I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I will waive first round, pro will waive the last. Failure of this is loss of argument and conduct points.
I believe in self-defense, concealed-carry, and am pro gun.
Among the topics will be the effectiveness of gun bans, concealed-carry effects, and the ethics of taking away guns from people.
I am for background checks and mental illness screening, so that will most likely not be a topic.
Good luck to my opponent.
I'll begin by saying that I have no issue with guns being used in society.
We should never contend that guns "save lives". This is actually a dangerous mentality, as in real life, people save people, and their ability to do so rests in their preparedness, not the tool. If one isn't prepared in understanding and practice to use a gun for damage control, then they should not be expected to "save lives" with a gun. A gun will NOT protect you, and it will not keep you from losing the fight, and it will not ensure that you are clear headed enough to act appropriately under duress.
non-lethal measures provide the greatest protection.
It does not seem that he is entirely opposed to banning guns with this statement, and I am not really sure what he is saying. He has not provided a clear stance on his gun position. I would ask my opponent to make it clear what he wants to do and back it up with evidence, not vague, blurry paragraphs of abstract ideas.
For now, I will continue to address problems apparently brought about in Pro-Gun.It largely rests in the tool. Sure you can be prepared with your karate chops when a criminal busts into your house with a semi-automatic gun, but that won't do much. A gun is a deterrent to crime, even so if you brandish it. It also provides self-defense if you fire it towards the criminal in the most extreme cases. Most people who own a gun, especially concealed carry holders, know how to use a gun very well and regularly practice. Concealed-carry holders commit felonies and misdemeanors 84% LESS than POLICE OFFICERS! That is how law-abiding they are.[1] A gun will protect you, I don't know what the basis is for this. Guns are used defensively 2.5M times a year, so they do save many lives. On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source. As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else’s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, let’s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. According to an unpublished CDC study, there are 2.5 million DGUs per year. Since they surveyed 222 participants, the margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4.8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270,000 lives are saved by guns, up to over 500,000 just counting the “almost certainly people.” If all the “probably” people are right, then that number goes beyond 800,000. Moreover, for every firearm homicide, at least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, then 8-23 lives are saved per death[2].
non-lethal measures provide the greatest protection.Pepper spray and tasers don't deter criminals. Why? They are non-lethal. Shocking. Especially when the criminals are at a distance, their guns against you will kill you, and they won't be deterred from your tasers that extend a foot or your 2 ounce bottle of pepper spray.Those are basically the only real arguments I could find. Please provide solutions and real evidence with your claims next round.
To clarify, I am at this time, to the left of a gun.
Again, we should never contend that a gun saves lives. A gun will NOT save you, and there is no honest way around this. To say otherwise would be an empty message that is liable to get someone hurt or killed.
Brandishing a firearm is morally, and legally questionable at best.
If anything, one should be thinking how they might avoid using their firearm for two very good reasons, the first that they value human life and have a general mentality for reason in favor of violence, and secondly that by the time you have to use a firearm for self-defense, all else has failed.
The purported fact that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times a year in the United States of America is an abhorrent figure that could not possibly be taken as supportive of the Pro-Gun position.
Apparently to the Pro-Gunman, the more failings we have represented which result in guns being used, the more “lives are saved”.
I should add that it is being implied to simply “use a gun” in the event that a criminal is using a gun against you. This is NOT good advice. Drawing on a drawn gun is liable to get you killed. A window may present itself for you to fight and/or flee if a perp is somehow distracted or you might just be out of luck and have to try to calmly cooperate to the extent required of you.
- Snoopy, Opening Statement
Brandishing would be drawing a firearm, not to protect yourself, but to persuade and threaten, as the robber was. This was no threat. He had his weapon out because he was prepared to use it, and the situation was resolved to his acceptance to the point at the end of the video at least.
