The Instigator
Peacefulwarrior
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
SnaxAttack
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

In order to solve school/campus shootings, we should allow more people to carry guns

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 2 votes the winner is...
SnaxAttack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 481 times Debate No: 80813
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Peacefulwarrior

Con

More guns will create more violence.
SnaxAttack

Pro

Going with my opponents logic, "Guns create violence". Does it? Possibly, but other things also create violence like video games and movies, but do we ban those? Guns are just an easy target to say that something causes violence, but in reality the necessity of guns is necessary. Why should we take away the 2nd Amendement, just because of a few incidents? In fact, we must use common sense that if we were to take away guns, do you think criminals will follow the rules. Because it is assumed that they won't, it is necessary to bring protection among people through the means of allowing people to bear arms. Personally, I prefer a trained concealed weapon, but would feel much safer with a trained individual with a gun in the room; than having nothing to the victim's aid.
Debate Round No. 1
Peacefulwarrior

Con

82 pre-schoolers were massacred this year. 142 school shootings since 2014. It is of epic proportion, not a few incidents.

It is much easier to view these as remote incidents if you have not been affected. I have not, personally, but numbers are increasing at alarming rates.

That must be acknowleged, as it is fact.

Vigilantes are noble. Full of passion to protect, and full of fire to "right a wrong". But they are not trained, and can cause more damage than good.

Kids and college students are in danger and the first reaction is to worry about gun rights and the 2nd amendment? It indicates that there is a certain desentization that has occurred over the last decade. Desensitized, un-trained, vigilantes protecting everyone? Ummm. no thanks.

Repectful civil debate is lacking in the political forum. Reform doesnt mean taking guns. Reform is change as society changes. Society is changing.
SnaxAttack

Pro

My opponent brings up a statistic about the percentage of school shootings, and the amount of casualties taken. I would also like to bring up a statistic about the amount of deaths per a year, where in 2014, there were 2.596,993 deaths (1). The main cause wasn't guns, but instead more so health conditions. My opponent brings up this statistic to promote Pathos in his argument, but the number presented is actually very low, compared to other deaths. Once more, guns are there; but not the source for all deaths.

Then my opponent quotes: "It is much easier to view these as remote incidents if you have not been affected. I have not, personally, but numbers are increasing at alarming rates". First off, I like to point out one thing voters that my opponent made a claim, without any evidence. If my opponent supported this claim with evidence, then he would have something; but does not. For the portion of crime increasing at alarming rates, I will agree its happening, but not because of guns; more so the Media. Haven't you noticed that any time a "major" incident has occured the media always puts an emphasis on the criminal instead of the victim. This activitates the effect of "The Agents of Socialization" that influences a criminal to do a similar crime, because of the criminal portrayed in the media. This gives the new criminal the thought process of "Hey, I can get my fifteen minutes of fame for commiting a crime". (2) In my opinion, if we were to put blame on the raising on crime rates; it wouldn't be the guns but more so the media.

To even further extend on why guns cannot be the issue, I like to point to a fact about gun control laws. Stated in the book "More Guns, Less Crime", John R. Lott Jr. states: "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called “shall-issue” laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness" (3). Funny enough, the more gun control laws; the more chances of crime to ensue. This effect is what I call "Reverse Psychology". If we go with this statistic, it seems that the more free people are wih guns, the less amount of crime will happen.

Then my opponent quotes: "Vigilantes are noble. Full of passion to protect, and full of fire to "right a wrong". But they are not trained, and can cause more damage than good". In the previous argument, I mentioned about having a trained individual being within the school just in case another incident happened like this again. My opponent makes the assumption that I was referring to a vigilante, which I like to point out is wrong. In my previous argument, I did not even mention anything about a vigilante being the individual in the room with a gun. Who I do say should be in the room with a gun is a trained individual of either in law enforcement, or someone trained to handle the job. Either that or allowing an adult to be able to carry a concealed handgun.

