The Instigator
Kitcatt34
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Petfish
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

Gun rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Petfish
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 333 times Debate No: 88390
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Kitcatt34

Con

Guns kill people and should be banned
Petfish

Pro

Thank you, Con, for instigating this debate.

I would first like to address Con’s point before setting up my arguments.

“Guns kill people and should be banned.”

Con’s argument is that things that kill people should be banned. But should cars be banned because they kill people?[1] Should the Grand Canyon be banned because people die on the Grand Canyon?[2]

Rather. I believe there is a way to appreciate the beauty of cars and the Grand Canyon while being mature and responsible.[3]

Therefore, this argument is invalid.

My second point is that guns don’t kill people. Moving bullets kill people.

Therefore, this argument is unsound.

Argument 1: Guns are educational.

Just like kids enjoy working with Knex and Legos, I think we can learn a lot from understanding the structure and mechanics of a gun. I’ve included a three minute video that shows the internal structure of an M-16 and its power.[4] While I think it may be inappropriate to show this material to kids who are prone to violence, mature students can learn a lot from this information. Guns are mechanical engines, and the technology they employ may be applied to other devices for different means.

Argument 2: Guns for entertainment

While I do not necessarily appreciate target practice, I realize that some people do.[5] This, for some people, is just as fun as any other sport. People can show off their virtuosity by hitting bullseyes quickly.

I believe that this is actually less violent than football. In football, people are constantly trying to knock other people down. In fact, one player is known to have a tremendous amount of power.[6] This could be lethal to someone who hasn’t prepared enough.
In target practice, all you hit are signs. Signs are not sentient and cannot feel pain. This, to me, seems far less violent.

Argument 3: Guns should have rights.

I believe guns should have rights. For instance, I believe guns should not be prosecuted for crimes they did not commit. We do not know for certain, but it might be possible to hurt a gun’s feelings, based on literature and philosophical speculation published in that field.[7]

Sources:
[1] http://www.iihs.org...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[3] http://www.nps.gov...
[4] https://www.youtube.com...
[5] https://www.youtube.com...
[6] https://youtu.be...
[7] http://tvtropes.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Kitcatt34

Con

Thank you for responding pro. In your argument you stated that many other thing s can kill people, however if you look at statistics more guns kill people each year than than cars or the Grand Canyon. Your second argument is that moving bullets kill people however Guns are the weapon that launches bullets. Your third argument first is invalid because it if a kid makes ONE mistake they can end up dead or seriously injured. For your third argument you claim that guns can be used for sports however, if someone stand behind the sign,can, or any other target they can get extremely injured or even killed. And for your fourth argument is easily disproved by the fact that inanimate objects can not ever feel any emotion.
Petfish

Pro


Rebuttals:


Con’s entire statement is unreferenced, which makes Con’s arguments all bare assertions.[8]


Con states, “If you look at statistics more guns kill people each year than than cars or the Grand Canyon.”


Now note where this argument is coming from. I was affirming the belief that just because something is known to kill, it should not necessarily be banned. Statistics really have nothing to do with this.


Also, Con gives an appeal to ‘statistics’. But how do we know if these statistics are true? I could easily pull up websites that say doctors kill people, and then say that doctors should be banned because of statistics.[9]


“Your second argument is that moving bullets kill people however Guns are the weapon that launches bullets.”


By that same logic, fingers should be banned because fingers pull the trigger. Also, you do not need to have bullets to have a gun.


“Your third argument first is invalid because it if a kid makes ONE mistake they can end up dead or seriously injured.”


Yes, and kids can end up dead on the Grand Canyon or in cars. Also, I’m not sure what Con is calling ‘invalid’ because I’ve put numbers before all my arguments. Con does not seem to be following this structure.


Also, by this same logic, welding should be banned. In fact, anything potentially dangerous should be banned. This is just silly. I’m wondering if Con holds that we should ban everything?


“For your third argument you claim that guns can be used for sports however, if someone stand behind the sign,can, or any other target they can get extremely injured or even killed.”


Yes, and if someone stands in the middle of a football field, they can get tackled. But using necessary safety precautions does not equal banning.


“And for your fourth argument is easily disproved by the fact that inanimate objects can not ever feel any emotion.”


I would call people in comas inanimate. But they can feel emotions when they wake up. In fact, before we’re born, we’re basically inanimate objects (at the beginning). So why can’t inanimate objects feel any emotion?


Con has not addressed my belief that guns should have rights. Therefore, this contention goes to Pro and the resolution is affirmed.


Sources:


[8]https://logfall.wordpress.com...


[9] http://articles.mercola.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Kitcatt34

Con

Kitcatt34 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Kitcatt34

Con

Kitcatt34 forfeited this round.
Petfish

Pro

Extend and please vote on all my tied debates!
Debate Round No. 4
Kitcatt34

Con

Kitcatt34 forfeited this round.
Petfish

Pro

7,974 Characters Remaining
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
Kitcatt34PetfishTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.