I would be inclined to agree that gun bans are generally ineffective
Our argument should be as I stated, not Pro-Gun, partially because it is antithetical to the real argument, which is the relationship between the people and their government.“Now, of primary concern is my hope that it can be established that if anything there is a moral imperative in the context of government, not to discourage the proficient use of arms, but rather to ensure such potential for the purpose of lawful defense in any decent society.”- Snoopy, Opening Statement
Lastly, it is being assumed that people “know their own risk”, and that I am only speaking to “rare instances” but hopefully all instances warranting a defensive gun use are rare, and if we knew it, we wouldn’t be calling it risk.
Snoopy takes a novel position; he is not arguing pro gun bans, but is arguing that Guns do not necessarily have a positive role to play. The exact specifics of his position however aren’t fully clear. As there is no specific data, and no detailed argument that can easily be assessed due to its more narrative style, it’s hatd to work out how to weigh this.
My main issue is that pros main point is that the statistics indicate that DGU is significant, while con makes a case that guns don’t help. Without reciting pros evidencd I can’t accept cons primary argument.
Con argues that non lethal means are preferable - as is training, de-escalation etc. Con doesn’t really justify how this can be generally effective. Con in reply provides just enough of an argument against it
I think Cons issue is that his argument was structure for a philosophical argument, on the forums; in the context of a debate, this type of argument that attempts to convince without facts don’t work very well when covering a non philosophical resolution: especially when the opponent has substantial facts to present.
As a result of the above, the real two key premises con presented that are easily weighable were refuted by pro. thus pro gets argument.
Conduct to pro for the forfeit.
Snoopy takes a pro-gun-rights stance and says that Pro isn't really pro-gun, just pro-right-to-bear-arms. This semantic Kritik had some potential but then Con forfeits the final two Rounds and is basically surrendering to Pro who says he is both for guns and the right to bear arms.
What Con had to do was highlight that the endgame is to remove guns and the need for them. Con was partially successful in this but barely touched on it before forfeiting two Rounds of debate where he/she had to elaborate on that.
Eh, you didn't explain how the Pro's "main point" lends anything in favor or against Pro-Gun, and its not implied.
This is literally all you wrote: "My main issue is that pros main point is that the statistics indicate that DGU is significant"
I do appreciate the critique as it pertains to my presentation though.
Edited
According to the structure of this debate, I assumed no burden of proof as to the positive or negative influence of guns in society. It is supposed that Con's only burden is the dissuading the "Pro-Gun" mentality, which is a philosophical subject, and potentially political, with ethical considerations as outlaid in the opening arguments and description. This debate was structured purposefully to act as a bit of a thought experiment, but also has practical ramifications. My "strategy" was to allow the "Pro-Gun" philosophy to run its course while presenting as little evidence as possible, and actually allowing Pro to make arguments against their own position, and ultimately imploding on its own while leaving only the legitimate interest standing, which as it happens can be agreed upon universally and establishes a common ground on which to conduct reasonable discourse in the future. The potential effect of a DGU is indeed a "common sense" reason that the only tenable position in any decent society is "Con", and in taking the Pro you necessarily must hang yourself in vacuum devoid of morality and reason assuming the Con presents a proper rebuttal. Additionally, among the arguments presented is not to "stoop to the level", as Pro demonstrates instinctively as if to justify themselves as a lesser of evil , even when it is completely unnecessary, as I assume Pro is beginning to acknowledge in round 4, at which point we (anyone in disagreement) would then have a basis in reality to discuss relations with firearms, without need of the Pro-Gun position, which runs equally counter productive to a free and decent society to the vain discourse Pro begins by asking of Con in attempt to reframe the debate.
The theory is that essentially, Pro will either A) come about to reason, or B) is forced to find dishonest ways around Con's agreeable points in a vain manner which runs contrary to the truth.
