone is wielding a gun against an attacker who just wants to steal some items from their home, they are placing both themselves and the attacker at greater risk of death in the process.B)“Every day in the U.S., an average of 289 people are shot. Eighty-six of them die: 30 are murdered, 53 kill themselves, two die accidentally, and one is shot in a police intervention.”(http://usnews.nbcnews.com...)Of the 12, 765 murders in 2012; 8,855 of them were performed with guns. That’s 69.4% of all murders performed with a firearm.(http://www.infoplease.com...)If guns are banned, a murderer will have to use some other type of weapon that is less effective than a gun would be. A ban on guns would lower the effectiveness of murders and save the lives of murder victims.Conclusion:The United States should enact a nation-wide ban on all firearms to; reduce suicide rates, reduce deaths from accidents, and reduce homicide rates.

positive: Gun Control Okay, so this was a mistake clicking on because I didn't read it all the way through. So this is not my personal opinion, but I don't want to leave you hanging so I'll argue the other side.Gun control doesn't deter crime, gun ownership does.A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent." A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law… Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'" Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: "every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens. 57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people." The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny." Alex Jones, radio host, in a Jan 7, 2013 interview with Piers Morgan, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs… 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns.According to the CDC's "Leading Causes of Death Reports," between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths. Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012.More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths.95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, "Gun education is the best way to save young lives." The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to "teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children… Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they're [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation—not violence." Strict gun control laws do not work in Mexico, and will not work in the United States. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.https://gun-control.procon.org... is where all of these arguments are from. My own input will probably come in next round.

positive: Gun Control Washington DC proves that handgun bans are effective in preventing homicides and suicides The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a "smoking gun" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion," April 9, Lexis] The D.C. law banning the purchase, sale, transfer or possession of handguns by civilians was enacted in 1976. In 1991, a group of researchers from the University of Maryland published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that examined the effect of the law on the frequency of homicides and suicides by looking at the period 1968 through 1987. The study concluded there was a "prompt decline" in homicides and suicides by firearms in D.C. not replicated in adjacent Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions without a handgun law. The data suggested that, after the law was enacted, an average of 47 deaths per year were prevented in D.C. Handgun bans are enforceable Leftwich, senior counsel of Legal Community Against Violence, 2006 [Juliet A., Pro-Gun Logic Is Wrong on the Facts, Sept 22, http://www.lcav.org...] Kates is also wrong when he claims that laws restricting access to firearms in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom are "unenforceable." On the contrary, it is because these laws have been so effectively enforced that gun-related death rates in those nations pale compared to those in the U.S. According to "The Global Gun Epidemic: From Saturday Night Specials to AK-47s" (2006), the 2001/2002 rates of firearm death per 100,000 for the countries in question are as follows: U.S.: 10.27; Canada: 2.6; Australia: 1.68; and England/Wales: .38. What this means is that I have evidence on gun control and you don't, shows it is enforceable and I already talked of the impact in my last post. All of your arguements fall, because I have proven gun control can work and be enforcable. I'm am not basing it on assumption either gun control leads to less guns in the hands of people, leads to less harm to people. States with the greatest number of guns in the home also have the highest rates of homicide, a new study finds. The study, in the February issue of Social Science and Medicine, looked at gun ownership in all 50 states and then compared the results with the number of people killed over a three-year period. The research, the authors said, 'suggests that household firearms are a direct and an indirect source of firearms used to kill Americans both in their homes and on the streets.' The researchers, led by Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health, drew on data gathered by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2001, the agency surveyed more than 200,000 people and asked them, among other questions, whether they had a gun in or near the home. In states in the highest quarter of gun ownership, the study found, the overall homicide rate was 60 percent higher than in states in the lowest quarter. The rate of homicides involving guns was more than twice as high. Although homicide rates may not rise – private handgun ownership increases suicide rates and accidental shootings which are not represented in homicide statistics The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a "smoking gun" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion," April 9, Lexis] Miami Police Chief John Timoney, whose reign as top cop in Philadelphia brought a reduction in homicides to below 400 for the first time in a decade, said that if the decision overturning the handgun ban is affirmed, there is likely to be a rise in the number of suicides and accidental shootings. "And it won't necessarily be reflected in the homicide rate, because suicides and not-fatal shootings won't show up in those statistics," Timoney said. "You'll have an increase in those shootings . . . and opponents [of the ban] will say that the homicide rate didn't rise." Statistics Report 49, no. 8 (2001): 68. Myron Boor, "Methods of Suicide and Implications for Suicide Prevention," Journal of Clinical Psychology 37, (January 1981): 70-75. For all our fear and fascination with guns and homicide, the fact remains that most firearm deaths in America are not the result of homicide (10,828 for 1999), but suicide (16,599 for 1999). It is estimated that only 10 percent of suicides by firearms are committed with firearms purchased specifically for the act. Gun owners are more likely to commit suicide than non-gun owners Duggan, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland, 2003 [Mark, "Guns and Suicide," in Evaluating Gun Policy etd by Jens Ludwig and Philip J Cook, p 65] Individuals who own a gun are more likely to commit suicide than are other individuals. The results presented in this chapter demonstrate that much of the relationship between state-level gun ownership and suicide rates seems driven by a positive correlation between suicidal tendencies and gun ownership. The finding that the male-female suicide ratio is significantly greater in places with more gun ownership suggests that instrumentality effects may also partially explain this relationship, though one cannot rule out the hypothesis that gender-specific suicidal tendencies vary with the availability of guns. Finally, it appears that reductions in gun ownership have not been the driving force behind the fall in the suicide rate. Firearm-related domestic violence has disproportionately bad effects upon children Arthur Kellermann, MD, MPH, et al., "Firearms and Family Violence," Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 17 (August 1999): 699-716, citing Ernest N. Jouriles et al., "Knives, Guns, and Interparent Violence: Relations with Child Behavior Problems," Journal of Family Psychology 12, no. 2 (1998): 178-194. The effects of firearm-related domestic violence last long beyond the actual crime. In a study on child witnesses of marital violence, the authors noted that children who observed incidents of domestic violence involving the use or threat of a firearm exhibited higher levels of behavior problems than children who did not. Firearm ownership negatively and disproportionately affects women James E. Bailey, MD, MPH, et al., "Risk Factors for Violence Death of Women in the Home," Archives of Internal Medicine 157, no. 7 (1997): 777-782. A 1997 study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times. The increased risk of homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. Empirical evidence supports the conclusion that fewer guns mean fewer deaths Leftwich, senior counsel of Legal Community Against Violence, 2006 [Juliet A., Pro-Gun Logic Is Wrong on the Facts, Sept 22, http://www.lcav.org...] Kates rejects the "quasi-religious belief that more guns (particularly handguns) mean more violence and death, and, concomitantly, fewer guns mean fewer deaths." Yet this is precisely what the empirical evidence shows, as discussed by David Hemenway, director of Harvard's Injury Control Research Center, in his book "Private Guns, Public Health" (2004). Numerous studies have found that having a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of unintentional firearm injury, suicide and homicide. Thus gun control leads to less guns, equals less death, meaning even suicide rates equal out gun violence, We need to cut that death down. Also I also have proven that gun ownership leads to a negative effect on women and children. Gun control works, and please, understand me, don't just base, a vote for the neg is a vote for more gun deaths and that is not safe to me.

