A firearm is the most effective personal defense weapon.
Debate Rounds (3)
While I slightly agree with the latter, I do not agree with the former.
"It is compact, lightweight, lethal..."
As Pro mentioned, a handgun is an extremely lethal weapon; it can kill or severely damage a person when shot. If someone jumps the gun (literally) and shoots an innocent assailant out of fear, it will be a terrible tragedy. A murderer could also shoot someone, and claim it was pure self-defence.
Moreover, an educated wielder of the handgun would know that the gun has the potential of killing a person. I daresay he would be afraid to open fire; in fear of killing his assailant(s). Should he open fire in the spur of the moment, it may harm the wielder not physically, but instead mentally. The harm done might also be severe. The trauma after killing another is severe. It might have an untold effect on the wielder himself. One example is America; look at the crime rates of America; numerous people living in America have handguns in their pockets. The outcome of this is clear.
And the mere visual display of it isn't "more than enough" to end most emergency situations, especially when most of people wouldn't dare draw their handguns. Maybe a few courageous ones might, but not majority of the public.
It might be the "best defense", but it can also be the "worst offence".
While I cannot argue that a handgun isn't compact or lightweight, there are better weapons that can help fend off assailant(s). I feel that a Taser would be better.
Firstly, it does not kill, but it stuns, which is sufficient enough for defence. The wielder will not experience any trauma from killing or being harmed. The person shot by it will experience excruciating pain, and I don't think anyone wishes to be tasered by a Taser. I doubt there will be any crimes. If there is; I don't think anyone would be killed.
Secondly, it has almost the same properties as a handgun - compact, lightweight, and the mere visual display is more than enough to end most emergency situations.*
Finally, a Taser weighs almost as much as a handgun, the size, weight. I suspect the recoil is almost the same too. *Anyone might mistake the Taser for the Handgun. The Link, too, shows many cases of Police Officers mistaking Tasers for Handguns, and accidentally shooting and killing people by accident.
1) Handguns are not the best defence for the average adult against one or multiple aggressors.*
2) It is compact, lightweight, lethal, and the mere visual display is more than enough to end most emergency situations.
3) However, the Handgun is TOO lethal. *The Taser is better than the Handgun. It is compact, lightweight, not that lethal (but lethal enough), and the mere visual display is more than enough to end most emergency situations.
I didn't double check, so cut me some slack if I make a few errors. =)
Vote Con, and Pro, go easy. 3rd time debating.
Civilian grade tasers typically have a maximum range of 15 feet, and even then successful outcomes are not guaranteed. Think clothing can prevent skin contact with the barbs, thus not completing the current of electricity. Barriers in front of the target, even weak barriers such as thin plastic or flimsy mesh screens, can completely shield targets from the taser barbs. Reloading barbs is fairly simple, but you can only deploy a maximum of 3 at a time before needing to manually reload. The spare cartridges are bulky and people don't usually carry many reloads. Besides, if you haven't incompacitated the target standing within 15 feet with a maximum of 3 shots, you will not have time to reload because while you are reloading YOU have now become the target and your assailant will be on top of you in 1 second.
Bullets have an effective range several times that of Tasers, allowing for reloading at a more comfortable distance (although it stands to reason that any emergency is not a comfortable one). Reloading magazines usually contain 9+ cartridges. They have powerful penetration, traveling through various barriers such as glass, car doors, or even walls to reach their target.
Also, a firearm is at the top of the weapon food-chain. If your assailant has one, you are at a distinct disadvantage unless you have a firearm as well. You don't bring a taser to a gun fight.
Tasers do not deter assailants upon visual display, nor do batons, or mace. Police officers encounter this problem often. They encounter this problem less with firearms, for good reason.
Certainly, lethal force is not a power that many people feel comfortable wielding. However, that is not the subject of the debate. The topic is about firearms being effective for defense, more so than other weapons. Barring someone's own personal bias and taking on objectivity is required to weigh the contrasting the abilities of one weapon with another.
One can have an aversion to flying, but going by plane is still the most effective way to travel from the U.S. to Europe.
I concede defeat; I acknowledge that Pro is clearly more superior than me. I thank him for this Debate; I have gained insight into matters like these.
Useless saying this now but:
Clothing can't prevent the current of electricity, or else the Taser would be utter useless.
P.S. Don't hate me for this, but...a Taser is a firearm...
On the matter of clothing protecting a target from the penetrating barbs of a taser... The link in your last post has this excerpt:
"Thick leather jackets, layers of clothing over 2 inches thick and rubberized raincoats are the only exceptions, although they don't guarantee safety against a high-voltage stun gun."
I noticed in my second post that I said "think clothing" when I meant "thick clothing" - my error.
Also, on the matter of tasers being considered firearms... Here is the definition of "firearm" from dictionary.com:
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.
Tasers do not use gunpowder. The barbs are propelled by compressed nitrogen. (also from your link)
P.S. I don't hate you. This has been a fun debate.
a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.
Idk what definition u actually used, but once again, thx for this Debate =)
It's my third time Debating on this website, but my first actual proper challenge
I am extremely grateful for this new experience of loss, I've barely experienced a proper challenge, (the last 2 debates ended with me winning 0-10 and another guy forfeiting)...
Once again, thank you and sorry for not providing you with a proper Debate
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded defeat in Round 2, so I have to give convincing arguments to Pro. Con had sources, and Pro did not, so Con gets those 2 points. Con says "While I cannot argue that a handgun isn't compact or lightweight, there are better weapons that can help fend off assailant(s). I feel that a Taser would be better." What if the assailant has a gun pointed at you? If someone is willing to kill you, they are willing to kill others. Would be much better to just end the criminals life rather then taze him, have him wake up the next day, and kill someone else.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.