The Instigator
lw0479
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
aburk903
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Should Gun Manufactures Be Held Responsible For Gun Violence?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
aburk903
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 878 times Debate No: 52584
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

lw0479

Pro

Gun manufactures should be held accountable for the damage of gun violence because they placed a lethal weapon in the hands of a criminal.
aburk903

Con

Thanks for the topic pro, I accept.

I'd like to begin with two basic points. 1. Manufacturers are not responsible for the misuse of their products, or for any subsequent illegal activity. That responsibility falls on the individual. 2. Even if you choose to place accountability on the manufacturers (sole accountability or shared), then they must also be credited for any good that comes from their products (self-defense).

1.Manufacturers are not responsible for the misuse of their products
Toys with small parts must warn of a choking hazard. Foods that contain allergens must provide a warning label. In this manner, it is indisputable that gun manufacturers must comply with laws ordering the proper distribution of firearms. Individuals must clear a thorough background check to even purchase a firearm and further courses to carry it (concealed). Just as we cannot hold alcoholic beverage producers responsible for DUI"s because of their minimum age requirements and labels indicating its inhibiting nature, we cannot hold firearm manufacturers responsible who follow the proper safety procedures. This is why laws exist pertaining to the individual who misuses a product despite prior knowledge that he was doing so.

2.Manufacturers must also be held accountable for any good, if held accountable for any bad
You cannot place blame where you do not also give credit. For every violent crime that involves a firearm exists an instance in which someone constructively used a firearm to defend themselves and their families. If you assign both blame and positive credit then the manufacturers are impacted the same way that they are without any correlation to individual actions- neutrally.
If you truly wish to assign guilt for misuse of firearms, turn to the government. The government is responsible for constructing laws to protect individuals in a society, not a corporation.

I look forward to an interesting debate. Best of luck, pro.
Debate Round No. 1
lw0479

Pro

I find your argument valid and reasonable, though on the count of self defense the second amendment was written during the 1700's when there was many dangers from starvation, native Americans, wild animals, or squatters, and if so now why use lethal weapons for self defense if you could opt for the taser . I think we should hold them partially accountable for one they make ethically. though you r points should be held in consideration.
aburk903

Con

If you truly find my arguments reasonable and valid (the Oxford Dictionary defines validity as "the quality of being logically or factually sound"), and my arguments directly contradict your main thesis (which they do), then you have already admitted defeat. However, I would prefer not to conclude this debate in a semantic game, but rather in a contest of ideas.

I would like to begin by emphasizing that I did not ever reference the Second Amendment in any way, nor is it directly linked to our debate. Not only does this debate not question the legality of firearms or any constitutional situation, but it also is not bound to America. Gun manufacturing is an international business, so to assume that the Second Amendment could universally assign liability to firearm corporations is absurd.

As far as using a Taser for self-defense, non-lethal force is desirable whenever possible, but in circumstances such as home invasion or defense against multiple attackers, a Taser simply is not a feasible option.

I do not understand what you mean by "we should hold them partially accountable for one they make ethically", so I must await further clarification before I contest that point.

I would also like to point out that neither of my two points were countered (unless the comment about ethical accountability refers to my second point), and as such stand.
Debate Round No. 2
lw0479

Pro

lw0479 forfeited this round.
aburk903

Con

Pro forfeited his round. My arguments stand uncontested. Gun manufacturers should not be held responsible for gun violence.
Debate Round No. 3
lw0479

Pro

lw0479 forfeited this round.
aburk903

Con

Pro forfeits. Still uncontested.
Debate Round No. 4
lw0479

Pro

lw0479 forfeited this round.
aburk903

Con

Vote con, ladies and gentleman.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
lw0479aburk903Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff, Con's 2nd round arguments really helped bring about that, too.
Vote Placed by Bannanawamajama 2 years ago
Bannanawamajama
lw0479aburk903Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded Con's main point then failed to respond. This gives better arguments and conduct to Con. No sources used and grammar was sufficient on both sides.