Then my opponent states: "Kids and college students are in danger and the first reaction is to worry about gun rights and the 2nd amendment". Actually, yes; we should worry about the 2nd Amendement because we used guns to make this country. If we didn't, we would no longer be a country of democracy. This whole debate revolves the second amendement, and my opponent is claiming that we shouldn't focus on this? We should because if we are tring to protect victims of future shootings, the right to bare arms is a necessity for our survival.

Have times changed, yes; but that doesn't mean we get rid of the second amendement completely. Do people get shot, yes they do; however, it wasn't the guns fault but the person holding the gun. Guns don't kill people, people kill people; guns are just a more convinient way of getting the job done, like throwing a rock on someones head.

Sources:
1. http://www.cdc.gov...
2. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
3. http://www.press.uchicago.edu...


Debate Round No. 2
Peacefulwarrior

Con

The dictionary define "vigilante" as "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate". My opponent states that he was not eluding to arming people with more guns, but someone trained.... see his comment:

"Who I do say should be in the room with a gun is a trained individual of either in law enforcement, or someone trained to handle the job. Either that or allowing an adult to be able to carry a concealed handgun.".

Or maybe his comment at the end.........."or allowing an adult to be able to carry a concealed handgun". For what purpose? To protect himself, or others. Vigilante as defined by the dictionary, is exactly applicable. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this debate. People feel the protection is inadequate and want to protect themselves and others in a way they see fit.


To make this debate fun, I offer a well thought out article called" Batman and the Problem With Vigilante Justice: A Love Story" http://the-artifice.com...; Dont' all spiritual warriors have a little batman inside of them? After all, guns represent power. And Batman is POWERFul. Probem is, its a comic strip.


The article contends that :


"Batman is a character that takes matters into his own hands. He does not wait for approval and effectively answers to no one. When a problem arises, he rises to the occasion and remedies the situation, often times to the chagrin of the local authorities.


Lastly, and most importantly, Batman is problematic to the government because he gives the people back their power. The citizens of Gotham feel as if they have been completely stripped of all of their power, of their voice, to stand up against the injustices committed against them both by criminals and the government itself. Batman’s public display of vigilante justice provides an outlet for the public to understand that they do not have to hide in the shadows and feel as if they are perpetual victims of an impotent system that fails to protect them".

I offer to my opponent that there are many statistics about gun deaths, shootings, etc - none of which are more credicble than the next. So I will purposefully, not reply to his cited statiistics. We can go back and forth all day about who's stats are right. Isn't that what the people are doing now? It's getting us no where in terms of progressive solutions to move us forward.

Everyone has natural fear. But our fear is growing daily, as each massacare and world political war stage becomes more and more violent. Kids, and teens, angry because they don't have a girlfriend (Oregon shooter "I will die a virgin and without a girlfriend", (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...). Children die, and adults respond with "more guns!". What the heck? These are reactions of emotional people driven by frustration and hate for something, someone, somewhere. No well-adjusted person is filled with rage and unaffected by the loss of human life (at least seemingly so by either failure to address it, or give it much relevance).

And you want to put a gun in the hands of more frustrated people?
SnaxAttack

Pro

To begin, my opponent starts off his last argument about the one owning the gun being a vigilante. He defines vigilante as: "A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate". Do I agree with this definition, yes; but does not apply to teachers or someone trained with a gun in the school. The definition clearly defines a vigilante taking "Law Enforcement" into their own hands, but this isn't the dealings about law enforcement; more so self defense. This makes my opponents definition of vigilante vague because it does not apply to what I am saying, and the definition itself can be very contradictory.