positive: Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. 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...

positive: Gun Control Please forgive that my posts are not cleanly formatted. I am using my cell phone as my laptop is no longer functional. I will begin my argument by showing that American courts have repeatedly supported the rights of an individual to keep and bear arms. All of these cases should be viewed as an extension of the Second Amendment. The cases I am referring to are as follows: -Presser V. State of Illinois (1886) *1 "But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security." Miller V. United States (1939) *2 "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." While this case appears to be contrary to my side of the debate, I would like to highlight two portions of the case. 1.) The milita is defined as all males physically capable of acting for the common defense. As women are a significant portion of todays armed forces and allowed to serve in a combat role, a modern militia would imply virtually everyone. 2.) "When called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Thus supporting private civilian ownership of modern firearms. In regards to the aspect of the case regarding the legality of a sawn off shotgun, I wish to remind you that they are legal with the proper process and tax stamp as outlined in the gun control act of 1968. Heller V. District of Columbia (2008) *3 "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." 2. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court"s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller"s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." Pp. 54""56. -Peruta V. City of San Diego (2013) (posting a summary on this one as it does a good enough job explaining) *4 Plaintiffs filed suit challenging California's concealed handgun laws. At issue was whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen had a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. The court concluded that the right to bear arms included the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home and that carrying weapons for the lawful purpose of self defense was a central component of the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment required that the state permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home. The California scheme did not allow the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Because the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits eschewed history and tradition in their analysis of the constitutionality of such regulations, the court found their approaches unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because the County's "good cause" permitting requirement impermissibly infringed on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense. On to a rebuttal. You stated that an AK-47 in a typical American household was excessive. Current estimates put the number of modern sporting rifles (semi-automatic, detachable box magazine) in America at somewhere around 30 million. Meaning that they currently are in fact typical in an American household. With the population at somewhere around 315 million, that is a MSR in one in every ten homes. Which is unquestionably "in common use." According to FBI homicide statistics *5 from 2011, only 323 murders were committed using rifles in that year. For comparison, on average 77 people per year choke to death on hot dogs. By the numbers... an assault rifle is only 4x more likely to kill you than a hot dog. In regards to- "A well regulated mob, being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear any arms at all, shall never be denied." I will not deny that there are those on BOTH sides who currently believe that is the case. I say on both sides due to the large number of liberals who are completely ignorant of past/current gun control legislation and believe fully automatic weapons are readily available for anyone at anytime. Which is just not the case. "It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens." [2] "Not all Americans are law-abiding. Due to the lack of sophisticated gun control, the crime rate in the United States has increased by a considerable amount." It is exactly because not all Americans are law abiding that the right to keep and more importantly bear arms is an essential right. Studies continually find that citizens with permits to carry a concealed weapon are responsible for a disproportionately LOW amount of crime. In response to your statement that assault rifles should only be owned by law enforcement and military members, nearly half of the owners of MSR's are present or former military/LE. I would argue that just as congress shall enact no law that does not equally apply to them as it does to civilians; gun control should not restrict any firearm from a civilian while permitting a police officer have it. I believe the opposite holds true as well. Not really a point of rebuttal, but you are correct in saying that a self defense weapon should be a pistol and maybe a shotgun. This is due to the over penetration which would result from using a rifle caliber. Over penetration is also the reason nearly all self defense rounds are hollow points. I wouldn't choose a shotgun simply because I can't control where that shot will go. Then again, a shotgun does have the advantage that you probably won't have to shoot after you pump. In regard to your equations which are a vast oversimplification of a larger problem... I present to you an excerpt from a harvard study on that exact topic. *6 ""the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world." In regards to your closing statement, specifically: "the TEA Party members especially - claim they want to take their guns away. These misinterpretations of the facts must end." I wish to direct you to look into what is currently happening in New York and Connecticut. Basically that is exactly what is happening. In a display of patriotism and testicular fortitude, Connecticut MSR owners have overwhelmingly ignored the mandated registration. Leaving gun control proponents in an interesting situation... how do you respond when you've just turned potentially as many as 100k citizens into felons? Do you act with force against previously law abiding citizens? Locking them up is certainly not an option as it would cost more than the state earns annually. They are left with a choice between not enforcing it/repealing it or sending SWAT teams against a significant portion of their population. Which would most certainly do more harm than maintaining the status quo. To the gun owners of Connecticut- Stand strong. Molon Labe. *1 https://supreme.justia.com... *2 http://www.law.cornell.edu... *3 http://supreme.justia.com... *4 http://law.justia.com... *5 http://www.fbi.gov... *6 http://www.bostonmagazine.com...

