The Instigator
sgt.guffey
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jonbonbon
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

should kids under 18 have a gun

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...
Jonbonbon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,174 times Debate No: 45864
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

sgt.guffey

Pro

if kids are able to Handel a gun they should be able to Cary one
Jonbonbon

Con

Sure, let's arm the people with severely underdeveloped frontal lobes. A frontal lobe, by the way, is the reasoning center of the brain. That doesn't fully develop until you're about 25.

I would also like to point out that this resolution and my opponent's stance would allow a four year old to conceal and carry as long as the gun wasn't too heavy. A four year old would kill himself. Not on purpose, but kids stick things in their mouths, and I'm going to leave the example there so I don't make anyone cringe.

It wouldn't be much better if an 8 year old had a gun. He would just be more able to aim at other people. This is a ridiculous idea.
Debate Round No. 1
sgt.guffey

Pro

I was raised on guns. I learned to shoot an Handel a gun when I turned 6. an I am 17 an I am not dead. if kids are scared of guns they will get hurt. so society needs to stop telling parents that they cant show their kids how to use a gun. oh an I am a sergeant because I am not scared to use a gun
Jonbonbon

Con

My opponent has failed to acknowledge that he is not the model by which we can judge everyone in society will be able to behave. Just because one person was taught to *handle* a gun at an early age does not mean that every kid or most kids will be able to have a gun without hurting themselves. Most parents wouldn't even be able to properly teach their kids how to use one. Kids don't need guns. They need an education. Guns are great, but not when you're eight.
Debate Round No. 2
sgt.guffey

Pro

she has failed to realize that kids get hurt even with out a gun. what happens when a kid gets taken what is he/she
going to do. I am not talking abbot having fun with them. use it to protect your self like they were meant for
Jonbonbon

Con

My opponent is equating getting a boo boo from fall off a bike with getting shot in the head because you pointing the gun slightly too far up. We don't want children dying. That would most likely be considered a moral evil in everyone's book.

Here are ways for a kid to protect himself/herself: not go walking around alone until old enough, not getting into gangs, not hanging out with people who do dangerous things. These are all standards that can be created in the home before a gun is placed in the hands of the incompetent.

We can't assume every kid in the US is going to be taken by a pedophile and arm them with guns. More harm than good would come out of it.

Something to be realized at this point is that my opponent is making a claim. That means the burden of proof is on him. If he does not provide evidence or impeccable reasoning as to why his position is true, then he does not win this debate. As of yet, my opponent has yet to provide anyone with anything except for baseless assertions. Until my opponent can provide that, there is no choice but for me to win this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
sgt.guffey

Pro

I wonder if my opponent has ever heard of the WHAT IF theory. lets explain what if a kid was taken over seas were there parents cant help an the FBI has no jurisdiction over seas. so if a kid had a small gun they could protect them self's long enuf to get real help.

an if we train the kids to use the guns they wont get hurt. but the what if theory goes both ways I know. so get provincials to teach them. it is a long term thing it will work.
Jonbonbon

Con

My opponent's anecdotal argument is highly unlikely to happen to a child that I'm concerned about. My opponent offers nothing from the real world or even a bit of evidence. I honestly don't have anything to attack at this point. My opponent has provided no evidence as to why his claim is true.
Debate Round No. 4
sgt.guffey

Pro

sgt.guffey forfeited this round.
Jonbonbon

Con

I believe I win. Thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Lol, yeah that was why I won S&G
Posted by NiamC 3 years ago
NiamC
*cough cough... Handel

http://www.fodrizzle.com...
Posted by ElCoyote 3 years ago
ElCoyote
why is this voting for 117 days
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Lol :p
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Lol :p
Posted by WhoWouldnt 3 years ago
WhoWouldnt
Handel & Cary...is that a sitcom I'm unaware of?
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
Handel was a composer, not a verb.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
@Samuracan, I clear up the underbrush. The debates that no one else wants to take because they're obviously stupid. I get to either troll or just get easy wins, and no one else has to deal with them.
Posted by Samuracan 3 years ago
Samuracan
Jonbonbon had a valid point. This is really stupid opposition as well although frontal lobes are at adequate reasoning ability in my opinion at approximately age 20 the idea that children, who play video games in are age and are for numerous reasons so obviously stunted in reasoning should be given guns is an idea that is stupid on an apocalyptic scale. This debate is not worth arguing over.
Posted by ambivalentsoul 3 years ago
ambivalentsoul
I'm laughing so hard
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by saboosa 3 years ago
saboosa
sgt.guffeyJonbonbonTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by Bannanawamajama 3 years ago
Bannanawamajama
sgt.guffeyJonbonbonTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a weak argument based on generalizing gisbiwn experiences without showing why this should apply to others. Con had numerous arguments which seemed reasonable. Both sides made conjecture but pros were a lot less reasonable. Conduct because pro forfeited.