Children should not be allowed to use guns in school even with training.
Debate Rounds (4)
anyone may join
think before you act.
My debate: Children should not be able to use a gun in school even with training. hats because of a child's temptation, anger, use of weapon, school budgets, PTA, health (injuries,) and the child.
Temptation, Anger: due to lack of resistance against anger and temptation in most children, children may shoot at a fellow innocent classmate when the child gets angry and tempted. This could lead to a firefight between the two. Example: Joey gets mad at Jake and then, bang bang a shootout starts between the two.
Use of weapon: A child might bring home a gun one day and show it to his friends and family. Then he doesn't realise the gun is loaded and bang bang, the gun gets fired and someone is wounded and almost dies. Example: Francis shows his family his gun and pulls the trigger to show them it. Bang bang someone gets injured and his family faces medical bills and a sue.
School budgets: If a school buys a gun and ammo for every child in the school then the school will be wasting lots and lots of money on a big mistake. lets say they buy 300 colts and 3000 bullets. That is a LOT of money wasted.Colt cost $300 dollars per pistol.
Colt ammo is $15 dollars per bullet. That is a lot of money wasted on something that they would probably get sued for.
PTA: When the PTA figures out they will stop doing stuff for the school and go against the school. the school will then collapse and all of the kids won't go to that school and kids from that school will face learning loss while the parents try to find a school that does not use guns.
Health (Injuries:) Lets say two children are in a firefight. Then, someone gets shot but luckily the other person runs out of ammo. What will the injured child do now? Probably die of shock if no one helps the child.
The child: what if the child has mental problems or what if the child IS THE BULLY. That means that they have a pretty good chance of starting a firefight and they might get other people involved in the fight. Example: Reynold is a bully, he wants to bully kids so he started a firefight, pulled other kids in, and the situation got worse. Another example: Mark is mental, he thinks shootouts are awesome so he starts one for no reason except for his joy, then what happens? Bad stuff happens.
A school's main duty is to educate children to be functioning and responsible adults in the society in which they live. In the US this means a gun society. For schools to refuse to educate children about firearms is to refuse to take their responsibilities seriously.
You say that there's a risk to students, but when proper care and supervision is provided then the risk is miniscule.
Budgeting is about priorities. Principals do what they can with limited resources and may decide that educating children about firearms in a gun-riddled world is the best use of their money.
It's the same argument about sex education. Some people say that telling children about sex will lead to teen pregnancies, but the opposite is true. Education is protective and it is after all the whole point of school.
Of course schools are meant for education, common sense but America has lack of education and kids barely listen to what their teachers say most of the time. Additionally, schools normally don't teach kids about firearms its only at military academies and private lessons. Also, schools aren't really allowed to bring a gun to school and teach stuff about the gun to kids and if teachers do teach things about firearms then it will probably be about what to do when a guy is pointing a gun at the kid.
Of course there is a risk to children when they have a firearm, they can disobey a grown up (this happens a lot) and start shooting fellow classmates.
Principals do have limited resources but all they have to do is teach them about what to do when they have a gun pointing at them like I said earlier.
It isn't the same as that education because telling a child about that doesn't really do much but makes them learn about it when this education serves barely any use but if firearm education does exist then that will be more effective towards children.
You say that education is protective and the whole point of school but how will it be protective and needed for children when education isn't very good in America and when lots of people are working their butts off online trying to find a good school that is in their area (trust me, parents have to do this.)
The main point stands - that US children grow up in a country stuffed with firearms and they need schools to educate them to live in this world. My opponent's comment that they just need to learn to run away is naive and sad when hundreds of US children are being accidentally fatally shot each year. http://mobile.nytimes.com...
At the very least, children should be taught to recognize firearms as dangerous. Young children could be given a simple procedure to follow, such as DON'T touch it, walk away and find an adult. Teenagers could be taught to unload a firearm or check that it's unloaded. They could also be taught to handle it safely and how to lock it away properly.
These simple techniques could save lives and would not even require loaded weapons in the classroom.
My opponent argues that parents might object, and this is true. On the other hand, some parents may appreciate safety education for their children. Unless he can prove that ALL parents would object to firearm safety being on the curriculum, this point is not really relevant to the debate.
U.S. children do grow up in households of firearms however the firearm(s) are only used for security. In addition, I never said that children should run away.
I do agree with the safety education but not all parents will vote yes because they might think of it as "a waste of education." This is because firearm sightings in school are rare so this might not happen if this poll ever comes up and PLUS the government has to approve of a new type of education in schools and the government might think differently.
It's true that my opponent never said that children should run away. For some reason, I thought he did. I apologize.
He said that the only education children need is how to respond if someone points a gun at them - that's what I was referring to. My point was that this is NOT all that children need to know. They need to learn that guns are not toys, and what to do if they find a firearm somewhere in the house. They need to know how to find out if a gun is loaded, how to put on the safety catch if there is one, and how to unload a gun. I think it might also be helpful for them to be able to identify different weapons to the extent of being able to check if they match registration papers.
If children aren't shown guns at school and taught about them, then the only guns they will ever see will be toy guns and guns on TV and at the movies. Toy guns and guns for entertainment send appalling messages to children about how to use guns, and given that there are hundreds of ACCIDENTAL shootings of children each year, this education is of critical importance.
My opponent says he does agree with firearm safety education at school, which sounds like he thinks that children should use guns for this purpose at school, which sounds like a concession to me.
He also has reservations about parental and governmental agreement, but those are extraneous issues to whether or not it should happen. In any case, there might be enthusiastic support from those people, as there should be when it's a matter of saving children's lives.
Epicknightmc forfeited this round.
Schools need to educate children for the messy real world and not for a fantasy world, and so they need to learn about sex, drugs, self-defense, and guns. My opponent has already agreed that gun safety has a place in education, which means children and teachers could use guns at school for this purpose.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years 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:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
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.