The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
devils_advocat3
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Nobody needs a gun not ever. Not for any reason

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...
devils_advocat3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2021 Category: Society
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 997 times Debate No: 127266
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Nobody needs a gun. Not for any reason. Not ever! It's time to put down all guns and believe in peace!

* There can be no worldwide peace with guns and weapons of superior firepower in it.

So if you support guns in any way, Shape or form then you do not believe that peace of any kind is possible especially within yourself. Now you think about that if you support guns.

* Guns have absolutely no use except to maim, Kill, Cause pain, Splatter guts, And cause horrific grief.

* It is time to do the right and the correct and only thing to do which is to put guns down forever. This includes ---everybody--- all at once, For ---everybody--- to put down their guns and take a step back and believe in peace and not violence and hate in which ALL guns are.

* Guns are NOT weapons of peace. So prove that guns ARE weapons of peace especially when they, Like the AK47 are created for only ONE PURPOSE - to kill people.

* Guns are weapons of hate, Violence, Bloodshed, War, Pain, Destruction, Murder, Grief, Horror, Suffering etc.

* There is nothing good about guns. Nothing.

Give 3 examples in each of the 5 rounds why a gun is needed. AND EXPLAIN to---the---letter why a gun is needed? Back up your claims with evidence. I can. I will present evidence to back up 3 different claims per RD that are not listed in this RD as to why no one needs a gun, Not ever. Not for any reason.

Be Clear, Concise, And accurate.

* No one under the age of 20 will be allowed to accept this debate. Why? These are ADULT issues. For those in your teens, You do not have the ability in any possible way to grasp the damage, The psychological terror of what guns are UNLESS (let me repeat) UNLESS you've experienced first hand what guns have done unto you or can do in which case you would take the Pro side especially if you've seen guts spilled out from your best friend or a loved one.

Btw, Don't be stupid and pretend you are someone you are not. People who lie, Cheat and steal are very easily found out. Not a good idea.

* Oh and btw, Do not be an atom as compared to the big bang and use an old, Outdated CDC completely debunked in several different ways CDC report on guns because this would only show how utterly stupid, Unintelligent, Uneducated you are and what you have also done is in no proper way done any research whatsoever. So you will have automatically forfeited this debate.

* Also don't use the "guns allow me to defend myself/ family/ friends" because it's nothing but pure garbage only mindset routine as it won't work if you do. So yeah, Do---some---actual---research. K? That is if and only if you are willing to accept this debate because again, You will have automatically forfeited.

devils_advocat3

Con

This is my first post so please bear with me.

For reference, I would consider myself on the left end of the political compass.

I believe that gun ownership, Or any weapon for that matter, Can co-exist with worldwide peace. Not only do I believe they can co-exist in a peaceful world but I believe guns are necessary in order to enforce peace (to a short-term extent). The real issue is regulation and the ability to properly penalize those who break or circumvent said regulations.

My first argument is that I believe authorities should be able to carry/use guns. Though many examples have shown, Especially recently, That there has been abuse of power with weapons amongst authorities such as the police, I would say that this is due to improper training and lack of ramifications rather than due to the existence of guns.

Why would armed authorities be necessary? Let's say for example that guns were removed from the world. How would we be able to deal with a group of violent individuals running around with knives and killing people? Of course, In most situations, People are civil and the vast majority of conflicts do not reach this extent, But it would be incredibly difficult to stop such a group. In a case where the state would be unable to protect its own people from a violent group, Society would easily collapse.

My second argument is that guns offer a balance of power to the people. This builds on top of the previous argument where I establish that the state needs at least some force in order to enforce societal rules that are agreed upon.

In cases such as Libya and Gaddafi or even currently with the military in Myanmar, It is evident that those who hold guns are the ones in power. In these cases, There exists no infrastructure, Political or otherwise to deal with imbalance of power; whoever is armed can simply shoot those who oppose them. The only way to alleviate the imbalance is to arm the populace so the ones in power have to relent or face an equally violent opposition. Of course, As I said earlier, This is only a solution in the short term and the long term solution would be to implement a proper democracy.

My third argument is that guns are actually used to defend people and not just some empty excuse to own a gun. This is an anecdotal reference not from me but from a YouTube video produced by Jubilee in their series called "Middle Ground", Where two opposing sides try come together on a consensus on a hot topic. The argument comes from an episode where the two groups are anti- and pro- gun. There is a woman who was not pro-gun until someone broke into her home and raped her. Owing to the fact she is a paraplegic, She couldn't run away and could not defend for herself. She says she knows for a fact if she had a gun in her nightstand, She would have used it in defence. (https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=3svs-nHtlNg) just before the 4 minute mark.

If you believe that the third argument and that woman's experience is not valid, Then feel free to substitute it with the following:

Guns aren't completely detrimental to society. Hunting as well as sport shooting are legitimate uses of guns and do not harm society. Some cases such as culling wild boars that run rampant in farms to protect crops and vegetation actually benefit society.

To sum up: Though guns can definitely be misused, To say that there is no need for guns whatsoever is not a statement I can fully agree with. Guns are an instrument of power that is necessary for order but also balance in our society. And with proper regulation and penalization of misuse, Can be a powerful and useful tool.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Le boo. I hope thee are doing well and in the very best of spirits. If this sounds harsh, It's not meant to. It's the way I jabber in my neanderthal ways.

"I believe that gun ownership, Or any weapon for that matter, Can co-exist with worldwide peace. "
Things don"t work that way especially when you have as an example lots of ammonium nitrate exploded that was just sitting there in Beirut, Docked, A best estimate for the yield is 500 tons of TNT equivalent, With a reasonable upper limit of 1. 1 kilotons that rocked the city. And who knows how many more misgivings there are? Who knows how many nuclear weapons there are that are not dismantled, Or even ready to go off that are in a graveyard somewhere as an example?

"Not only do I believe they can co-exist in a peaceful world but I believe guns are necessary in order to enforce peace (to a short-term extent). "
Well see, What you are stating is the equivalent of violence for the sake of violence which never works. "I"ve got a bigger gun than you. And because I do, I have the right to maintain peace while your duff is going to sit there and behave. "
That"s exactly to the letter what you are saying.
"The real issue is regulation and the ability to properly penalize those who break or circumvent said regulations"
You just proved it. Now, Who has the right to penalize anybody especially if those who are doing the penalizing are wrong themselves?
You still haven"t in any way solved "Nobody needs a gun. Not ever. Not for any reason. Not ever. "
"My first argument is that I believe authorities should be able to carry/use guns. "
Wow. Do you live here in the states? Apparently not. Almost nightly there"s reports of authorities going way overboard and them murdering someone who is completely innocent with ---their--- weapons, Usually 100% of the time, A gun.
What you don"t get is a gun ---always--- no exceptions, None, Gives someone that extra special feeling of "power". Many times, That "power" goes from a person's tiptoes all the way to their heads and spews out into anger. And many times, That anger is never shut off until it is too late. Many times, Especially if that person is a psychopath, Sociopath, Narcissist, Or all three, They don"t care as the bullets and or stinging words fly.
People don"t care about the ramifications. Did you see the storming of the United States capitol or not? Obviously, These people didn"t give a flying kahoot about any ramifications whatsoever. But they did care about their power and satisfying their anger in which case once sparked is very difficult to control, Spawned by the worst president of all time, Donald manure spread toilet dust Trump.
What is required to be done with the police is take away their guns, They are not needed, They don"t solve anything, The police should be required to take anger management classes BIG TIME, And learn how to diffuse arguments. What they do now is they are taught to shoot first and ask questions later. Bad idea.
"Why would armed authorities be necessary? "
They"re not in 19 countries. If they can do it. So can the rest of the world.
"How would we be able to deal with a group of violent individuals running around with knives and killing people? "
Now you"re reaching. Since when are there or have there been violent groups of gangs with knives or gangs with guns? No, These are individuals. Or for rare times, Duos or exceptionally even rarer times more than duos.
Here"s something else that you don"t get" You can dodge a knife. You cannot dodge a bullet.

