Instigator / Pro
4
1352
rating
39
debates
12.82%
won
Topic

A gun does no more damage/harm than a butter knife.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
9
Sources points
0
6
Spelling and grammar points
2
3
Conduct points
2
2

With 3 votes and 16 points ahead, the winner is ...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
20
1661
rating
39
debates
79.49%
won
Description
~ 922 / 5,000

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

I understand that folks are against guns and the rights to carry. Let me say, if we're going to ban guns, we can start rethinking many things to get rid of.

As far as I'm concern, there's always going to be a tool used to make harm.

This may not really be controversial but in case there is some one that feels they have a case, present it to refute that topic statement.

Send your questions by comment or message for clarity of anything.

Round 1
Pro
The description will serve as the first round.
Con
PRO = Mall = Damage of Gun ≤ Damage of Butter Knife
CON = Intelligence_06 = PRO’s proof is insufficient
B_O_P = On PRO

  1. Net damage
PRO failed to define the terms, thus CON shall interpret the terms. Definitions provided below.
  • Gun: a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory
  • Butter Knife: a small knife with a rounded blade that is used especially for spreading butter on bread during a meal

Within the United States, approximately 13,286 people are killed by guns in a single year. 60% of homicide(humans killing humans) are carried out by guns. This would mean, even if butter knives killed the rest 40%, they still have less net damage than guns.

On the contrary, only 1,515 people are killed by any knives in the US. That is less than 15% of gun deaths. Even if all 1,515 are carried out by butter knives, it still deals significantly less damage than guns. Rifles are not the whole group of guns.

It is, although not exact, expected that other nations have similar ratios. This is counting not wars, and it is only counting domestic violence. In wars there could be MILLIONS of deaths around the world killed by guns, where there is not a single war fought with butter knives.

Not only that, Guns are meant to kill people and do similar jobs and it is more efficient doing so than a butter knife.

  1. Designed efficiency

Guns, as mighty as they are, can rip a hole in a cooking pan. However, using the same force you use to push a trigger of a gun but use it on a butter knife on a pan, it probably won’t even dent it. 

Guns are meant to kill and rip. It has a fast bullet going forwards. Butter knives, as the name itself suggests, are meant to cut butter and not to kill. I specifically made a video about why a butter knife cannot rip through a pan, and it did not even create a single dent. With the same force exerted, a gun is MUCH MORE destructive, Period. Butter knives are pretty inefficient when it comes to killing. 

Sources
These are sources used within this argument.

Read the argument and sources, and if you find my argument convincing, please vote CON!

Round 2
Pro
I can't say you're in the wrong about what guns are and what they can do.


But one thing you've omitted was the term "harm". I think you've carefully, precisely separated that word from the word "damage". I purposely put them side by side for this type of scenario. They're to be used interchangeably. So I'll admit or grant entry with the word "harm" here.


"Not only that, Guns are meant to kill people and do similar jobs and it is more efficient doing so than a butter knife."


The keyword "efficient", has nothing to do with actually killing . Just because I can kill you faster with something versus another doesn't mean both things used fatally won't be fatal to you . You just CONCEDED this right here. You're just saying one is more efficient.


"  Guns as mighty as they are, can rip a hole in a cooking pan. However, using the same force you use to push a trigger of a gun but use it on a butter knife on a pan, it probably won’t even dent it. "


Good observation, now apply the knife to a person. We're dealing with people, not inanimate objects.




" Guns are meant to kill and rip. It has a fast bullet going forwards. Butter knives, as the name itself suggests, are meant to cut butter and not to kill. I specifically made a video about why a butter knife cannot rip through a pan, and it did not even create a single dent. With the same force exerted, a gun is MUCH MORE destructive, Period. Butter knives are pretty inefficient when it comes to killing."


Cars weren't designed to kill but you can get killed by a hit and run driver. Something that is meant for whatever can be misused for destructive purposes. 


Also notice how you keep back pedaling. Being much more efficient or destructive than something that is less than BUT STILL KILLS, WELL WOE IS ME, I STILL HAVE TO BURY YOU, YOU'RE DEAD.
You continue to try to build up your position to being a knife not bringing much damage as a gun but indirectly indicate it kills just the same .


The gun does no greater harm like death than that of a butter knife with a blade that cuts , that can slit a throat or can be inserted into the eye socket. The result is fatal.


True or False





Con
Oh, of course, I am SO SO SORRY.

Rebuttals

But one thing you've omitted was the term "harm". I think you've carefully, precisely separated that word from the word "damage". I purposely put them side by side for this type of scenario. They're to be used interchangeably. So I'll admit or grant entry with the word "harm" here.
I have used them interchangeably. I have demonstrated that a Gun is more destructed than a butter knife and if the same ratio is on cooking pans, they should have the same logic on humans. I can kill a human easier with a gun than a knife. It is common sense. With the same force exerted, a gun can do more harm.