positive: We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict * Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2 * Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3 * As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4 * Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5 * Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7 * Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials." B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime * Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9 * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed: * States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11 * Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12 * Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14 * Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder. 1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin. 2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15 2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois. 3Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185. 4Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185. 5 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org... on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183. 6Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148. 7George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93. 8Id. at 164, 185. 9Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, "Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense," The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 -- a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime." br>10 One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000). 11Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." 12Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com.... Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states. 13Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002). 14Florida's murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79. 15 John R. Lott, Jr., "Right to carry would disprove horror stories," Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003). 16Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15. 17Compare Kleck, "Crime Control," at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, "Month to Month Statistics: 1991." (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March - October.) 18Kleck, Point Blank, at 140. 19Kleck, "Crime Control," at 13. 20U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31. 21U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research I will reply to your stats next round

positive: should all guns be banned Response to Harm 1: Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., gun rights activist, stated, "The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them." According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics May 2013 report, 37.4% of state prison inmates who "used, carried, or possessed a firearm when they committed the crime for which they were serving a prison sentence" obtained the gun from a family member or friend. Despite Chicago's ban on gun shops, shooting ranges, assault weapons, and high capacity magazines, in 2014 Chicago had 2,089 shooting victims including at least 390 murders. Approximately 50,000 guns were recovered by police in Chicago between 2001 and Mar. 2012. The guns came from all 50 states, and more than half came from outside of Illinois. Response to Harm 2: More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns. According to the CDC's "Leading Causes of Death Reports," between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths. Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012. Response to Harm 3: According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: "every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. Response to your plan: There are a couple of problems with your plan. The Second Amendment was made to protect the civilians from a corrupt or unfair government, the colonists were running from the British government, fought a war, and made the Constitution of United States of America to protect themselves. The fact that you say that a government could pass a law, moreover make THREATS, is the exact reason the Second Amendment was made. America is a democratic, not a fascist, country; a law where police officers could search your house without a warrant and at any time would never pass. Furthermore, the punishments and the law itself are so extreme that it wouldn't be surprising if there a second civil war happens in return. Response to Advantage 1: A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent." A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law" Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'" Response to Advantage 2: 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres.The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, "Gun education is the best way to save young lives." The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to "teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children" Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they're [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation"not violence." Response to Advantage 3: Look to "Response to Harm 3:" I stated that civilians would not feel safe and that it denies civilians a RIGHT to self-defense. Source: https://gun-control.procon.org...