"But it would be incredibly difficult to stop such a group. "
Actually it probably won"t even occur. Rarely do we ever hear about knife mass killings. You wanna know why? Because they---don"t---occur. They get worldwide attention if it occurs because they are so rare. You"d have to be extremely lucky to mass kill with a knife. A gun, It"s all over with a matter of seconds. Point, Aim and shoot. Except when you are making attempts to defend yourself and or family in which case almost never works.
"In a case where the state would be unable to protect its own people from a violent group, Society would easily collapse. "
It depends on how the infrastructure of that state is set up. If it"s well set up even after a takeover, It might survive. If it"s not well set up, It won"t survive. It also depends on the citizens and how willing they are to deal with the uprising. If they are not willing to deal with it, And they choose to revolt then the "whatever" government may go back to what it was, Or it may change completely. It"s a "who knows" bunch of scenarios that those who pretend they know what tomorrow will bring try to prophesy, But they often fail.
"In cases such as Libya and Gaddafi or even currently with the military in Myanmar, It is evident that those who hold guns are the ones in power. "
Yeah. See. NO ONE NEEDS A GUN. Not for any reason. Not ever. It's time to put down all guns and believe in peace!
Here"s the thing you don"t get" About a year and a half ago, PBS"s Nova did an episode on violence. Roughly 10, 000 years ago roughly 1 in every 15, 000 was murdered. Today it"s roughly 1 in every million. There are 3 reasons for this turnabout. 1. Government and equality. 2. Testosterone levels have dropped significantly. 3. There"s one helluva lot more peacekeepers now than there are the Hitler"s Mao"s, Hong Xiuquan"s etc. However, One little twitch of that balancing scale could turn that switch completely backwards.
Gandhi and Nelson Mandela never fired a single shot. Neither did Martin Luther King. So this entire paragraph is all for naught when they were surrounded by bullets. "In these cases, There exists no infrastructure, Political or otherwise to deal with the imbalance of power; whoever is armed can simply shoot""

"My third argument is that guns are actually used to defend people and not just some empty excuse to own a gun. "
Sorry. That doesn"t work and you clearly didn"t do any research on it.
"Will a Gun Keep Your Family Safe? Here"s What the Evidence Says"
Yet research clearly shows that more guns do not keep people safer " they do the opposite. Having a gun in the home increases the chance for accidental injury, Homicide, And suicide, All of which have been shown to outweigh the potential protective benefits of firearms.

"In a 2019 study, Researchers found that states with high levels of household gun ownership have more domestic gun homicides than other states do. In fact, The quartile of states with the highest rates of gun ownership have 65 percent more domestic gun homicides than the quartile with the least, Which is worrisome considering that domestic violence has worsened during the coronavirus outbreak.
"This is an anecdotal reference not from me but from a YouTube video produced by Jubilee in their series called "Middle Ground", "

Ah yes, The good ole "produced" videos designed to specifically put in the scare tactic that guns are necessary when in fact they"re not. What do you think would happen if this someone was to come on in and try to rape her? Do you really think for a moment or two that this person would be scared of a gun pointing at him and run like a scared little rabbit, Or would he most likely run forward towards her and continue on thinking it"s a bluff? Well that"s only true of course could this woman, Properly point, Aim, And make the attempt to shoot, Which in all likelihood, Probably not in which case the criminal already knows.

Hunting for sport, Well sorry that"s NOT A NEED. And that animal that you"d be hunting has far more of a right to life than you who would be hunting it with a gun. Now if you want to hunt it, Then you go out and hunt it on equal footing. PE-IR-OD. Yeah, I"m especially angry about that one especially when man causes the extinction of more species than can be counted for his own personal benefit and doesn"t give a damn about it and doesn"t do a damn thing about it. Who cares about human society when many scientists believe, And rightly so, That the human species could possibly be the fastest species to become extinct ever in the entire existence of Mother Earth/ Mother Nature/ Gaia Mother Earth is which case guns are NOT a part of it.

"To sum up: Though guns can definitely be misused, "
No. Guns ARE definitely misused.
To say that there is no need for guns whatsoever is not a statement I can fully agree with. "
Well that"s you. No offense, But that"s entirely your problem. Here"s the simple solution" Use---something---else other than a gun.
"Guns are an instrument of power"
Will you listen to yourself talk? The mere usage of "power", Such a cannibalistic term. And then you continue "that is necessary for order"
Who"s "order"? Yours? The Nazi"s?
"but also balance in our society. "
Balance in "our" society? You mean balance in a warlike society with children dying in the streets because you don"t have a solution to curb the gun problem.
"And with proper regulation"
No such thing.
"and penalization of misuse, "
Really? And yet how many adults with children in the home don"t even know how to hide their guns and LOCK them up from their children and keep those guns safe and believe that their children are safe from their guns until BANG it"s too late and then the adults are rightly and justly prosecuted?
"Can be a powerful and useful tool. "
You just proved yourself to be 100% false. No offense.

Now suppose worldwide peace is achieved. What is to be done with all the guns once peace is achieved? AND more importantly, How will worldwide peace be achieved with guns in the world without war and guns to fight wars? As stated, There's one helluva lot more peacekeepers than there are the Hitler's the Mao's etc. . . Nelson Mandella nor Gandhi didn't require a single bullet. Nobody needs a gun. Not for any reason. Not ever.
devils_advocat3

Con

Thank you for the reply!

Don't worry about sounding harsh, I can separate emotion from logic, And this is purely just discourse.

The incident in Beirut caused by stored ammonium nitrate has nothing to do with weaponry so I do not see the equivalence or relevance of this point. There was no criminal organization behind the explosions nor was there a motive. Gun violence has motives. Was the damage in Beirut devastating? Yes. Were many lives unnecessarily lost? Yes. And a lot of people were incredibly saddened and had their lives changed. Does it have anything to do with violence? No, Just terrible city planning and the wrong people paying the price. This counter example sounds like Chernobyl being used to be anti-nuclear when the real issue was not with the source itself but rather the lack of human judgement surrounding the issue.

' Well see, What you are stating is the equivalent of violence for the sake of violence which never works. "I've got a bigger gun than you. And because I do, I have the right to maintain peace while your duff is going to sit there and behave. " ' (Did you mean violence to counter violence? )

I fully expected this response when I was initially writing it down and I regret emphasizing brevity by not elaborating my point. I agree that if we played God and created some utopic society where there already exists some democratic judicial system in place that does not cater to the rich and powerful who can obtain better lawyers, That violent measures such as guns would not be necessary. However, I prefer to think in much more realistic and pragmatic contexts such as our current and existing world and how we would progress from here. Much like your initial supposition, It is simple to say that world hunger caused by financial equality should NEVER EVER EXIST, NOT FOR ANY REASON, Especially for people like you and I who have the privilege and time to debate global issues rather than actually living through them every single day. However, The issue is much more complicated owing to the fact that guns already exist and we should discuss the topic with that in mind.

'Now, Who has the right to penalize anybody especially if those who are doing the penalizing are wrong themselves? '

An elected official within a properly constructed judicial system; and if they were "wrong", Then the system and its constituents were the ones wrong to being with and it would be an indication that the rules would require correction.

' Wow. Do you live here in the states? Apparently not. Almost nightly there"s reports of authorities going way overboard and them murdering someone who is completely innocent with ---their--- weapons, Usually 100% of the time, A gun.
What you don"t get is a gun ---always--- no exceptions, None, Gives someone that extra special feeling of "power" '

You are correct. I do not. I live in Canada, Where guns are also legal but yet the rate of firearm deaths, Accidental or otherwise is much lower per capita. I have a gun license, Would be considered liberal, Have a university education, And I have held a firearm before. The only "feeling" I got when it was in my hands was that I need to be incredibly careful or the people around me could get injured.

' That "power" goes from a person's tiptoes all the way to their heads and spews out into anger. And many times, That anger is never shut off until it is too late. Many times, Especially if that person is a psychopath, Sociopath, Narcissist, Or all three, They don"t care as the bullets and or stinging words fly. '

Perhaps the issue is that people with mental health issues should not be around guns, Rather than saying guns should not be allowed. Proper vetting of firearm applications should achieve this.

' People don"t care about the ramifications. Did you see the storming of the United States capitol or not? Obviously, These people didn"t give a flying kahoot about any ramifications whatsoever. But they did care about their power and satisfying their anger in which case once sparked is very difficult to control, Spawned by the worst president of all time, Donald manure spread toilet dust Trump. '

Yes, Anyone who has access to a reputable news source has likely seen it. The disillusioned Trump supporters didn't care about ramifications because they believed that there weren't going to be any. The FBI has done a good job rounding up those who had participated. Those who were not yet caught but knew that they were guilty begged their family members not to oust them, So when they did become aware that there were consequences to storming the Capitol, They certainly did care about the ramifications.

