The Instigator
dinokiller
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Pro (for)
Winning
45 Points

Were firearms a good invention for the society?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,809 times Debate No: 14227
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (9)

 

dinokiller

Con

Before you accept this debate there is 1 rule.
NO VOTING FOR YOURSELF.
Break this rule and im gonna have a field day with you.

Was the invention of firearms a good invention or a bad one?
I as Con say its a bad invention that ends up destroying the society.
Arguments are posted at round 2 and i wish my opponent good luck.
vardas0antras

Pro

Seeing how there are 5 rounds, I believe that my opponent should have the leisure to be the first to post arguments.

Thank You.
Debate Round No. 1
dinokiller

Con

Wishes my opponent good luck* :P

A firearm is a device that fires objects at high velocity. (I hope u already knew this :O)
There is 2 definitions i use here.
Subsonic: travel speed slower then the speed of sound
Supersonic: travel speed faster then the speed of sound

My arguments why it wasnt a good invention for the society:
1. Its dangerous and nearly unavoidable making it a supreme killing weapon thats not needed for a peaceful society.
A 9mm pistol bullet flies nearly 340m/s which i doubt anyone can avoid in time. (subsonic)
To make it even worse, assault weapon bullets are all supersonic.

2. Firearms opens up new possibilities for criminals. They could assassinate someone without much trouble if gotten away or commit a murder from a very far distance. This means everyone on the streets are in danger.

3. Even now, the gun control laws wont work effectively and theres alot of gun related crimes. This wouldnt happen if firearms didnt exist.

I keep my other hand for later rounds :P
Gives back spotlight*

Sources:
http://wiki.answers.com...
http://ravallirepublic.com...
http://www.nationmaster.com...
vardas0antras

Pro

Before I begin I like to thank my opponent. You're awesome !
::Definitions::
Good:http://dictionary.reference.com...
1.1."satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health."
1.2."well-behaved: a good child."
1.3."healthful; beneficial: Fresh fruit is good for you."
1.4."reliable, safe, or recommended: a good make of clothes"

::Observations::
So is it a good invention for society ? Before I begin I must remind you all that the goodness of an invention does not in fact depend on how the society uses it. The fact is some people use it to defend themselves while others use it to kill people. So how do we judge the inventions goodness ? We judge it in itself. Now lets look at different definitions:
1.1.Firearms are effective defensive weapons which can defend you from at least 10 people.
1.2.Firearms will do what you tell them to do.
1.3.Firearms can be used to protect oneself without harming oneself.
1.4.Weak, disabled people can be easily battered to death that is unless they have a huge shotgun.

::Looking Back::
I have already proven my point. By many definitions I have provided a firearm is good. Can it be used in a bad way ? Yes but so can books be used to burn buildings. Can it be used for good ? Absolutely.

::My opponent::
"1. Its dangerous and nearly unavoidable making it a supreme killing weapon thats not needed for a peaceful society."
Knifes are dangerous for you can show it to them but they won't suspect anything and then you can easily kill a good amount of people. What about books, cars and airplanes ? Yes, some buildings will burn, many people will die and 911 has happened but were the inventions evil ? Absolutely not - its the people who are turning bad things to good.

"2. Firearms opens up new possibilities for criminals."
Helicopters, CCTV, fingerprints and etcetera. These are the things which make life for a criminal difficult. Does the good outweigh the bad ? Who knows but its not the invention which are committing these crimes but people. Unless we do something via education and other means, crime will increase. Finally I must say that someone willing to commit a crime of murder is not in a good mindset hence trouble will be yielded. Perhaps murder despite no guns I mean murder did happen in the past when there were no guns ? Right ?

"3. Even now, the gun control laws wont work effectively and theres alot of gun related crimes."
Then change the law but that won't do much if theres poverty. Take away the guns but that won't do much since there is poverty. Encourage growth of wealth and fair trading among the poorer and richer nations but that won't do much since there is... Obviously gun laws do make a difference but we should change our focus on wealth which brings so many good things for example lower crime rate.

::Sources::
http://www.nationmaster.com...
As you can see the poorer nations have more killings done. This is naturally expected from poorer nations. Incidentally, this is the same source my opponent just used.
Debate Round No. 2
dinokiller

Con

Time to play a part of my hand because i know this argument wouldve show up.

I agree, the goodness of an invention doesnt depend on how the society uses it, but uses does it have other then injuring and killing others? Like i just said, its a supreme killing tool thats not needed for the society.