It is funny that Mall, the ultimate context lawyer, is now playing semantics tricks on me. Sadly, it won't work on me though.

The keyword "efficient", has nothing to do with actually killing . Just because I can kill you faster with something versus another doesn't mean both things used fatally won't be fatal to you . You just CONCEDED this right here. You're just saying one is more efficient.
This is the same as saying "stealing a pocket watch is not more serious than assassinating the president of the United States". Of course, both are crime and because crime is crime thus both are the same. How severe the crime is is irrelevant because as long as it is a crime it is a crime. Seems rational? When you apply it to the real world, you will find the latter much more severe than the former. This is the same here. A gun deals much more damage/harm than a butter knife. See these sources I have provided in R1 that will still work here.

Guns kill more people and simply do more harm. 

    Cars weren't designed to kill but you can get killed by a hit and run driver. Something that is meant for whatever can be misused for destructive purposes. 
    It doesn't matter if it is designed to deal damage or not, if it is less efficient at destroying stuff and did less destruction and killing compared to a gun, it deals less damage/harm than a gun. See sources above: Butter knives are less efficient at damaging stuff and have killed fewer people in a year. That is perfect in the definition.

    The gun does no greater harm like death than that of a butter knife with a blade that cuts , that can slit a throat or can be inserted into the eye socket. The result is fatal.
    Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant. 

    We are arguing about whether a gun does more damage/harm than a butter knife, not whether or not a butter knife can kill. Yes, a butter knife can kill, but it simply is less efficient, and the sources have spoken that a gun destroys more lives than a butter knife and is more efficient in doing it. Now my opponent is moving the goalpost again.

    A butter knife can kill, but it has taken fewer lives than a gun in the course of the same time period. Butter knives do less damage/harm than guns. 

    1. I shall make conclusions.
    2. Butter knives destruct less and kill less than guns over the course of the same time, proven by sources.
    3. Butter knives are less effective in killing and destroying than guns.
    4. Of 2 and 3, butter knives damage and harm less than guns.

    Round 3
    Pro
    "I have used them interchangeably. I have demonstrated that a Gun is more destructed than a butter knife and if the same ratio is on cooking pans, they should have the same logic on humans. I can kill a human easier with a gun than a knife. It is common sense. With the same force exerted, a gun can do more harm."

    It's common sense that BOTH WILL KILL YOU.  DO YOU NOT SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YOU AGREE ONCE AGAIN AS USUAL AND DON'T DENY THE KNIFE BRINGING THE DAMAGE OF DEATH JUST AS A GUN BRINGS THE DAMAGE OF DEATH. BOTH BRING THE SAME AMOUNT OF HARM IT TAKES TO KILL. IF IT WASN'T THE SAME, ONE WOULD NOT KILL BECAUSE IT'S NOT AS HARMFUL OR DETRIMENTAL.

    EFFICIENCY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. YOU CAN DIE A SLOW OR QUICK DEATH. YOU'RE DEAD ANYHOW.


    "It is funny that Mall, the ultimate context lawyer, is now playing semantics tricks on me. Sadly, it won't work on me though."

    Did you know the word "harm" means to destroy? That means to put an end to like somebody's life. The gun and knife can be used to do that.

    "This is the same as saying "stealing a pocket watch is not more serious than assassinating the president of the United States". Of course, both are crime and because crime is crime thus both are the same. How severe the crime is is irrelevant because as long as it is a crime it is a crime. Seems rational? When you apply it to the real world, you will find the latter much more severe than the former. This is the same here. A gun deals much more damage/harm than a butter knife. See these sources I have provided in R1 that will still work here."

    If I kill you faster than you're friend that just died from a slow death, who did I harm more?

    "Guns kill more people and simply do more harm. "

    So if knives killed more people , then is the gun not as harmful though still deadly? People may not be harmed that much with a particular weapon but the weapon itself brings the same amount of harm as the other instrument here.

    "Guns are more efficient at destroying things and simply do more damage."


    Guns damage/ harm , put an end to people as well as  knives do .

    "It doesn't matter if it is designed to deal damage or not, if it is less efficient at destroying stuff and did less destruction and killing compared to a gun, it deals less damage/harm than a gun. See sources above: Butter knives are less efficient at damaging stuff and have killed fewer people in a year. That is perfect in the definition."

    Being less efficient doesn't mean it doesn't destroy. Would this mean I'm more willing to leap out in front of car about to strike me down over a gun aimed at me? Not unless I have a death wish. Both of these things can be fatal.