'What is required to be done with the police is take away their guns, They are not needed, They don"t solve anything, The police should be required to take anger management classes BIG TIME, And learn how to diffuse arguments. What they do now is they are taught to shoot first and ask questions later. Bad idea. '

I mostly agree. The idea behind defunding the police is mainly this. There should be more resources dedicated to mental health care specialists for either training police officers or for field purposes, Rather than to arming them to the teeth or buying military grade weaponry that far exceeds typical everyday use. However, I believe that even if we have specialists in the field dealing with 911 calls requiring de-escalation, That we would still need an armed official to accompany them in case something goes wrong.

' They"re not in 19 countries. If they can do it. So can the rest of the world. '

Two things wrong with this. One, An oversimplification that because there exists a successful example that the concept can be applied universally. Following this logic, I could say that one-third of Icelanders own firearms and most police officers do not carry firearms and yet their crime rate is extremely rare; therefore an armed populace is the key to low crime. Yet we both know this is not true (or if it is, There are definitely other factors at play). Second, And more importantly, You left out a key part of that quote. I found the fact you were referring to and this is what was said: ' In nineteen countries, The police do not carry firearms unless the situation is expected to merit it'. And my whole premise is this. I do believe guns should have increased regulation and training for those who need it. But we still need it none-the-less. Not so much to the degree that we are used to seeing in this day and age, But still necessary IF THE SITUATION MERITS IT.

' Now you"re reaching. Since when are there or have there been violent groups of gangs with knives or gangs with guns? '

There are definitely criminal organizations that own guns. However, The idea of gangs with knives is merely a thought experiment where we substitute the idea of a gun with the next most dangerous thing if we were to remove guns from existence. It doesn't have to be a knife if you believe there is a better weapon suited for an example. My point isn't that we should be arguing whether or not knife gangs exist but the idea that even if we remove guns, There will be something to replace it. Eventually, There will probably be some equilibrium but that would still require an equivalent force in the hands of a lawful authority to dole out peace; it just so happens in our case, That force is a firearm.

' Gandhi and Nelson Mandela never fired a single shot. Neither did Martin Luther King '

All important people in human rights' movements, That's for sure, But not everyone can be like them. Even so, Suppose a police officer had the voice of either of those leaders. Do you truly believe they could simply stop a dangerous criminal with their words? Would this have worked in Nice, France if someone just shouted to the terrorist who was running people over with the cargo truck? As I mentioned before, I fully support anti-violence movements but I still think guns are necessary in short-term solutions.

'Having a gun in the home increases the chance for accidental injury, Homicide, And suicide'

Well obviously, But that's like saying that owning a car increases that chances of getting into a motor vehicle accident. We could also say that if we banned cars, There would be no deaths due to drunk driving. But what I am saying is, Instead of banning cars to alleviate harm caused by drunk drivers, Why not focus on stricter motor vehical licensing in order to weed out those who make poor choices with cars. This is an oversimplified analogy to get my point across but I do believe there are better options to control gun violence: we could restrict sales of bullets, Heavily tax guns, Add a per-gun annual fee to owners, Add serial numbers to gun parts, Properly train police authorities, Introduce liability insurance for police officers (i. E. Have them pay a premium that would increase based on poor/violent behaviour), And perhaps a million other things.

'Ah yes, The good ole "produced" videos designed to specifically put in the scare tactic that guns are necessary when in fact they"re not. '

Jubilee puts out left-wing content, And if you bothered to read that the series is titled "Middle Ground" or just watched the video, You would have a better understanding of why I said what I said.

I will say that my hunting point is probably my weakest one because I used in in lieu of the previous one in the case that you would not accept the argument where guns are used in self defense referenced here:

'Also don't use the "guns allow me to defend myself/ family/ friends" because it's nothing but pure garbage only mindset routine as it won't work. . . . You will have automatically forfeited. '

and I will concede that point.

'Will you listen to yourself talk? '

Yep, I reread my response to proofread it. Words and laws are also instruments of power. Perhaps you have a negative association with those words but that last portion seems like you are focused far too much on semantics.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

Boo. Ever so scary huh? Well I did say "boo".
"The incident in Beirut caused by stored ammonium nitrate has nothing to do with weaponry"
You 100% missed the point. Come on. You are better than this. This has nothing to do with criminal organizations. How many unused bombs, Guns, Whatever weapons are in storage, And or are in unkept storage that are not kept in proper lock and key, Just as guns are not kept in lock and key from children, That are rotting away, With so so so many other problems, Are these weapons waiting in wait to go off like a volcano/ earthquake waiting to go off ready to level a city from any city in the world? This is not a matter of if, It"s a matter of when and it"s a matter of multiple times and again and again and again. It"s also a matter of idiot tepid humanoids ---never--- learn from their hideous mistakes such as the one in Beirut. Makes sense now? This is an absolute "duh" ringing bell in the brain that cannot be erased in any possible way. No offense. But come one here.
Ab-so-lu-te-ly it has everything to do with violence. Weapons and or chemicals stored improperly, And or properly are violent by their very own nature.
Just terrible planning? You just answered your own statement.

Oh it"s much worse than that even though the subject is going to be changed, Because what"s happening is people are building 3D printer guns in their basements. There"s absolutely no laws against that. How can there be because how can law enforcement know who"s doing it, Knock on each and every door, Search each and every home/ workplace/ storage unit/ church/ whatever place they are being built/ bombs included to level an entire city block, Etc etc etc?
"Did you mean violence to counter violence? "
No. You have a gun and that gives you the excuse, That right, That power to fuel your anger. "I"m better than you. I"m bigger than you. I"m more powerful than you because I have a" gun. "
This is simple psychology 101.
Now what do you think happened when the brief overtaking of the capitol took place? Ah yes, It was fueled by anger. Take that anger away and it would have never been able to have happened. And how many there had their big He-Man guns to present their power?
Again, This is simple psychology 101.
Oh yes, People absolutely do play god when they carry guns. Take their guns away and they feel helpless, Powerless, And weak. Tough. Welcome to the real world.

Gee, In practically one brief sentence you mentioned 3 of 5 things that are required to be gotten rid of in order for there to be worldwide peace. Religion, Guns and weapons of superior firepower, Wealth/ money (you mentioning the super rich and powerful falls under the category of wealth and money). Now all of these things just mentioned were taught to me in high school back in 1980. They haven"t changed. So hopefully you"re getting it.
"Much like your initial supposition, It is simple to say that world hunger caused by financial equality should NEVER EVER EXIST, NOT FOR ANY REASON, "
Well see, I never stated anything like that. It"s not even close. Please don"t put words into my mouth. I really hate that. K? Good. Regardless, It"s true. Poverty should have been wiped out a good decade ago. Bono who has done quite a bit to make sure of this is 100% correct. It"s the greedy upper class, And many of them are religious who want to keep poverty perfectly intact so they can remain in power and gain and maintain more wealth. And I"ve seen both the super upper class from my daddy"d perspective, Who is so super greedy, And I now live at the poverty level, And would much rather be here by far. Yeah, It"s called corruption which most certainly exists within this country"s politicians, Especially with republicant"s, Especially with Donald cow chirp garlic onion beer belly deodorant Trump, Easily the worst president of all time. Wow did that corruption show. And even during the march on Washington, In an attempt to do something, Anything to stop gun violence, In which case it said it would do, Then a couple of days later it did nothing and stated it believed in the 2nd amendment which doesn"t hold up for gun rights at all in any possible way. Now take one lucky guess why?
"it would be an indication that the rules would require correction. "
Oh. I see. You mean like the 10 commandments? Right? In which case 5 of them require death if not obeyed, 4 of them are geared towards this unproven god"s bloated ego, And there"s not one of them geared towards children in which case is an absolute requirement. Something to the effect of "thou shalt always honor and protect children and never cause any harm to them. "
In other words, Any and all documents can and should be altered to make sure that they are correct, Right, And just and not some sloppily thing put together by some idiot mind(s) that make no sense at all.

Yeah see, I knew you had to live elsewhere. Because in Canada you guys most certainly do not hear on your nightly news constant murders of someone being murdered by a cop, Or a cop going overboard, Or a cop being shot, Or a cop being a racist pig, Etc etc etc. You guys are certainly a much happier country than we are. You guys most certainly have much less gun death annually. You guys also have it much harder to get a hold of a gun which makes a HUGE difference. You guys also have free health care which is also HUGE difference.