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

positive: Banning guns I believe that guns should be banned. You may say that guns are not all harmful and can do good things like hunting. However, Only 4. 2 % hunt and there are many farms that can provide us meat. Also, The shooting test, Written test, Background checks, Mental health screening, And interviews with family members may not help because people could suddenly become different and become assassins. Thank you.

positive: CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at Colleges/Universities Imminent threatIn round 2, Pro said, "Its fine whether a univerisity chooses to ban guns. If the educators feel there isn't an immenent threat, then there is no reason for students and staff to carry guns."But then, in the next round he argues "How are students supposed to get a warning of a danger? If a criminal brings in a gun into campus, they only have several minutes to react. They aren't given a 24 hours notice."He's contradicting himself. If educators feel that there isn't an imminent threat, then they're fine to ban guns. That means that students would all be on campus unarmed. If there suddenly WAS an imminent threat, it wouldn't make sense for everyone to go home or to a gun shop in town, arm themselves and come back. Instead, they should just go home period. A college isn't a war zone. Law enforcement professionals should deal with the imminent threat.Low rates of crime on campusPro has cut and pasted a list of incidents where students use guns to threaten, injure and kill people. None of those incidents happened on campus and so they are irrelevant to the current topic. For instance, people are far less likely to get caught up in road rage on a college campus than they would be on, say, a highway.Pro's own source acknowledges that there is a far lower rate of crime on college campuses than in the rest of the United States (1). Therefore, it makes no sense to use off campus crime as an example of what could happen on campus.Legal ownersIt's true that it would be perfect if we could ban all guns from college campuses, and Pro is right that sometimes people will still smuggle in guns even when there is a ban. Unfortunately, illegal activity will occur sometimes. Passing legislation that forces universities to allow permit-holders to bring guns onto campus will do nothing to prevent illegal guns either. It will just increase the total number of weapons on campus.Among the examples that Pro cut-and-pasted, there was one where students "overwhelmed a man and took away his firearm". That could happen, presumably, to any of the permit-holding gun-weilding students too: they could be overwhelmed and their firearm taken away. SummaryMost college students and staff do not want guns on campus. We know this because in states where colleges can make their own choice in the matter, they overwhelmingly choose to ban guns on campus. Even Pro agrees that this is the right thing for them to do when there is no imminent threat, and his own sources agree that campuses have relatively low rates of crime. Pro has given no reason to depart from the status quo.Thank you tajshar2k for this debate. (1) http://concealedcampus.org...;

positive: Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Open carry deters; most criminals are rational.

positive: Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms. 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.

positive: Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws One can reveal a concealed gun in order to deter a criminal.

positive: Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime "If I see any semantics on this point you automatically lose.If there is any semantics with the title, you automatically lose.If you use semantics on the following definition, or this sentence, you lose:"Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity."http://en.wikipedia.org......The definition on conceal carry handgun laws is common knowledge, so no trolling."My opponent is clearly opposed to semantics, a sentiment I share. He has, however, failed to define an important term in this round: "concealed carry handgun laws." He 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."No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FFNo trolling, sorry imabench ;) [or the real trolls] If you do auto FF1st round acceptance, if you fail to do this I get conduct.1st round definitions, rule making (by instigator) and other things, no arguments."I agree to abide by these rules."Violent crime: rape, murder, assault, robberyBOP even.I need to prove 3/4 of the things above, and that definition expanded as long as it is actually considered violent crime.Neither side must prove 100% decrease or increase. But voters, look in who makes it more convincing.Good luck!!"I also accept these definitions and stipulations, and wish my opponent the best of luck.I will now discuss the proposition itself: that concealed carry handgun laws (as previously defined) reduce violent crime.My opponent's support for this is rather brief and lacking in substance. I will take the time to refute it before continuing on to my case. His argument is as follows:"I am NOT saying the law itself reduces crime, but its outcome does. The reasoning here is clear."This argument is a non sequitur, as the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The first premise in his argument is that "the law does not reduce crime (A)". I entirely agree with this, as laws in and of themselves are powerless. It is the enforcement of the law, not the law itself, that determines the outcome or effect of said law. However, the conclusion, "the outcome of concealed carry handgun laws reduces violent crime (C)", does not follow from premise (A). This is because my opponent is assuming the second premise - that "concealed carry handgun laws will be successfully enforced (B)". This premise, unlike premise (A), is woefully false. It is naive to assume that just because concealed carry handgun laws are enacted, we will be able to enforce them by ensuring that nobody carries a handgun. Admittedly, lawful citizens who wish to carry a handgun will be refused the opportunity to do so, but the illegal gun trade affords criminals the opportunity to acquire weapons (including handguns) and proceed to carry them concealed. Because the illegal gun trade and the concealed carry of a small handgun are both impossible to enforce completely, the outcome of concealed carry handgun laws will not match up to their intent. While the intent is noble - to eradicate handguns from the streets completely - the enforcement of concealed carry laws cannot ensure that criminals do not carry concealed handguns.I will now discuss my case, which is composed of 4 contentions:Contention 1: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws increase violent crime.I support this contention with historical, empirical data."During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower." [1]"In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales. ...the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban." [1]"In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration. ...Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect." [1]Contention 2: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws are Unconstitutional.The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution provides that "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." Clearly, by their very nature, concealed carry handgun laws infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because these laws limit citizens' access to handguns. This position is supported by the Supreme Court, which struck both the DC and Chicago handgun bans on grounds of Constitutionality.Contention 3: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws Protect the Innocent.While one may think that concealed carry laws remove guns and thereby protect the innocent from harm, the opposite is true. As I discussed in my refutation of my opponent's argument, the enforcement gap essentially disarms the law-abiding citizens while leaving the criminals unaffected. The result is a world where armed criminals can shoot and kill unarmed and helpless citizens. This contention is supported by a poll done on felons in the United States:"A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found: • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"" [1]As you can see, handguns can aid innocent people by giving them protection from armed (or unarmed) criminals.Contention 4: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws Weaken the United States.We see this in two points:Point A: Handguns (and other guns) preserve American accountability.This nation was founded on the principle that government is evil and must be held in check by the people. By limiting access to handguns, concealed carry laws forfeit the people's ability to protect themselves from a potentially oppresive government.Point B: Handguns (and other guns) preserve American strength.The US has 3 million military personnel, half of which are active. But even this number pales in comparison to the over-300-million people in the United States. One of the reasons why the 2nd amendment was drafted was to protect America from foreign invasion and by restricting access to handguns, my opponent would decrease the capabilities of America's most reliable and most important defense: its people.In light of this, I urge a CON ballot and eagerly await my opponent's response.[1]"Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 1/22/12. http://justfacts.com...;