    You may want to define what you mean by "destruction".

    The amount of people hurt by something doesn't change the nature of that something  that hurts.

    "Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant.

    We are arguing about whether a gun does more damage/harm than a butter knife, not whether or not a butter knife can kill. Yes, a butter knife can kill, but it simply is less efficient, and the sources have spoken that a gun destroys more lives than a butter knife and is more efficient in doing it. Now my opponent is moving the goalpost again.

    A butter knife can kill, but it has taken fewer lives than a gun in the course of the same time period. Butter knives do less damage/harm than guns.

    I shall make conclusions.
    Butter knives destruct less and kill less than guns over the course of the same time, proven by sources.
    Butter knives are less effective in killing and destroying than guns.
    Of 2 and 3, butter knives damage and harm less than guns."


    So again, by this very logic, I'm more safer with an attacker using a knife because it's not as harmful to me, even though they've used it fatalistically before.

    This is the problem you run into trying to go by statistics. The amount of people killed by a particular object is not telling you a weapon is more or less deadly, they're telling you what weapon was used more or less frequently. If the knife was used more, it wouldn't change what the harm of a gun can do .

    Con
    My opponent is saying things that are already refuted by my last round argument. I extend because this IS the last round argument. I shall waste no time.

    • Guns did more damage and harm than butter knifes
    • Guns are more efficient at doing damage and harm
    • Pro did not fulfill his BoP and he moved the goalpost.

    Round 4
    Pro
    Not much more can be said regarding this. There was one point I haven't seen you dealt with. There are many you didn't tackle but I think there's one really big one . Maybe because it can't be refuted. Maybe you'll finally get to it here. Everybody that reads this knows the truth. They can be honest and get behind it or forever remain bias. Like I always put as a disclaimer, it's about learning truth.


    "Guns did more damage and harm than butter knifes"

    It's not about "did". The topic is in context of "do" , that is "does as much". Now the only reason imaginable you're expressing as "did" is because your criteria for harm is under fallacy. Your going by numbers and reports to tell you not even the deadliness of a weapon but the frequency in use of that weapon.

    Now I didn't see a rebuttal for a knife bringing the same amount of harm as a gun brings which we see is death. You acknowledge this so there is no rebuttal. You've been confusing the efficiency rate of fatality with just fatal occurrences period.

    Hence, no rebuttal to the illustration of you killed faster than somebody else. You and that somebody are both pushing up daises. Neither of you received less harm.

    "Guns are more efficient at doing damage and harm"

    My response was made in advance to this above.

    "Pro did not fulfill his BoP and he moved the goalpost."

    This is your signature. Whenever you have no rebuttal, this is all you got left to say .

    Getting back to that point you didn't deal with, it's a good one and you got one more chance.

    I'm more safer with an attacker using a knife because it's not as harmful to me, even though they've used it fatalistically before.

    Let's say for the sake of argument I'm dead. The person's m.o. is the use of a knife.They just love the slicing of arteries, poking out eyes and perhaps some torture foreplay. Just how many cuts do you think this person can make on my body before lights out?
    Let's say after 1500 lacerations, they decide to use that knife for a pool stick and my eye for a ball appropriately enough as it is a ball.  My skull is a corner pocket.

    Now you should be getting the picture although probably gruesome but true image of harm/damage.

    Con
    My opponent is saying the exact same thing as he did last time, so there is nothing to do other than to conclude.

    • Conclusions here.
      • A gun does more damage/harm than a butter knife.
        • The lead bullets contain poison whereas lead is nowhere to be found in a butter knife, so upon every single usage, the bullet harms more.
        • Video proof leads to that a gun can rip through a pan whereas a butter knife cannot, so upon every single usage, the gun harms/damages more consider it can penetrate deep into the body, it is major wounds vs minor wounds by a knife.
          • Guns are meant to do damage/harm whereas butter knives aren't.
        • My opponent is saying that as long it kills and harms, it is the equivalent to another thing that kills and harms. That is not only moving the goalpost, but is wrong. If my parents buy me a new sportscar instead of a cheap coupe, then according to him, these two will perform the exact same due to the fact they are both cars. The logic is incorrect. One obviously does more damage than the other, and it is guns: common sense.
        • A gun likely did more damage and harm than a butter knife in its lifespan due to how efficient they are at killing and the purpose they are currently being employed. My opponent offered zero evidence that a gun, in its lifetime, does no more damage and harm than a butter knife, merely false assertions.
          • Guns likely did do more damage/harm than butter knives, and my opponent did not prove his BoP.
        • Evidence shows that more people are killed by guns than butter knives.
          • Guns did more damage/harm in this world than butter knives.
        • My opponent failed to fulfill his BoP.
          • Please vote Con.