Well see um no. It's not mental health issues as Donald stubby bile in his cabbage batbrain Trump, Easily the worst president of all time tried to lay blame on without doing any research whatsoever. After all, How can it be? Think about it. About 2 years ago, Maybe longer, 60 minutes did an article on just that. "How can anybody, Especially a mental health professional recognize if someone is mentally ill if that person does not know if they are mentally ill? " BANG! It hit me like a jackhammer. Oh how true that is. And then they followed up with "The teens have it especially hard because at mental health units they are so overpacked that unless it is severe cases, Their stay is less than a week. " So how can they get any help whatsoever? Is it any wonder why so many teens feel isolated and lost, Without friends and loved ones especially with both parents working, Or with single parents? So gee, Yeah is it any wonder why so many school shootings take place? These kids SCREAM for help and they don"t get it.
It gets much worse because my psychologist dropped a HUGE bomb on me about 2 months ago" The teens and today"s kids are lesser and lesser and lesser educated as compared to 20 years ago, As compared to 40 years ago as compared to 60 years ago. Why? The media. That"s a 4th thing that is required to be gotten rid of (for the most part, Not all of it) if there is to be worldwide peace. Back then there were books, People would form pictures and ideas in their minds. Now the media forms pictures and ideas in the kids brains for them. Yeah. Ab-so-lu-te-ly the kids are becoming lesser and lesser educated. Even worse is many kids, Think and believe that they know everything that there is to know! Wow.
And then someone goes on a killing spree and then they are labeled as "mentally ill" and then someone digs into the killers past and see what he or she has done and tries to find one little niche to label this person as mentally ill just so society can move on and the families and loved ones can get some answers and learn to grieve in which case there"s no time limit on grieving as well as everybody grieves differently, Sooooo the killer wins in some way.
NOBODY NEEDS A GUN. NOT EVER. NOT FOR ANY REASON.

"Proper vetting of firearm applications should achieve this. "
There"s no such thing.

"The FBI has done a good job rounding up those who had participated. "
Well see. Um no. The FBI should have rounded them up on the day of. Not month or months after.
Um no. That"s not how things work. People need to understand to control their anger. And not to let their anger take control of them which is what happened in the storming of the capital in which case there is no reasoning behind it.
Yet people follow a religion supposed unproven undefined god of the bible and according to the print has anger, Wrath, Vengeance, Rage, Fury, Jealousy and would murder anyone that does not believe in it. So pick up your guns, Get to the battlefields where at least 1 billion have died all in the supposed "good" name of this unproven god. Does that make any sense whatsoever?
Damn right I"m mentioning a lot of religion. I hate religion also.

'What is required to be done with the police is take away their guns, They are not needed, They don"t solve anything, The police should be required to take anger management classes BIG TIME, And learn how to diffuse arguments. What they do now is they are taught to shoot first and ask questions later. Bad idea. "
Well, You can"t defund the police. But it is a shame that nearly everything in developed countries is based on money/ wealth. Money/ wealth is a mindset. However, Notice that in the happiest places on earth for man, That money/ wealth takes a huge backdrop?
"There should be more resources dedicated to mental health care specialists for either training police officers or for field purposes, "
Yeah, Anger management.
I"ve also told this to all of my friends that if I was president the very first thing I would do is get all the rape kits tested that are sitting on the shelves. Who knows how many there are? But I just googled it and in California alone, There"s 14, 000. Women deserve to know who their attackers are, And these s--t of people are 100% required to be gotten off the streets.

I'm out of space and sorry I got wayyyyyyyyy sidetracked with a lot of different subjects for this RD. I know, Shoot me with a brick shipyard.
Well please always tc and haveth thee fun!
devils_advocat3

Con

The lack of clarity and your consistency to go off on tangents makes it incredibly difficult to see your point. You keep asking rhetorical questions that can be interpreted in multiple ways to draw an argument and I'm not sure how that helps you.

I'm going to attempt to decipher your convoluted rebuttal once more, But in the future, Please try to speak in a clear and concise manner so we don't waste rounds talking over the same example. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that we have "weapons" stored and it threatens the peace and safety of those in the surrounding area.

All I was trying to say in my reply in Round 2 is that ammonium nitrate is predominantly used as the main ingredient in fertilizer, And was not a good analogy to be used to compare actual weapons being stored improperly. My point is that your argument of blaming resources that are potential sources of harm is void because in actuality, It is the care and handling of those resources that pose the greater threat. We know how devastating nuclear weapon knowledge could be, But if we properly harness nuclear energy, It becomes one of the cleanest forms of energy currently available. It would be a travesty if the world banned nuclear power plants after WWII or Chernobyl. We should see guns the same way. This is not to say that I believe the gun culture in the US is justifiable; all I am saying is that banning the gun itself is not a solution to the problem.

' people are building 3D printer guns in their basements. There"s absolutely no laws against that'

I have heard of this one but I am not sure where you found that it is not illegal. Even early on in my gun course, We were taught that the legal entity of the gun is defined by the "action" of the firearm. The definition of action used here means the portion of the gun that is used to fire the bullet, Hence "action". This is used to differentiate between something like the barrel, Trigger, Or grip of a gun as it is possible and within reason to exchange these parts. Serial numbers used to identify ownership is printed on the action of a firearm, So unmarked guns, Such as homemade 3D printed guns would be considered illegal.

'How can there be [laws against illegal gun ownership]. . . How can law enforcement know who"s doing it, Knock on each and every door, Search each and every home/ workplace/ storage unit/ church/ whatever place they are being built/ bombs included to level an entire city block, Etc etc etc? '

You can't possibly eliminate every single attempt to fabricate a weapon with regulation, But that's not the point. You have to realize a majority of the cases of firearm violence is committed via legally purchased firearms. The point isn't that better laws will eradicate gun violence, But it will severely mitigate the majority of the cases. In fact, Arguing for the idea of illegal fabrication of firearms hurts your point more than it does mine because it shows that it would be useless to outright ban firearms.

' Now what do you think happened when the brief overtaking of the capitol took place? Ah yes, It was fueled by anger. Take that anger away and it would have never been able to have happened '

We are trending towards going off topic but you haven't presented many new arguments so I have the space to address this one. Yes you could say it was fuelled by anger, But I think the real reason here was because Trump supporters are fed a very narrow range of information, Made worse by social media algorithms that reinforce their beliefs. They truly believed that the election was somehow stolen from them and Trump used this to incite anger. To say that anger is the root cause of this is very similar to your argument of banning guns. You say, If we remove the anger from the people, This would have never happened. Sure, But how do you remove anger from people? You tend to focus on the wrong idea. The real cause of the insurrection was misinformation on a large scale, And that if we wanted to fix the problem at the root, We should provide fact based and unbiased news sources that do not try to promote agendas like Fox News. Likewise, To fix the problem at the root of gun violence we should be focusing on gun regulation instead.

'3 of 5 things that are required to be gotten rid of in order for there to be worldwide peace. Religion, [weapons], Wealth/ money'

You brought up Gandhi, MLK, And Mandela in your previous response and they were all religious; Hindu, Christian, And Christian respectively. To me, It's moreso the interpretation and application of religion that really matters. It's only those who take religious texts too literally or apply it blindly to support their own crazed beliefs that give us problems. Weapons? Sure it is difficult to spread peace with weapons in the wrong hands, I am not disagreeing with you here. All I have ever been saying up until this point is that blaming the existence of guns is not the solution to the violence caused by it. Wealth is a more difficult one. I don't think you can outright get rid of wealth, I think the issue is the unequal distribution of wealth. However, I digress.

' Regardless, It"s true. Poverty should have been wiped out a good decade ago. '

Good that we see eye to eye on something. But I was trying to illustrate that it's not useful to say we should just get rid of something. We have to take a closer look at the issue and try to solve it at the root. People might think that world hunger is due to the fact that we do not produce enough food for the less fortunate. When in reality, We as a global population produce more food than we can eat; the issue is that we just aren't distributing it. For example, Let's take a look at a smaller scale, Within a city. Groceries would rather discard food that is reaching its expiration than to donate it homeless shelters or families that need it the most. This could probably be fixed by a government regulation if someone wanted to, But the reality is that it doesn't benefit anyone in the upper class making the rule so they don't bother with it. I'm not trying to argue with you that gun violence is bad. I am trying to argue that while gun violence is a horrible plague on society, There still exists a time and place for firearms, And that attempting to completely get rid of guns is not the answer, Rather we should regulate them properly.

