The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

no more hesitation targets of women, children, elderly

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 553 times Debate No: 31966
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)



Con has put up a facebook page with an explanation as to why they removed their "no more hesitation" targets from their website from public view. The targets, once exposed through media to the populace drew much distaste from the public who regard them as sinister. Some LEOs (law enforcement agencies) contend they need to have them to be desentized against a threat. Other officers report that they find them disgusting. The images of these paper targets for sale include a pregant women in a residential home nursery, a young boy standing beside a tree, an elderly woman in her kitchen in a purple bathrobe, a young mother holding her daughter's hand at the park but a gun in the other hand, an elderly gentleman in his backyard with a shotgun, and a few other similar scenarios.
The FBI has a database on LEOKAs (law enforcement officers killed in action) which also provides specifics about the assailants, including gender. However, it does not include stats for offenders under 12 years of age, perhaps because of a lack of. Of 77 deaths to officers by gun, 2 of the assailants were women. None were elderly.
If your'e not familiar with the targets and the controversy, review the provided links to the facebook page and the archived web page of LETargets before the content was removed (from view, not sale to law enforcement agencies).
Should these targets be banned from use because they might desentize officers into shooting innocent civilians that they imagine have gun, simply by the suggestion that these people are a threat? &searchcatcontect=%7e010000%7e010100%7e010101.2


My first point is that the FBI page cited is a EXTREMELY poor source to support my opponent's position.

My opponent's number, 77 crimes nationally, is ludicrously incorrect.

Aggravated Assault is the real problem. There were 258,765 arrests made for this crime in 2011[1]

Debate Round No. 1


what are the percentages of women and children, elderly that were involved in these aggravated assaults? Were they holding guns like depicted in the NMH targets? So what your'e saying is aggravated assault is why we need LEOs to be desensitized to the least likely to be a threat or that it is the reason why officers are being killed or injured by little old ladies or mommies at the park?


One in four elderly own a gun.[1]
One in four women own a gun.[1]

The issue is beyond gun ownership. Knife ownership combined with felonious intent is enough for an officer to shoot. It would probably be safe to say 100% of the above own a meat cleaver. As for Aggravated Assault offenders, the numbers support my position.[2]

Also, the position you are taking supports discrimination. It's true that most Aggravated Assault cases are men who have not entered middle age. However, it is profiling to practice only on men.

Debate Round No. 2


debbifaye99 forfeited this round.


Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
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: Forfeit, plis pro was far better organized (there is credit for that).