Getting rid of guns is useless against mankind's destruction.
Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
The voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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.
Really doubt that this is disputable but there can be a but.
The fact of finding the cause of a problem to wipe it out along with the problem holds so true.
Banning guns, finding them, having a total purge will not do a thing of ending these horror stories.
Hypothetically, if we had a global tracking system that could locate all guns everywhere, dismantle, disassemble them, pulverize all ammunition , we'd still have a problem.
It's the same reason why you can't get rid of so called racism with laws.
What a wonderful world.
Now, any takers of the opposite side, let's tango.
Message, comment for question and answers.
The removal of firearm-like projectile weapons is ineffective in opposing people from ruining the existence or functions of things.
- If something causes destruction, then the removal of that thing will cause no more destruction from that thing(thus reducing or effectively opposing destruction)
- Guns cause destruction
- Thus, the removal or riddance of guns will reduce and oppose destruction.
Nineteen young children and two adults have died in a shooting at a primary school in south Texas. The gunman opened fire at Robb Elementary School - which teaches children aged seven to 10 - in the city of Uvalde before he was killed by law enforcement, officials said.
The U.S. has more than 33,000 gun deaths per year. In 2017, there were 39,773 deaths by firearms, the highest since 1986. Of these deaths, 23,854 were by suicide, and 14,542 were homicides, 12 deaths per 100,000 people, and seven deaths per 100,000 people.
To my knowledge, and this date, there is no film or film combination that, by itself, will stop a bullet. There are, however, many thick films or combinations of thick films that, when applied to a very thick heavy glass, may stop a round from a small-caliber handgun.
ARTILLERY. 75% Of all Combat deaths were by Artillery Fire. “The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I, was around 40 million. There were 20 million deaths and 21 million wounded.
Insert opponent's quote
Not the topic. No disagreement there .
This all gets negated when that something is replaced to do the same thing.
Firearms still remain the top weapons used in murder cases. According to the latest gun violence statistics FBI released, firearms killed almost three-quarters of the total murder victims. Specifically, the figure amounted to 10,258, accounting for 73.7%.
Statement 1 is a logical fact, it is literally common sense.It's common sense in a vacuum, in a little space.But what is the context of the world?
"If statement 2 is provable, then the state 3, or effectively what the debate topic is"Goalpost is being moved. Common mistake no doubt. However the topic is that removal of guns is useless or does nothing to stop mankind's destruction as we witness on a day to day. Hence guns are not the problem.
Right , humans wield guns. Guns don't wield themselves.
Talk about common sense. It's common sense in the context, in the history of the world, that eliminating guns will not end mankind's destruction.
You say " reduce the amount " so that means mankind will still be destroying themselves. You say " cause by guns by humans". The cause of a cause of a cause. The gun isn't sentenced to prison, the criminal that used it is sentenced.
No dispute there. Guns are used to kill. Just don't think without guns, the killing stops.
I'd like to ask this question. What do you think would happen if guns , all the guns vanished?It doesn't need to be hypothetical. What if they never existed?
That conclusion that ñeeds to be addressed in this debate is can and will humans cause destruction without guns?
Can something else be used in the place of guns?Yes as people can still be and will be destructive without guns. They can and have invented alternate forms of mass destruction.
Have you forgotten what bombs can do?Do you remember the attacks of September 11?
"Although I disagree with the point that mankind will be immortal and everlasting, the riddance of firearms and projectile weapons will be effective against destruction for the human race."In all respect, this is a total lie. This has to be that brainwashed liberal garbage.
"Pro would need to prove that ridding of any quantity of guns, the amount of destruction would always rise up to at least cover it via other methods"Excuse me, do you recall the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001?People perished without the use of guns .Let's just look at common everyday destruction health wise . People have poor lifestyle choices that lead to the tearing down of their bodies. Through diet, through abuse of drugs.If you have no guns, there are other things that still destroy mankind.
"Yet I am discussing mankind's destruction on a day-to-day basis. I am talking of gun violence and murder and war and how people destroy things realistically backed with proof made by real people from the real world. "Not where the goalpost is. I understand it's where to run in order to make your opposing argument about how guns destroy. But I never said they didn't. So no point in arguing that. I'm saying as quite simply and obvious as the world has shown us, aside from gun usage at all, people still perish.
"It is the opponent who used zero sources and used barely any clarity when discussing this. "In other words, you don't believe people expire without guns?If you acknowledge that, then evidently it's evident to you.
"If all guns vanished, then simply the rate of destruction will decrease, backed by speculations based on real data."Backed by speculation, guessing, probability, numbers, figures, data. Speculation isn't fact, therefore not proof. So you cannot prove that people will not intend to destroy with alternate forms of destruction. What has destroyed the intention in a person to kill? If you are familiar with back up plans, then you know when something fails, there's an alternate plan to compensate.
Such outliers are not that important in consideration. Not every robber is Ben Laden. "Literally downplaying people that have perished. Names engraved on walls and memorials and you're measuring significance.Tunneling on robbery.When are you going to look at the context of the entire world?Mankind's destruction encompasses more than the end result of robbery, murder, getting even, going to war, etc *refuses to elaborate*
I don't know how many times I have to communicate this to you guys, we're not here to debate definitions. The way words are defined and used are important as they serve a purpose. It helps us understand what the other person is talking about. It's nothing to dispute over but just eliminates confusion in communication .
I don't know what you mean by " not that destructive ". I don't know if you're just measuring by numbers in fatalities or actually dealing with what a bomb is.The very nature of what it can do. A bomb going off in my lap, what do you think is left of me? I'm pretty well destroyed. A grenade is thrown at me. I step on a mine, it's crazy to think not much is destructive. Ok maybe I'm not completely blown to smithereens. But I'm dead just like a gun shot to the head, I'm dead .
"Yes, and arguably at a smaller rate, which still suffices in proving this side."Proving it in some other debate. Not this one. That's not what this one is about.
"over 20 Million people are dead and injured due to guns. Sourced above."Due to people using guns. Get it right. We lock up people,not guns. People are the problem so we get rid of them putting them on death row.
"In the end, Pro failed to sufficiently prove how guns are not sufficient against human destruction and Con pointed out the flaws in Pro's arguments as well as how unlikely it is for Pro to be true. "Let me play it back for you about guns."If they never existed, then something else will take its place"We both agree by this statement you made. The statements you make are in quotes.
I don't even know what that means, let alone claimed that as my position.
Guns against human destruction. I don't follow that. Going against human destruction, does that mean stopping destruction?
You stated so yourself that without guns, if guns did not exist, there still be something else. Something else like what?You omitted what'd it be in its place as an alternate use for destruction.
That description is supposed to clarify. Then you can ask questions about the description.
People say I didn't do this and that or didn't make this clear. I never gave definitions or whatever. If you guys don't get in the question mode, expect continuous problems.
- Guns consists most deaths in civil violence and are so heavily-dependent on by modern warfare that the removal of them possibly cause a net decrease in total destruction, and proof states that small-scale gun-bannings really DID reduce destruction.
- Pro has presented no counterproof to that.
- Con's foundation to his argument is arguably and noticeably more solid-grounded than Pro's, and Pro even refused to justify why his interpretation is right.
- Overall, I advise voters to vote CON.