'You guys also have it much harder to get a hold of a gun which makes a HUGE difference'

Exactly my point. This would be the effect of proper gun regulation. Even in Switzerland the gun ownership rates are very high, Yet crime and death due to firearms is statistically much lower than data in the US would seem to suggest. There are other factors unrelated to the firearms per capita at play here.

' How can anybody, Especially a mental health professional recognize if someone is mentally ill if that person does not know if they are mentally ill? '

Regular checkups honestly, And this is easier said than done because the US does not have socialized healthcare. But if they wanted to fix it, Why not institute a mental health care professional at high schools and university that regularly talks to students like guidance counselors. And before you say that they already exist and is not working, For the educational institutions that do have that system in place, This is very likely due to the fact that the university doesn't see mental health as a big enough concern and do not spend enough money towards it.

'Well see um no. It's not mental health issues'

There are many research articles that show how almost every single person who is incarcerated due to committing a violent crime has a history in head trauma. This is probably the strongest correlation I have ever come across and is a very interesting topic in psychology.

'my psychologist [said] the teens and today"s kids are lesser and lesser and lesser educated as compared to 20 years ago, As compared to 40 years ago as compared to 60 years ago'

Time to get a new psychologist.

'someone goes on a killing spree and then they are labeled as "mentally ill" and then someone digs into the killers past and see what he or she has done and tries to find one little niche to label this person as mentally ill'

Mentally ill is a very broad label but definitely has its merits in explaining violent tendencies. People with behaviour changes due to being brought up in violent backgrounds, Were physically or sexually abused, Have incurred head trauma when younger, Are all under the umbrella of the term. I don't have the space to give you full details but it is very well documented. If you would like to delve deeper in this topic, You can message me.

'Well see. Um no. The FBI should have rounded them up on the day of. '

I'm not an expert on criminal law so correct me if I am wrong. Up until they actually stepped foot in the capital they haven't committed a federal offense, They were just protesting so I don't think they had grounds to issue arrests. If we're going to blame anyone, We should blame the Capitol Police. Pretty frustrating and eye-opening to see however that not only did they not use any force, But some of the them straight up let them in.

'Well, You can"t defund the police'

As I mentioned previously, The meaning of defunding isn't to literally cut every penny from the police force but to redistribute how the monetary resources within the police are used.

I'm going to stop replying to your comments here because they either don't make much sense, Or are unrelated to the topic at hand. Instead I would like to ask you some questions that are pertinent and put us back on track.

1. Would humanity be able to enforce laws without some type of weapon? Should the Capitol Police have been armed on the day of the insurrection?
2. Why do you believe that there is no such thing as proper vetting of firearm applications?
3. If you had power to change the law, How would you alleviate the gun violence situation in the US?
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

Points. That"s plural. Several points were made in all 3 RD"s thus far and many more will be made in this RD. AND most of them were responding to what you had to say, So how could they all be clear and consistent, Especially when you were not clear and consistent?
"You keep asking rhetorical questions""
You do realize that statement alone is a debate-ending statement - correct? So you give me one, Just one reason why I should continue with this debate when in fact you CLEARLY support guns, Weapons of violence, And hate, And in no possible way and you support your ridiculous positioning at all that guns are of peace in any possible gesturing and you don't understand suffering, Grief and other emotions?

"that can be interpreted in multiple ways to draw an argument and I'm not sure how that helps you. "
You haven"t had someone in your life because he gets jealous of his girlfriend wanting to leave him so he takes his handgun, Goes into her work, Murders her. Gets only 4 years in prison, Taps me on the shoulder at the downtown bus station (talk about super creepy), Says "Hi, Remember me? ", Then proceeds to tell me that he"s now a manager at a local restaurant. Great! Just what we should all do! Go out and murder our other halves, Just so that we KNOW we will only do 4 years, A true slap on the wrist because if it was done with any other weapon other than a gun, It would be 25 or more years, And when we get out we will have a high paying career waiting for us. GREAT NEWS!
It gets much worse. I have a lifelong friend that I"ve known for 46+ years. He was in the marines in Afghanistan. The person right next to him had his face splattered all over him from a sniper's bullet. He"s got a family of 6. Now you imagine the nightmares he has to go through. Oh and btw, I"ve lost 64 people in my life. Yeah. I try to help him as best as I can. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn"t. You know 0 about ---grief---, Especially about violent grief. Nothing. Out of those 64" 4 to murder, 4 to suicide, 6 to drug and alcohol abuse, 2 were hit by drunk drivers, And one, Wow, She had it so horrifically and yeah, There"s worse, So you should be pleased that every single quadrillionth of a second that you are breathing you should be looking to the sun and thankful that it exists.
You also know 0 about super intense horrific pain. So yeah, It 100% does help lil ole me.
"And was not a good analogy to be used to compare actual weapons being stored improperly. "
Actually it 100% was. I am so ready to end this because in no possible way are you thinking, Rationalizing, Reasoning, Using common sense, Using logic AT ALL.

"It is the care and handling of those resources that pose the greater threat. "
Who mentioned anything at all about "care"? What about terrorism if something like an extra pile of nuclear waste buried deep underground, In which case there is no such thing as it being "well contained" and "well guarded" is hijacked as a very viable scenario? Same is true with an extra stash of guns? You're better than this. AND you can think better.

Really? A dirty bomb"s nuclear fuel is "clean? " Wow. That"s nice. Oh and btw, Since when is Chernobyl, Nagasaki, Fukushima Daiichi, Three Mile Island, Etc etc etc "clean fuel"? Why not use actual "clean fuel" rather than making attempts to bluff at it without any common sense values adding into the mix?
Actually, No, "we", And who is this "we"? Please do not group people with good common sense, That can use reason, Logic, That can think, Rationalize, Into this "we" category of "yours". K? That angers "me".
"This is not to say that I believe the gun culture in the US is justifiable;"
Oh yes you are, Otherwise you would not be defending it.
"all I am saying is that banning the gun itself is not a solution to the problem. "
It is the only solution. Apparently you want the body count to continue to rise, To pile up and do nothing about it.
Here"s something 60 minutes produced 10 months ago (on my b-day nonetheless). DDO will not take the link. Nevertheless, Simply copy and paste the title into your google search engine, And bang! It"s the first link that will appear.
* "Ghost Guns: The build-it-yourself firearms that skirt most federal gun laws and are virtually untraceable"
"Under federal law, They require no background check or serial number, Making ghost guns a growing weapon of choice for criminals. "
* Washington Post "Despite ruling on 3-D-printed guns, It remains legal to make your own gun at home"
"The more gun control gets passed, The more popularity there"s been for these types of home-built firearms and do-it-yourself projects, " he said. "What"s the rational basis for telling people who are not prohibited that they cannot learn how to do stuff? "
* "What Are 3D-Printed Guns, And Why Are They Controversial? "
"Under federal law, It"s the only gun part that requires a federal background check to purchase from a licensed dealer. "
Regardless, They"re all guns.
"So unmarked guns, Such as homemade 3D printed guns would be considered illegal. "
Yah don"t think for a sextiollinth of a second that something like that cannot be easily forged? Regardless, Pay attention to what 60 minutes had to say.
"You can't possibly eliminate every single attempt to fabricate a weapon with regulation, "
So in other words, According to you, There"s no possible way to be fair, To be just, To do what is right. Either you knock on every single door that there is, Or you knock on none of them.
"But that's not the point. "
Yeah. That is the point. That is the exact point.
"You have to realize a majority of the cases of firearm violence is committed via legally purchased firearms. "
Well yea. Someone actually gets it! In my numerous umpteen times I"ve run this, With actual proof that nobody reads anyway because they are far too dimwitted to, Nearly all gun crimes ARE committed with legal guns.
"The point isn't that better laws will eradicate gun violence, But it will severely mitigate the majority of the cases. "
Really? According to what? You? How would you know considering that there"s been nothing implemented to show that what you point out could ---ever--- work whereas Australia did in fact get rid of their guns and gun crimes dropped exponentially. But you know what? Crimes did increase. It"s a simple google. "Between 2018 and 2019, The number of victims of homicide and related offenses in Australia increased by 10% (39 victims) to 416 victims. This was the first national increase in four years. "
Crime is always going to happen due to human nature. But over the thousands of years, It"s gone down, Way down.
About a year and a half ago PBS"s Nova ran an episode on violence" Roughly 10, 000 years ago roughly 1 in every 15, 000 was murdered. Today it"s roughly 1 in every million. There are 3 reasons for this turnabout. 1. Government and equality. 2. Testosterone levels have dropped significantly. 3. There"s one helluva lot more peacekeepers now than there are the Hitler"s Mao"s, Hong Xiuquan"s etc. However, One little twitch of that balancing scale could turn that switch completely backward.
You really don"t think, Unless you are a psychopath, Sociopath, Narcissist, Or a combination of all 3 somehow that you cannot fire a gun out of anger or power or both somehow? Really? How naive are you? The mere squeeze of the trigger is exactly that.
"We are trending towards going off topic but you haven't presented many new arguments""
Well in no possible way have you addressed. . .
* Guns have absolutely no use except to maim, Kill, Cause pain, Splatter guts, And cause horrific grief. "
You"ve not addressed that side of the issue by a long shot.
* It is time to do the right and the correct and only thing to do which is to put guns down forever. This includes ---everybody--- all at once, For ---everybody--- to put down their guns and take a step back and believe in peace and not violence and hate in which ALL guns are.
Are you willing to put your gun down, Stand up and believe in peace? Y____? ____? Then until you do, In no possible way do you and or can you possibly believe in peace.
* Guns are NOT weapons of peace. So prove that guns ARE weapons of peace especially when they, Like the AK47, Are created for only ONE PURPOSE - to kill people.
The AK47 was purposefully designed to not only kill but murder people. The AR-15 fires 3RD"s per second, And they all are. Do you really believe ---any--- guns were invented to maintain peaceful gestures? OK, Then prove it and which EXACT models so I can look them up, Because believe me, I will.
* Guns are weapons of hate, Violence, Bloodshed, War, Pain, Destruction, Murder, Grief, Horror, Suffering, Etc.
And that they are, In which case you"ve not addressed this side of the issue either because apparently, You have no clue as to what violence, Bloodshed, War, Pain, Destruction, Murder, Grief, Horror, Suffering, Any of it is? Do you? Apparently not. Sorry for the stereotyping here but so so so many do these things" So if I am out of line in speaking about you, Then it is entirely my fault, But come on here, Don"t be like so so so many others as they do and let the gun speak for them.
This is a pretty damn good article"
"The psychology of guns: risk, Fear, And motivated reasoning"