negative: Obesity is a public health issue . All around the world, obesity has become a serious threat to public health. And the problem starts early on. In the US, for example, 17% of youth are obese4. Obesity itself has many consequences; most obviously on health such as increasing the risk of numerous diseases like heart disease, there are however economic costs both for treatment of these diseases, lost working days and due to less obvious costs such safety on transport and its resulting fuel cost.[1] Tackling obesity is therefore well within the purview of government policy. A failure to act might seriously affect the economic productivity of the nation, and even bankrupt healthcare systems[2]. A measure like the toy ban would be a first step to tackling the problem at the root, preventing children from growing up into obese adults.   [1] Zahn, Theron, “Obesity epidemic forcing ferries to lighten their loads”, seattlepi, 20 December 2011, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Obesity-epidemic-forcing-fer... [2] “Obesity ‘could bankrupt the NHS’”. BBC. 15 December 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180991.stm

negative: Gun Control Although the government is leaning towards stricter gun control to decrease armed criminal activity, I believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed because it is unconstitutional, it will backfire and promote criminal activity as a whole, and criminals will always find a way to obtain guns.

negative: should kids under 18 have a gun if kids are able to Handel a gun they should be able to Cary one

negative: Curb childhood Obesity for USA I would like to start my debate off with some statistics from: "http://www.annecollins.com...; USA Obesity Rates Reach Epidemic Proportions >more than a third of American children, aged between six and nineteen are either overweight, or at risk of becoming obese >58 Million Overweight; 40 Million Obese; 3 Million morbidly Obese >Eight out of ten over 25 is Overweight >78% of American's not meeting basic activity level recommendations Obesity Related Diseases >80% of type II diabetes related to obesity >70% of Cardiovascular disease related to obesity >42% breast and colon cancer diagnosed among obese individuals >30% of gall bladder surgery related to obesity >26% of obese people having high blood pressure Childhood Obesity Running Out of Control >New study suggests one in four overweight children is already showing early signs of type II diabetes (impaired glucose intolerance) >Between 8% - 45% of newly diagnosed cases of childhood diabetes are type II, associated with obesity. >Of Children diagnosed with Type II diabetes, 85% are obese >60% already have one risk factor for heart disease -Wellness International Network Ltd. web.winltd.com The United States of America Is the fattest country in the world, and obesity is becoming a rising epidemic. Children need to be more involved in school activities. and need to eat right to stay healthy. Parents contribute to this rise in weight, they should control what their children eat, not vice versa. This increase in School activities would cost millions of dollars, but isn't it worth it for protecting our youth? Lunch programs are being paid by Farmers and big companies to provide their products in school. Also, companies are making millions by selling food to children that are high in saturated fats and trans fat which cause major health problems in children. therefore, be it resolved, >that the National School Lunch program should shift it's focus from aiding farmers to providing a nutritious lunch for students. therefore be it resolved. >That commercials should exlude characters (ex.Lucky Charm) that seem appealing to youngsters >That schools should include more activities and teach children that these foods are bad for them, and should be taken in small quantities.