1.1.Firearms are effective defensive weapons which can defend you from at least 10 people.

Those 10 people can do the same against you by aiming 10 pistols on your head. Without guns, you could still run for your life.(Though hard to do so, at least the danger is lessened)

1.2.Firearms will do what you tell them to do.

Well this isnt always true since accidental discharges has happened.

1.3.Firearms can be used to protect oneself without harming oneself.

Like i said, the person you try to defend against could also be armed with a firearm. Without firearms, the situation wouldve been less dangerous for both.

1.4.Weak, disabled people can be easily battered to death that is unless they have a huge shotgun.

Well if they are weak and disabled, then firing a huge shotgun wouldve damaged his body too. (Knockback power)

My opponents ehh rebuttal or whatever its called:

"Knifes are dangerous for you can show it to them but they won't suspect anything and then you can easily kill a good amount of people. What about books, cars and airplanes ? Yes, some buildings will burn, many people will die and 911 has happened but were the inventions evil ? Absolutely not - its the people who are turning bad things to good."

All the other objects you are naming all have an useful function for the society. Knifes could be used to cut bread or slice ingredients. Books can be read and both cars and airplanes are transport vehicles. Firearms main function is to kill people and has no other uses. (You dont drive your car with a pistol right?)

"Helicopters, CCTV, fingerprints and etcetera. These are the things which make life for a criminal difficult. Does the good outweigh the bad ? Who knows but its not the invention which are committing these crimes but people. Unless we do something via education and other means, crime will increase. Finally I must say that someone willing to commit a crime of murder is not in a good mindset hence trouble will be yielded. Perhaps murder despite no guns I mean murder did happen in the past when there were no guns ? Right ?"

Well who knows what happened in the 15th century? But im now comparing a land with civilians having almost no access to guns and a land like USA that has guns for sales. The amount of gun related crimes seems to be higher in USA. Why? Because the criminals are having a hard time getting a gun in lands like Holland.
If guns didnt exist today, the amount of crimes would dropped by alot. (NOT GONE, i repeat, only dropped)

"Then change the law but that won't do much if theres poverty. Take away the guns but that won't do much since there is poverty. Encourage growth of wealth and fair trading among the poorer and richer nations but that won't do much since there is... Obviously gun laws do make a difference but we should change our focus on wealth which brings so many good things for example lower crime rate."

You are now trying to ignore my point. (Take that xD)
If guns didnt exist, we wont have to bother with gun control laws and we can spend as much time as we can on wellfare. With crimes involving guns rising, we are FORCED to create gun control laws. (People also put too much time in this, neglecting other things)

"As you can see the poorer nations have more killings done. This is naturally expected from poorer nations. Incidentally, this is the same source my opponent just used."

Ehumm, they used guns to kill those 30000 people. USA isnt far from it though ranking 4th.
Without guns, these murders wouldnt happened :P

Time to prepare another hand if u suddenly attack again :P
Gives back spotlight*

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.nationmaster.com...
vardas0antras

Pro

"I agree, the goodness of an invention doesnt depend on how the society uses it, but uses does it have other then injuring and killing others? Like i just said, its a supreme killing tool thats not needed for the society."
Yes, protection.

The definitions:
I don't see a need to go over them.

" Firearms main function is to kill people and has no other uses."
Yes, this function can be used for good.

"If guns didnt exist today, the amount of crimes would dropped by alot. (NOT GONE, i repeat, only dropped)"
Its not the gun that commits a crime but the person itself ; the gun is one of many means to a goal.

"If guns didnt exist, we wont have to bother with gun control laws and we can spend as much time as we can on wellfare."
The killings would still exist.

"USA isnt far from it though ranking 4th"
This means that USA has characteristics of a poor nation. That being: stress, familiarity with violence, a need for more and etcetera.
Debate Round No. 3
dinokiller

Con

Rages towards UPC for the bad internet traffic*

Why would you need gun protection on a street? Everyone can see you clear as day if you are ever being threathened with a knife. Worse is if the robber has a weapon as well as he can shoot at anyone he wants. By eliminating the firearms, this scenario wouldnt happen.

"Its not the gun that commits a crime but the person itself ; the gun is one of many means to a goal."

And as I said, firearms makes killing easier, also raising the chance that the murder succeeds.

"The killings would still exist."

I only said the gun crime wouldve been lower.

"This means that USA has characteristics of a poor nation. That being: stress, familiarity with violence, a need for more and etcetera."

You are now ignoring the point. USA get lots of gun crimes so by eliminatin guns, all crimes wouldnt happened.