"Trump supporters are fed a very narrow range of information, "
Anger and convinced that they were right when in fact they were duped. Being right doesn"t do anybody good when fueled by anger.
Dr. Phil gets sooo many couples, And or people who are CLEARLY on opposite sides of each other. "Which would you rather be "right" or "happy"? "
That same analysis goes with gun owners as well as Trump supporters who most certainly realize that they"ve been duped, Especially with those who are from QAnon, And all of them that remain are disillusioned.

* Did you know that 17-18 per day vets commit suicide per day with handguns here in the U. S. From 2005 to 2018? That's reason enough to get rid of all guns.

I'm out of space
devils_advocat3

Con

So you give me one, Just one reason why I should continue with this debate when in fact you CLEARLY support guns, Weapons of violence, And hate'

1. You openly challenged anyone to debate with you on this topic and with the exception of how I feel about the way you present your arguments, I have shown great tolerance and patience trying to deciphering your grammar and see things from your point of view.

2. "Supporting guns" is a very broad generalizing on my point of view. I accepted your debate because I thought it was foolish to say that guns should not exist. There are valid uses for guns, And I am trying to argue that. I don't like the ugly parts that comes with making firearms readily accessible to the public; I believe that should be changed. But I am also pointing out the fact that countries such Switzerland have high rates of gun ownership yet come nowhere close to the US in terms of gun related deaths which indicates there are other underlying factors that cause all the negativity you associate with guns.

'You also know 0 about super intense horrific pain'

I make no assumptions about you yet you claim to know me. Do you truly believe you are the only person who has ever lost someone? That emotional pain only exists in your life? Get real.

'What about terrorism if something like an extra pile of nuclear waste buried deep underground. . . Is hijacked as a very viable scenario? '

Once the majority of the energy from a uranium core has been expended, You can't use it to make bombs. They bury it deep underground because the remainder can still emit radioactive decay which can be harmful to people in the long run. Even then, I have yet to hear any terrorist groups try to incorporate nuclear waste in their attacks.

'Really? A dirty bomb"s nuclear fuel is "clean? " Wow. That"s nice. Oh and btw, Since when is Chernobyl, Nagasaki, Fukushima Daiichi, Three Mile Island, Etc etc etc "clean fuel"? Why not use actual "clean fuel" rather than making attempts to bluff at it without any common sense values adding into the mix? '

Yes, Nuclear fuel is clean, And before you promote fear mongering about "dirty" nuclear power, Please read up on it. It's considered clean because the only by-product is residual radioactive waste (which over time becomes less and less radioactive) and grey water from cooling the reactor cores. More importantly, Compared to wind farms, Solar farms, And hydroelectric dams, Nuclear is the most reliable option because it is available year-round; the other three provide power at around a third of the year since it is not always windy, Sunny, Or raining.

https://e360. Yale. Edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate

Not only due we have issues with reliability, Nuclear powerplants take up a much smaller land footprint.

Lastly, Solar technology use large lithium based batteries in order to make up for the shortcomings of the fact that it is not always sunny. However, Lithium mining is incredibly harmful to the environment because it releases a lot of salts into the surrounding areas and uses a lot of water. Yes, We still need to transition to wind/solar/hydro but nuclear is the best, If not only, Option for transitioning away from carbon.

So please, Before calling my argument a bluff and dissuading the fight against climate change by bashing nuclear energy, Read up on it.

'Chernobyl, Nagasaki, Fukushima Daiichi, Three Mile Island'

Chernobyl and Fukashima are the only one of the two that illustrate the potential dangers of nuclear power plants. But keep in mind that the meltdown at Fukashima Daiichi was caused by a magnitude 9 earthquake and only 1 person died as a result of the nuclear power plant accident.

Nagasaki (and Hiroshima) were acts of intentional violence. This has nothing to do with how environmentally friendly nuclear energy can be, It was an inhumane and atrocious tactic to scare the Japanese into surrendering that lead to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian deaths. You could turn a lot of technology to weapons, But that doesn't mean we should exclude the same technology from helping humanity.

In the Three Mile Island incident, There were no casualties. Although there were concerns of carcinogenic particles being released in the air, There have been no statistically significant increases in the rates of cancer in the surrounding area to warrant such a claim.

I would be hard-pressed to call nuclear energy (not used in weapons of mass destruction of course) to be considered dangerous.

The whole 3D gun argument I will give you credit for because I have not heard about that ruling. It seems highly irrational however, And I hope it doesn't set precedent for future cases.

"What"s the rational basis for telling people who are not prohibited that they cannot learn how to do stuff? "

Not directed at you but according to this person's logic, Then it should be legal for someone to make bombs to learn.

'So in other words, According to you, There"s no possible way to be fair, To be just, To do what is right. '

No, You tried to invalidate my argument (adding gun control laws will lower gun crimes) by saying that 'laws won't work because the police can't possibly knock on every single door to make sure people are not creating guns illegally', To which I pointed out it was ridiculous to even consider that laws will magically stop all attempts at a crime.

Me - 'The point isn't that better laws will eradicate gun violence, But it will severely mitigate the majority of the cases. '

You - 'Really? According to what? You? How would you know considering that there"s been nothing implemented to show that what you point out could ---ever--- work whereas Australia did in fact get rid of their guns and gun crimes dropped exponentially'

Did you not just prove my point? Better laws could include stricter or in some cases revoked gun licenses. You can write laws that prevent people from owning a gun unless their occupation deems it necessary. Laws can increase the cost of a gun license so people who are thinking about owning a gun for the whim might think twice. Laws can make it illegal or can increase the tax on certain types of ammunition. This all falls under gun control without outright banning it.

'You really don"t think, Unless you are a psychopath, Sociopath, Narcissist, Or a combination of all 3 somehow that you cannot fire a gun out of anger or power or both somehow? Really? How naive are you? The mere squeeze of the trigger is exactly that. '

Surely someone can pull a trigger out of fear in a case of an armed robbery, Can they not? Where would the anger or the display of power come from? What about people who hunt animals for food? Do they do it because they are angry at their dinner? Would you feel the same way about a bow and arrow or a snare?

'Well in no possible way have you addressed. . . '
* Guns have absolutely no use except to maim, Kill, Cause pain, Splatter guts, And cause horrific grief. "

Protection and peacekeeping. You could argue that death could be a by-product of someone using a gun defensively but I'll say that pointing an unloaded firearm provides the intended effect so the real purpose is not to kill but to scare a potential threat from acting out.