negative: Should Americans get help beating obesity. If you have seen documentaries such as FED UP then you know that it is not only just a genetic problem. Children are growing up with their staple food being highly processed, high in fat and high in sugar. What choice do they have if that is all they are being shown and fed since they open their eyes? I am not defending the fact that it is alright for them to be obese but society should and could be doing a lot more such as creating awareness about healthy eating, good food practices and exercise. People need to intervene. In the documentary FED UP a bill was trying to be passed to stop unhealthy food being served however someone prevented pizza from falling under this bill because it contained tomato sauce which to some company counted as a vegetable. How much more ridiculous can it get? Not as ridiculous as the fact that heart disease is the number one biggest killer in the world and obesity the leading cause. Companies like this are controlling what our children eat and it can be clearly seen that they don't care about what happens to them. Obesity is a disease . It is a social responsibility that we help our next generation free themselves from the cycle To your point about 'Pro-fat' what really do you mean when you say people don't want to see reality? The reality that they see is a very different reality we see which is, once again, why they need help to be able to see what is right and make the suitable change

negative: Conceal carry laws reduce crime I have a BOP to prove conceal carry laws reduce crime, 50% chance or more. My opponent negates this. =note I know people want to debate me, challenge me now if you are one of those people= =Definitions= "Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... ---> Rules try to stay away from semantics, NO SEMANTICS with the resolution. None of the [literal] law actually lowers crime. I argue, though, that when these laws are passed, there is a correlation with decreased crime. No trolling, aka no imabench status. . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... And any other versions of obvious trolling. ok, basically a civil real debate.

negative: Everyone over 21 has the right to have a firearm. 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.

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

negative: On Campus Concealed Carry This is a redo of a debate which wasn't finished due to schedule conflicts. I apologize for having waited too long to reissue the debate but I haven't had access to my laptop. As agreed we will be copying and pasting our previous arguments until we come to the new round.

negative: Marijuana should be legalized in the United States. Individuals should have the right to use marijuana legally in the United States.

negative: On Campus Concealed Carry I agree to everything that my opponent has mentioned in his challenging statement. Please enjoy the debate!

negative: America should require gun ownership and all citizens should be part of a national militia. 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.

negative: On Campus Concealed Carry Please do not vote on this debate. My opponent and I have agreed to repost it for voting soon.

negative: Gun Rights I believe any American who does not have a mental illness, Or a criminal background should have a right to a firearm. I also believe that only automatic guns should be taken off the market and there should not be a national gun registry. Please feel free to try and change my mind. I also ask of the judges to be open minded and unbiased in their voting.

negative: Concealed carry laws decrease crime I accept this challenge. I would like my opponent to clarify the round structure in the next round, if possible. That is all for now.Good luck!

negative: Firearms should be heavily regulated by the government. I believe firearms should be always under regulation by the government. I welcome you to debate me on this, and maybe even change my mind. Rounds: 1. Acceptance. Don't present arguments in the first round. 2. Arguments. Con can't rebuttal Pro. 3. Rebuttal and more arguments. The motion does not apply exclusively to the USA. The motion does not apply to impotent/inactive firearms, such as ones kept for souvenirs (e.g. ones that are incapable of shooting). Definitions: From Merriam-Webster: Firearm- "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder "usually used of small arms". Regulate- "a: to govern or direct according to rule b (1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2): to make regulations for or concerning".

negative: THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom. This is for friendly debate practice and constructive criticism is much appreciated.

negative: Concealed Carry (CCW) Laws Reduce Crime I accept. This is my first debate against someone of your notoriety. I hope I will be able to provide a challenge. Good luck Pro, and good luck to myself as well. I'll probably need it more than you do.