Maaaan, Ive never typed so short.
vardas0antras

Pro

"Why would you need gun protection on a street?"
The video:


"Everyone can see you clear as day if you are ever being threathened with a knife."
1)My opponent forgets that not all gun related assaults happen in public nor is there a big crowd in every street.
2)My opponent assumes that the crowd is full of heroes.
3)My opponent assumes its day.

"Worse is if the robber has a weapon as well as he can shoot at anyone he wants"

1)If the criminal has the control of the situation the he has the ability to kill anyone without a gun in any case. If the criminal does not have the control of the situation then he will have to flee unless the crowd has a gun because running faster than a bullet is impossible.
2)A criminal does not follow the law hence all you're doing is taking away the guns from the crowd by making it illegal.
3)Its less likely that a criminal will attack public places if the crowd is armed.

"And as I said, firearms makes killing easier, also raising the chance that the murder succeeds."
1)Do you think that its easy to commit murder ?
2)A sloppy try will always fail while a planned one is likely to succeed. Again, its not the weapon, but the mind of a criminal that does the killing.



"I only said the gun crime wouldve been lower."
Without knifes there would be knife crime and without cars there would be no murders involving cars but do the individuals also disappear ? No. The murderers remain.

"Maaaan, Ive never typed so short."
Nor have you made such a blunt spelling mistake.

May I also remind you that the gun itself is a good invention as I stated in round 2 ?

Debate Round No. 4
dinokiller

Con

Urghhhh, i cant take the pressure anymore... (Waves the white flag*)
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by theorusso 6 years ago
theorusso
I was really hoping for a, "guns don't kill people, I do!" argument.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Duh, hence i said 3 rounds.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Technically, there were only four rounds since I didn't post any arguments in my first round. Hence, you gave up on your (technically) third round :D
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Yeah it felt good, but i cant handle rounds more then 3, i just stick with low round debates.
Posted by forever2b 6 years ago
forever2b
Yea y did you quit? You still had a chance to come back... I liked your logic for like the first two rounds but left yourself open for the last two :p
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Guess i debate 5 rounds = i fail by being overpressured.
Posted by forever2b 6 years ago
forever2b
"If one is hit with a bullet, the wound is a lot cleaner than a wound caused by a slash from a sword. While a lot of bullets, or bullets from close range, can cause disfigurement, a sword slash is sure to do so. Also, a sword wound is bloody, ghastly, and one may not die instantly and painlessly (if it's predicted that there's no chance of recovery), as one could with a gunshot. A bullet can be easily removed, whereas arrowheads were designed with barbs that would cause immense holes and damage if attempted to be removed. I'd say that the bullet is the most humaine way for one to die a violent death, though that's oxymoronic... :P"
It takes many stabs to kill some one as to a single bullet to the head, heart or any vital organs. A gun wound is harder to remove than a knife. A gun has the ability to fracture bones, a knife..... well unless you are a samurai carrying a katana made from the best swordsman, would give you a flesh wound and we all know a flesh wound is easily curable, as to death or fractured bone takes a bit more work :)
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
All I get is a white box when I press "review", what should I do ?
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
A firearm is beneficial in numerous ways beyond self defense. The firearm still provides thousands of people with nutrition - hunting had been a lot more difficult with a bow and arrow. Firearms allow enforcement of just policies and the capture, imprisonment and even prosecution of criminals.

If one is hit with a bullet, the wound is a lot cleaner than a wound caused by a slash from a sword. While a lot of bullets, or bullets from close range, can cause disfigurement, a sword slash is sure to do so. Also, a sword wound is bloody, ghastly, and one may not die instantly and painlessly (if it's predicted that there's no chance of recovery), as one could with a gunshot. A bullet can be easily removed, whereas arrowheads were designed with barbs that would cause immense holes and damage if attempted to be removed. I'd say that the bullet is the most humaine way for one to die a violent death, though that's oxymoronic... :P
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
neva
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by drawoh_kcirtap 6 years ago
drawoh_kcirtap
dinokillervardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by racketguy 6 years ago
racketguy
dinokillervardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SimonN 6 years ago
SimonN
dinokillervardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by nhq 6 years ago
nhq
dinokillervardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
dinokillervardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
dinokillervardas0antrasTied
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 
Vote Placed by chelsear 6 years ago
chelsear
dinokillervardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ccstate4peat 6 years ago
ccstate4peat
dinokillervardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by MikeNovotny 6 years ago
MikeNovotny
dinokillervardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01