United Nations peacekeepers are armed but that doesn't mean they want to kill. They are there to protect innocent civilians.

'You"ve not addressed that side of the issue by a long shot. '

I addressed it in my first response.

* It is time to do the right and the correct and only thing to do which is to put guns down forever. This includes ---everybody--- all at once, For ---everybody--- to put down their guns and take a step back and believe in peace and not violence and hate in which ALL guns are.

This is not even an argument.

Are you willing to put your gun down, Stand up and believe in peace? Y____? ____? Then until you do, In no possible way do you and or can you possibly believe in peace.
* Guns are NOT weapons of peace. So prove that guns ARE weapons of peace especially when they, Like the AK47, Are created for only ONE PURPOSE - to kill people.

There is a "paradox" regarding a society's tolerance towards a dangerous group of people, Commonly Nazis in most examples, That goes as following:

Should we tolerate the intolerant?

A fair and just society should tolerate ideas from everyone to have an open and fair space of inclusion. But how would that idea coincide with a group of people who believes that are certain ideas should be excluded. Nazis believed that Jewish people were inferior, So if we want to remain tolerant and inclusive we would have to accept that, But by accepting that, We are no longer tolerant and fair.

The resolution to the paradox is that we have to be intolerant against those themselves who are also intolerant, That we have to compromise our ideas of tolerance in order to maintain a fair and just society.

I'm saying this is the same line of thinking for guns. Guns themselves are not instruments of peace, But in order to maintain peace, Sometimes you have to use guns.

Now that I have RE-answered your questions, I would like for you to show me the same respect and answer my questions from my previous response:

1. Would humanity be able to enforce laws without some type of weapon? Should the Capitol Police have been armed on the day of the insurrection?
2. Why do you believe that there is no such thing as proper vetting of firearm applications?
3. If you had power to change the law, How would you alleviate the gun violence situation in the US?
Debate Round No. 4
backwardseden

Pro

1. Yeah. I said why a gun is "needed". Not a want, A desire, A reflection of the person, An addiction. Regardless, My "grammar", Well, Many of my potshots are direct insults, When you do not show the intelligence of any kind towards what you say and are in my specific language that I create. Also, I"ll be the first to admit that my grammar stinks to high heaven. Also, Many times, It"s impossible to understand what you are driving at because you are not clear and concise. However, I am a writer, A creator, And a very good one at that and can come up with amazingly original insults, Poetry, Music, Dialogue that I love to do in which case makes for good reading as well as listening and am damn proud of it and so are my friends.
"2. "Supporting guns" is a very broad generalizing on my point of view. I accepted your debate because I thought it was foolish to say that guns should not exist. There are valid uses for guns, "
You have yet to mention, Just one genuine true honest reason. Especially that is a NEED, A requirement, A necessity.
Switzerland well did it ever dawn on you that they also have different, Much different happiness/ wellness reports? So does Japan and their violence for Japan is much more intense, By far than is here in the states and they have for more intense gun laws AND their homicides are by far MUCH lower? Here"s the thing" Why is it, Constantly, Every single annual report, That European nations ---always--- gets the best grades? So why should the Swiss or any other country have guns in the first place if they are happy? What is that special need, Requirement, Necessity? There"s none.
"I make no assumptions about you yet you claim to know me. Do you truly believe you are the only person who has ever lost someone? That emotional pain only exists in your life? Get real. "
Ab-so-lu-te-ly 100% no. But until it happens to you, And we both know it hasn"t, Then things like this changes a person forever. And when it has happened to me, Then I ab-so-lu-te-ly have that right to throw you or anyone under the bus until you or anyone can topple it or mention anything in regards to it happening to them. ESPECIALLY when it's a violent hateful act(s) as was here in which case there was absolutely no NEED for them.
Oh and btw, The lifelong friend I told you about who I"ve known for 46+ years, He"s told me time and time again, Though I wouldn"t do this, Though I 100% agree with it, He"d go door to door and remove every single gun from every single person ever.

'What about terrorism if something like an extra pile of nuclear waste buried deep underground. . . Is hijacked as a very viable scenario? '
Nevermind. You"re not getting the most simple of logical examples that can be expanded upon that you are not allowing your mind to do.

No. Sorry. Nuclear fuel is not clean. I did read up on it with ever so conflicting statements. I"ll take the conflicting ones until it is 100% known until there"s a 100% guarantee that it"s safe. And right now, That guarantee doesn"t live up to that bill.
"More importantly, Compared to wind farms, Solar farms, And hydroelectric dams, Nuclear is the most reliable option because it is available year-round;"
That"s now, Or better said - yet. Who knows what tomorrow"s research will bring. But why invest in something such as nuclear fuel that can be and as shown to be completely catastrophic especially with meltdowns that make wastelands for generations that in no possible way does man have the right to do? Man does not own this planet. Man cannot change this planet. Man cannot turn this planet towards his without catastrophic consequences that thus far Mother Earth/ Mother Nature/ Gaia Mother Earth is lashing out at and she ---always--- gets the last say so, No exceptions, None.

Btw, Who cares about something as meaningless as "energy"? That"s only true for economic progress. Who cares about that? What do you think the inuet, The aborigines, The inca, Before the sweaty greasy white man christian brethren nearly wiped out all native American Indian tribes, Buddhists, Hindu"s, Those who worship Mother Earth, Many African tribes, Etc etc etc did without all of this glorious energy that you praise that can easily do without did and do?
Btw, Have you ever been homeless? I have. Energy can be very easily done without in your descriptive terms.
"Not only due we have issues with reliability, Nuclear powerplants take up a much smaller land footprint. "
Yeah and then when they blow up/ a meltdown, There"s a much larger footprint, Like for about 1, 000 square miles and the damage is STILL going on. Only today is nature coming slowly back.

What about oil spills and oil leakages from underneath wells in the oceans? Again, Man doesn"t have the right to pollute the oceans, Pollute the skies, Deforrest the lands, Basically rape the planet to satisfy his WANTS. They are NOT NEEDS. Just like guns are NOT NEEDS.
Nuclear is best? Uranium mining is such wonderful, Not damaging to anyone and or more importantly, Not damaging to the environment - correct - wow.
"Chernobyl and Fukashima are the only one of the two that illustrate the potential dangers of nuclear power plants. "
1, 000 miles for Chernobyl. Nearly 35 years ago, That wiped out millions of species, In which case there"s no justification for, Not ever, Still nature has not returned to her full majesty and there"s many mutations of her.
"But keep in mind that the meltdown at Fukashima Daiichi was caused by a magnitude 9 earthquake and only 1 person died as a result of the nuclear power plant accident. "
Who cares about the death of humans when t comes to something like this VS nature? You act like man should be placed upon the higher level of supreme being above everything else. WRONG.
I see now, That"s what you believe gives you that right, That distinction for you to believe that you have for the power of guns, Which truly doesn"t work.
Try being homeless sometime for a good 6 months. Or even 8 months as I have at one point or even 4 years as I have at another point. Try knowing a person in your life go out and murder someone with his handgun, And then only do 4 years in prison, Have him tap you on the shoulder at the downtown bus station and say "Hi remember me", And then have him tell you that he"s the manager at a local restaurant because yea, Great, Just what we should all do is murder our other halfs just so we can have a high paying career when we get out. And had it been ---any--- other weapon used, It would have been at least 25 years. These are things you cannot even contemplate.
I have nothing more to say. I"ve been more than patient. We"re done.
devils_advocat3

Con

You have still yet to address my questions from two rounds ago so there really is no point in continuing the debate.

I bid you farewell and hope life treats you better.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 5 days ago
backwardseden
Well gee! Why wouldn't your unproven storybook character fabled fantasy undefined whatever supposed "god" OF PRINT ONLY from a BOOK, Namely your bible, That nobody in the entire existence of the human race has ever been able to prove even exists get rid of all the violent, Selfish people"? After all it's GOD. It can do whatever it wants. Nah. Btw, It can't stop suffering especially among children which are most certainly ahead of the categories of violent and selfish people. So here's a question that nobody in all my time doing this can answer properly. "What can children possibly learn from suffering? " If you've answered "nothing", You've answered correctly.
Regardless, Either 1. This supposed god is unwilling to show up which is not the fault of anybody and that is the fault of this unproven god that nobody can prove exists and the entire blame and fault would go towards this god that it did not provide any proof of its existence in which is the case here should it exist or 2. This unproven god can"t show up which would mean that it is not omnipotent and or it is not perfect which would mean that it is not a god 3. This supposed unproven god absolutely 100% loves what is going on here on planet earth among man and loves the evil, Hate, Suffering, Especially among children that it knowingly created as it constantly gives power to the evildoers in the first place to commit their atrocities, So why would it want to change a thing? 4. It has no control over the evildoers as to what they have done in the past, What they are doing now, And what they will do in the future, Which once again means that this supposed unproven god is not in any possible way a true genuine god. 5. This supposed god cannot prove its existence. Let"s see if you know why? 6. This supposed unproven storybook character fabled fantasy god of print only from the bible that nobody in the history of the human race has ever been able to prove its existence, Does not exist. Which is it?
Posted by David_Durango 6 days ago
David_Durango
Nobody would need a gun in a world of 100% benevolent, Good, Peaceful beings.