negative: Do you think liberal gun laws are promoting increasing crime rates in US US govt should come up with better and strict gun control laws./ Gun laws in the United States regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition. State laws vary, and are independent of existing federal firearms laws, although they are sometimes broader or more limited in scope than the federal laws. For instance, some US states have created assault weapon bans that are similar to the expired federal assault weapons ban. State level laws vary significantly in their form, content, and level of restriction. Forty-four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The exceptions are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. In New York, however, the statutory civil rights laws contain a provision virtually identical to the Second Amendment.[1][2] As well, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the protections of the Second Amendment apply against state governments and their political subdivisions (see: McDonald v. Chicago).[3] Firearm owners are subject to the firearm laws of the state they are in, and not exclusively their state of residence. Reciprocity between states exists in certain situations, such as with regard to concealed carry permits. These are recognized on a state-by-state basis. For example, Idaho recognizes an Oregon permit, but Oregon does not recognize an Idaho permit. Florida issues a license to carry both concealed weapons and firearms, but others license only the concealed carry of firearms. Some states do not recognize out-of-state permits to carry a firearm at all, so it is important to understand the laws of each state when traveling with a handgun.[4] In many cases, state firearms laws can be considerably less restrictive than federal firearms laws. This does not confer any de jure immunity against prosecution for violations of the federal laws. However, state and local police departments are not legally obligated to enforce federal gun law as per the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Printz v. United States.[5][6] Contents National sovereignty Most nations hold the power to protect themselves, others, and police their own territory as a fundamental power vested by sovereignty. However, this power can be lost under certain circumstances: some countries have been forced to disarm by other countries, upon losing a war, or by having arms embargos or sanctions placed on them. Likewise, nations that violate international arms control agreements, even if claiming to be acting within the scope of their national sovereignty, may find themselves with a range of penalties or sanctions regarding firearms placed on them by other nations. Enforcement National and regional police and security services enforce their own gun regulations. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) supports the United States' International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) program "to aggressively enforce this mission and reduce the number of weapons that are illegally trafficked worldwide from the United States and used to commit acts of international terrorism, to subvert restrictions imposed by other nations on their residents, and to organized crime and narcotics-related activities.[1] Worldwide politics and legislation There are many areas of debate into what kinds of firearms, if any, should be allowed to be privately owned, and how, where and when they may be used. Australia Main article: Gun politics in Australia Firearm laws in Australia are enforced at a Federal and State level. Gun ownership is accessible to the civilian population, and those persons must comply with 'genuine reasons' to obtain a 'Permit to Acquire' from their State government. 'Genuine Reasons' focus on either hunting and/or sport/target shooting (for Rifles), and do not include 'personal protection.'Handgun licences are also available, and applied for separately. In New South Wales (and similar in other States), firearm ownership is widely prohibited for convicted offenders or those with a history of mental illness. Gun licences must be renewed either annually or every 5 years, and expire automatically (if not renewed prior). Firearm controls have been in place following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Gun ownership in Australia is not a wide social issue, and major political parties are generally supportive of pro-control legislation (Although parties such as the New South Wales Shooters Party, which represent pro-deregulation, have a small number of seats in State Parliaments). The rate of homicides involving firearms per 100,000 population in 2009 was 0.1, as compared with 3.3 in the United States.[2] The rate of unintentional deaths involving firearms in 2001 was 0.09 as compared with 0.27 in the United States.[3] Brazil Main article: Gun politics in Brazil All firearms in Brazil are required to be registered with the state. The minimum age for ownership is 25[4] and it is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence.[5] The total number of firearms in Brazil is thought to be between 14 million and 17 million[5][6] with 9 million of those being unregistered.[4] Some 39,000 people died in 2003 due to gun-related injuries nationwide.[5] In 2004, the number was 36,000.[4] Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths;[7] other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States.[8] Brazil has the second largest arms industry in the Western Hemisphere.[8] Approximately 80 percent of the weapons manufactured in Brazil are exported, mostly to neighboring countries; many of these weapons are then smuggled back into Brazil.[8] Some firearms in Brazil come from police and military arsenals, having either been "stolen or sold by corrupt soldiers and officers."[8] In 2005, a referendum was held in Brazil on the sale of firearms and ammunition to attempt to lower the number of deaths due to guns. Material focused on gun rights in opposition to the gun ban was translated from information from the National Rifle Association, much of which focused on US Constitutional discussions focused around the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.[7] Although the Brazilian Government, the Catholic Church, and the United Nations, among others, fought for the gun ban, the referendum failed at the polls, with 64% of the voters voting no.[4] Canada Main article: Gun politics in Canada The stated intent of Canadian firearms laws is to control firearms so as to improve public safety. Canadians have a somewhat limited access to firearms, but are still able to purchase them with relative ease. Licensing provisions of the Firearms Act endeavours to ensure proper training and safe storage. Users must possess a licence, called a "possession and acquisition licence (PAL)". A firearms safety course must be passed prior to applying for a PAL. A non-resident (i.e., non-Canadian) can have a "non-resident firearms declaration" confirmed by a customs officer, which provides for a temporary 60-day authorization to have a firearm in Canada.[9] There are three categories of firearms for purposes of Canadian law: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Restricted and prohibited weapons may actually be owned and used in limited circumstances.[10] In Canada firearms fall into one of three categories: 1. Non-Restricted: Long guns with an overall length greater than 26 inches and, if semi-automatic, a barrel which is 18 1/2 inches or longer. These can be possessed with an ordinary PAL, and are the only class of firearms which can be used for hunting, due to the ATT (Authorization to Transport) requirement for Restricted and Prohibited weapons, as well as provincial regulations. This class includes most popular sporting rifles and shotguns. 2. Restricted: This includes handguns wit

negative: should guns be alowed guns should be allowed in all of the us!!!!!

negative: Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems Parent obesity causes loss of parental rights Obesity is a major medical deficit in America. If the parents are extremely over weigh, then they aren't capable of taking care of the children, there aren't able to go outside and work and other things of that nature. The parents have created a window of embarrassment for their children, which can also lead to suicide for the children if the harassment is too harsh for the child to bear. Parent obesity causes loss of parental rights. Parents can loose their parental rights for the mere fact that they aren't capable of taking care of the child. And separation of the child and parent can impact the child deeply. If a parent is obese your not teaching your child about their disease, your showing what not to do, and what not to be, which is double messaging. For example if you are drinking and you tell your child not to, how are you supposed to inform them that this wrong when your continuing to drink. Childrens training grounds are based from home. Your children are supposed to take after you in positive ways. How are you teaching your children what no to do when you continue to do it, and by the time you actually get it in your child's head that this isn't the way to go, your gone from this world your self for over eating! As you can see there are many reasons why children are burdened by their parents obesity. When parents are in and out of the hospitable, the financial capabilities take a toll on the child, especially when it deals with getting things they need and sometimes what they want.