Then my opponent, comedically, brings up his only source of evidence being a comic strip. First off, that isn't evidence to any argument just the use of an analogy. And my opponents comment even leans toward the Pro side, in which he stated: "Dont' all spiritual warriors have a little batman inside of them? After all, guns represent power. And Batman is POWERFul. Probem is, its a comic strip". My opponent admits that guns make people feel powerful, and if this is the case; why not help many innocent bistanduals feel powerful, instead of letting them get shot? If we follow this quote, we can make anyone powerful with a gun and will even out the playing field between the victim and criminal. Also, my opponent even admits that this evidence is not "strong", because he said "Its a comic strip". It is a comic strip, and the evidence is vague.

Then my opponent states the following: "I offer to my opponent that there are many statistics about gun deaths, shootings, etc - none of which are more credicble than the next. So I will purposefully, not reply to his cited statiistics. We can go back and forth all day about who's stats are right. Isn't that what the people are doing now? It's getting us no where in terms of progressive solutions to move us forward". Voters, the reason I bring up this statement is because my opponent failed to post his evidence. He says that "There are so much evidence to his argument", yet he doesn't bring any up? How does this make sense?

In a debate, the goal is to state your argument and see who with holds their argument based on evidence and ideas used. My opponent broke this rule of not using any evidence, and this statement should be dropped because its hard to assume if there is or isn't evidence in his argument. If there was, why not post it; otherwise it is a fail and leans towards the Pro side for this debate. Where I did provide evidence, and he has failed to Rebuttal against any of them.

And my opponent states: "It's getting us no where in terms of progressive solutions to move us forward". In reality, we are trying to move forward by allowing teachers, or someone trained within the school, to get a gun. The standstill is people against teachers being armed, which is why were debating this. I asked my opponent earlier about any alternative solutions to handling a school shooting, and has failed to reply. Because of this, the only solution up to the table is arming teachers; which will progress society forward.

To conclude the argument, this debate was lackluster within my opponent. He failed to bring any evidence, and provided no alternatives to how to handle school shootings. My opponents thought process seems is to let a shooter kill young children or adults, with allowing no fighting chance. How is this fair, when it can be prevented by arming someone within the school? For this reasoning, I urge the voters to vote Pro for this debate!

And I thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Priest 1 year ago
Priest
Saying that games cause violence is incredibly stupid. I myself am a gamer, most of the ones i play are violent and gory, and yet i am not violent. If you see the cases of "kids", yes kids, going off shooting people or doing something unreasonable because they saw it on a video game, well that is their parents fault. All games have an age requirement, their parents should pay more attention to their kids. But i have heavily digressed, so let get back to the topic.

Instead of adding oil to the fire, by adding more guns, you should be more strict on enforcing anti-gun laws and rules. That is, unless by adding more guns you don't plan on them killing themselves off. Sure that would solve your problem wouldn't it?
Posted by Bosoxfaninla 1 year ago
Bosoxfaninla
Do we blame pencils when one mispells a word? Does on blame the plane or the airi\lines for what happened on 9/11? Do we blame knives for stabbings? Guns are not the problem. People are.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Matt532 1 year ago
Matt532
PeacefulwarriorSnaxAttackTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is wrong in that the debate is purely about allowing more people to carry guns, as the title says. Pro does say that teachers can be allowed, so this is a solution for his side. Con didn't get a chance to respond, so conduct to Con for Pro accusing con in his second-last paragraph. Pro also misinterprets con for taking guns away in round 2. Pro's sources are from more reliable sources and more directly bolstered pro's argument. Con's sources are either tangential, or not strong, and 1 or 2 of his sources actually can help pro's side. Pro failed to deal with con's argument of frustrated people with guns, so tie in terms of convincing arguments, though I would respond by saying that those frustrated people (or teachers) could bring guns in to school anyway, though illegally. I also don't know how those teachers would stay frustrated if they were allowed to bring guns to school. I'm not even aware of frustrated teachers in general, though we can imagine there are some.
Vote Placed by Bosoxfaninla 1 year ago
Bosoxfaninla
PeacefulwarriorSnaxAttackTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided a stronger argument.