Unfortunately we live in planet Earth, Meaning there will always be violent, Selfish people to threaten our families and countries. We also have free will to defend ourselves, So yes, Guns are unfortunately needed in our reality.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 months ago
DeletedUser
I think that the weapons should be more controlled by the authorities, And perform a series of filters to obtain one.

This due to the intentions of the people, One does not know with the intention that they obtain a weapon.

And I speak of filters as psychological tests, Physical test of shots among others.

Or simply that the weapons are acquired by the people who work safeguarding the life of the country where they live.
Posted by Puzzlesocks 4 months ago
Puzzlesocks
I think this debate is a perfect example of advice I have been given.

"Do not attempt to enter an emotional debate with logic, You can only communicate with emotion with more emotion. "

It is very idealistic to think that we can have a society without weapons. A quick look into prisons shows that if you don't allow access to guns, Then people will attack each other with everyday objects in a much more brutal fashion. Before guns we killed each other with clubs and swords, Stones and hot oil. Before that we would bite and rip each other limb from limb as we can see in chimps who will literally eat each other alive. This seems to be the basic argument that we should eliminate evil and live in a society of nothing but good, Sadly this is the same as making an argument for a magnet with a single pole, Or a coin with a single side. It's a physical impossibility of idealism, Not even good for fantasy, For who would want to read a story without adversity? It would be the most boring of books. In the same way, Living a life without adversity would be the most boring of lives.
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
@Brendo - Not a valid video. What was it doing in the perp's hands in the first place? AND why did this particular video take so long for it to make national attention, In which it would have made some sort of newsworthy national attention rather than having a ridiculous narrator trying to pulsate his ridiculous breath trying to justify guns outside of his lodge?
AND did yah notice the second comment? "Let"s take a moment to appreciate how bad of a shot bad people are. "
Wow did that video prove that one. You can hear how many shots were fired. The shooter had to take out his gun, Point, Aim, Shoot, Miss. So did the cops. They had to take out their guns, Point, Aim, Miss, How many times?
The same is true with the gun owner if invaded. He has to take out his gun, Point, Aim, Probably miss, Hit something else, Like maybe himself, Something or someone else, Etc etc etc.
Oh and btw, Don't pay any attention to outdated ridiculous CDC crap. The numbers should tell you everything you need to know that guns can't be used most nearly every time as defensive weapons.

There's many good sites to look into
DDO won't take the link(s) so copy and paste the title into your search engine. "Will a Gun Keep Your Family Safe? Here"s What the Evidence Says"
"In 2015, David Hemenway, Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, And Sara Solnick, An economist at the University of Vermont, Analyzed national government surveys involving more than 14, 000 people and reported that guns are used for self-protection in less than 1 percent of all crimes that take place in the presence of a victim. They also found that people were more likely to be injured after threatening attackers with guns than they were if they had called the police or run away. "
Granted, That was in 2015. Who knows if things have changed in 2021?

60 minutes article. This is scary. "Ghost Guns: The build-it-yourself firearms that skirt most federal gun laws and are virtually untraceable. "
Posted by RoyDe 4 months ago
RoyDe
@backwardseden
1 - I wish we lived in a peaceful world. We do not. We live in the same world Neville Chamberlain lived in when he declared "Peace in our time". To date, There's always a Hitler.
2 - I wish we lived in an obedient world. We do not. There are many who would ignore a law to turn in all firearms. An some of them have evil intent.
3 - I wish we lived in a predictable world. We do not. A study which demonstrates that we would be safer without firearms simply can not be trusted. There are too many variables to compare one society to another and receive reliable results.
4 - I wish we lived in a safe world. We do not. I live in a part of the country where there are many coyotes, Returning bears, And the occasional mountain lion. I own a good knife but I'd rather not depend on it against them.
5 - I wish we lived in a secure world. We do not. In the last twenty years all of us have experienced distrust of our government. Some feared Obama, Some Trump, Some Bush. All of these were accused of endangering our freedoms. Should we surrender our last line of defense?
6 - I wish we lived in your world. We do not. If reason and logic prevailed, We would have hope. If love and kindness were stronger, We could stand with them. Alas, They do not.
7 - Wishing does not change people. As long as people are as they are, And they will always be so, We must be on guard. As Ben Franklin said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Posted by Brendo 4 months ago
Brendo
https://youtu. Be/Slw6jv7g_lI
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
What "good" does a firearm do other than antagonizing a situation? Did you see what Donald pile driver stool pigeon Trump, Easily the worst president of all time did for the BLM movement? Rather than making attempts to bring about peace as they did, It tried to belly up and bring out his anger, Flex his big white pearlies, Show his ridiculous power, As that's exactly what guns do, And yeah, Police brutality and guns go hand in hand because guns give police and whoever carries them the power to befit anger. And notice when that happened, Things started to get violent? "I've got a gun, So I have the power, And the right to become angry, The gift of gab. " And or "You do what I say or I'm going to take out my gun and put a bullet in your brain. " That's super easy psychology 101.
"This can be improved with training, And removing problem officers. "
Really? Is this REALLY happening? Since when? That's news to the entire police force in this country. Indeed, Only AFTER they've committed their atrocities. Or if they attack, Wrongly someone who is black and they prove to be racist. Not if they are white, Latino, Or especially the lowest of low, Indian.
"Besides, Ask any person. In the event of an attack, Something potentially life or death, You will want the advantage. "
Sorry, That's a preconceived myth. You might want to do some research into that.
Posted by Brendo 4 months ago
Brendo
I still don"t understand why police and other authorities shouldn"t be allowed a firearm as stated in round 2. Yes, Police brutality is a thing. Guns aren"t the problem in that situation however. It"s the officers ability to deal with the situation. This can be improved with training, And removing problem officers. Besides, Ask any person. In the event of an attack, Something potentially life or death, You will want the advantage.
Posted by RoyDe 4 months ago
RoyDe
@backwardseden I have come to the conclusion that you and I most likely disagree on every issue in debate in this age. It is pleasant to find a small item where we agree. If you don't know how to safely operate and maintain a gun, Do not have one! To quote G. Washington "A free people ought not only to be armed, But disciplined"". Either learn how to operate and maintain or dispose yourself of firearms.
The Constitutional justification for gun ownership is not found in the Second Amendment, But rather in the first. The point is not for individual ownership but collective defense. As B. Franklin said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " The temporary safety is the absence of firearms, The liberties are those listed in the 1st Amendment. People have forgotten this.
What are we protecting against? A standing army of our own country. "To disarm the people"[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them. " " George Mason, Referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788. "Before a standing army can rule, The people must be disarmed, As they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, And constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. " " Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787.
It is the government (if evil people should come to power) that we are armed against. Can the individual stand alone against the army? OF COURSE NOT. It must be the collective or we are lose our liberty. Is it safe? NO. But we live in this world, No matter how we would wish it to be otherwise.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mangani 4 months ago
Mangani
backwardsedendevils_advocat3Tied
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: This debate was pretty silly. Pro took a very easy premise, and made it into something ad ridiculum. Pro was rude, had bad grammar and spelling, and used manipulative arguments rather than persuasive or justification arguments. In reference to knife killings, Pro contradicts their own argument repeatedly in the same paragraph. They don't occur, if they occur they're rare, when the occur they make world news because they're so rare, they don't occur. Pro presents conundrums with no explanation, such as 'who has the right to penalize anyone if those doing the penalizing are wrong themselves.' Is Pro arguing that government is wrong, or that people don't need guns? Stick to the issue, don't move the goalpost, and focus on your arguments rather than your attack. You're saying people don't need guns but you are quite trigger happy and erratic.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.