negative: Open Carry. (Not like a handgun in its holster but like an AR-15 on the back) I'm not talking about banning guns I'm talking about open carry.

negative: Complete Gun Control Complete gun control. A good idea? I don't think so, telling people that they can't own or use guns will not lower the crime rate but raise it because there is no doubt that criminals will illegally obtain any gun they can get their hands on. Complete gun control only affects people that follow the rules. I expect that my opponent , whoever it may be, will already know what complete gun control is.

negative: Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime 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.

negative: I think that concealed carry should not be allowed. Prove me wrong Carrying concealed handguns are used more for criminal homicides than homicides. According to the violence policy center, For every justifiable homicide (a death caused by someone defending themselves) there were 34 innocent people killed by criminals who obtained a handgun and permit. and in 2014 eighteen states reported no justifiable homicides caused by handguns. People rarely use handguns for protection. And handguns may make someone feel safer but in reality they actually make them less safe. According to a peer reviews study someone carrying a gun for self defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault then an assault victim without a gun.

negative: Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates 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.

negative: 18 year olds with concealed handguns 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?

negative: Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Honestly you really can't compare gasoline to a firearm. For an arsonist it takes a longer time to kill someone, but for a murderer it's just hit and boom the person's seriously injured or dead. Plus to be an arsonist you have to place the gasoline, which plenty of people can see them while they do it. The fact that we can't prove that something will or will not happen, scares people. When people are scared or worried, we do what seems right and to people, banning firearms is the right thing to do. Washington DC is where the president lives, not everyone likes the president. Which can lead to higher violent crimes, people trying to kill the president, people just showing their hatred, and etc. The .0054% of murderers that were committed by legal gun owners, is a problem. People still have to watch their backs where ever they go, they have to wonder: Does that guy have a gun I can't see? Will he kill people? What if he does? It is a huge problem!

negative: 18 year olds with concealed handguns Dude I am debating to have 18 years allowed to get a handgun with papers legally. So when the cop does pull you over you have the papers to show that you can Own a handgun.

negative: Teachers should be able to carry concealed Guns at School I think that teachers should be able to carry concealed guns at school but not have them loaded. In the case of a actual emergency the teacher then can load the gun for protection . Right after the event they MUST unload it.

negative: All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights. 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.

negative: Concealed carry laws help reduce violent crime I will show that concealed carry laws do not reduce violent crime in any significant, measurable way. Many states have "shall issue" laws, mainly because it is considered a fundamental right. I am not against this. However, the idea that such laws actually reduce crime is an illusion. Although there may be a deterrent effect of concealed carry laws, there are also other effects that cause an increase of violent crime. Let me mention a few: Obviously, concealed weapons are used in crimes. Take for example road rage. Michael Dunn, a concealed weapon carrier, was convicted of first degree murder when he shot into an SUV with teenagers because of loud music. Nearby in my state Michigan, a father was shot in front of his family after a road rage confrontation with a concealed carry permit holder [4]. Murder by CCW holders are relatively rare, but they do happen. Another, in my opinion more important, factor is that concealed carry laws leads to more risky and confrontational behavior of the concealed weapon carrier. Studies have shown that carrying a weapon makes a person more paranoid [2]. Take for example the well publicized George Zimmermann case [3]. He followed Trayvon Martin which led to a violent confrontation. A violent crime was committed, although one may argue who the perpetrator was. It seems unlikely that Zimmermann would have followed Martin had he not been armed. The (false) sense of security of a concealed weapon may lead to more confrontational behavior that can lead to violent crime, but the concealed carrier, or by someone else. Almost all studies do not take this kind of behavior change into account. Criminals have several choices. Instead of being deterred, they could also react to a concealed carry law by arming themselves more, to have the upper hand in a possible confrontation. Such behavior would lead to more violent crime. This effect has also not been taken into account in all the studies that have been cited. In particular, deterrence theory will give only a lopsided picture, because it assumes that the criminal only has 2 choices, either commit a crime, or not. So now we have some reasons of why concealed carry laws may increase violent crime, and also one reason why it might reduce violent crime. So which effect is greater? The National Academy of Sciences, THE authority in science matters, reviewed the science on this question (including the work of John Lott) and found "There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime. " [5] The Academy studied 253 scientific journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications. [1] . http://www.cnn.com... [2] Biggs, A. T. , Brockmole, J. R. , & Witt, J. K. (2014). Armed and attentive:_Holding a weapon can bias attentional priorities in scene viewing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.cbsnews.com... [5] . http://www8.nationalacademies.org...