Thank you for the critique. According to the structure of this debate, I assumed no burden of proof as to the positive or negative influence of guns in society. It is supposed that Con's only burden is the dissuading the "Pro-Gun" mentality, which is a philosophical subject, and potentially political, with ethical considerations as outlaid in the opening arguments and description. This debate was structured purposefully to act as a bit of a thought experiment, but also has practical ramifications. Essentially, my "strategy" was to allow the "Pro-Gun" position to run its course while presenting as little evidence as possible, and actually allowing Pro to make arguments against their own position, allowing the argument to run its course naturally, ultimately implode on its own failings, leaving only the legitimate interest standing, which as it happens can be agreed upon universally and establishes a common ground on which to conduct reasonable discourse in the future. The potential effect of a DGU is indeed a "common sense" reason that the only tenable position in any decent society is "Con", and in taking the Pro position you necessarily must hang yourself in vacuum devoid of morality and reason assuming the Con presents a proper rebuttal. Additionally, among the arguments presented is not to "stoop to the level", as Pro does instinctively to justify themselves as a lesser of evil, even when it is completely unnecessary, as I assume Pro is beginning to acknowledge in round 4, at which point we (anyone in disagreement) would then have a basis in reality to discuss relations with firearms, without need of the Pro-Gun position, which runs equally counter productive to a free and decent society to the vain discourse Pro begins by asking of Con in attempt to reframe the debate.
The theory is that essentially, Pro will either A) come about to reason, or B) is forced to find dishonest ways around Con's agreeable points in a vain manner which runs contrary to the truth.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: RationalMadman // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
Oh, I don't much care about the points.
Good thing you didn't or else you would have lost the argument and conduct point.
I tried to post an argument and closing statement up in round five but it still failed. Thank You for your time
ok will do
To clarify, I don't care if my internet account wins or loses. I don't blame you for the forfeited round. I did fail to post in time, and I should have accounted for having a properly working device at the time I wanted to post. If you would like to discuss the ethics of your own choice, I would be fine with doing so over private message. I'm not accusing you of anything here in the comment section though.
You failed to post in time. I've gave you multiple chances, even created this new debate as a result of your previous forfeit. That's on you, not me.
Its not really about me. Its just a wasted debate now because its incomplete. I mean my position might still be weighted favorably or not, but the argument should have been added to round 4, and you opted out of final statements. Plus, I actually addressed some serious concerns that should have been noted just because of the nature of the topic.
You have had multiple chances. I'm not posting an argument from the comments.
Argument Round 4, in Comments 21 through 19. Please Post up in single quote
I should not have to waste my time answering to disrespectful or dishonest misrepresentations. For one example being assumed under false pretense, I did not concede anything by saying "I would be inclined" and did not bring up any gun bans to begin with.
"Yes, so this is a perfect example of a gun potentially saving lives."
This is an example of two people wielding guns, who both decided up till a point in time, not to hurt one another. In real life, the mentality that the gun saves would need to be trained out of people. Situational awareness is paramount, and being prepared is crucial. You don’t know exactly how you will react under stress.
"My opponent has continued to ignore my statistics of guns saving lives, so until he does do; I assume he concedes this point."
This is false, as I clearly did not ignore the statistics. It is unwarranted for me to validate or invalidate the statistics, and I advocate among other things not to “stoop to the level”, as explained in round one, which was disregarded by you up till round as was asserted “My opponent's argument has not consisted of any real arguments, statistics, or a position of guns.” By simply not stooping to their level, it is possible for the debater to stand testament to how shallow the “pro-gun” position is, having resorted to a reflection to the sycophantic nonsense displayed by others. I am not “anti-gun”, and in taking the “pro-gun” stance it must be disappointing not to have such an easy “opponent” to banter with. “We cannot argue for the consequence of evil, but we must persist against the forces of evil.” - Snoopy
Once we have agreed to the establishment in round one, then we can start to have a meaningful conversation.
"I am talking about the risk in those instances where people want to protect themselves. Not the overall scheme of the likelihood of it happening."
I recall a story of someone who had a break in around 2 or 3 AM. It was dark, and they would normally be armed. They were home with their wife, and heard the break in, and footsteps coming down the hall. They carried regularly and normally relied on a firearm for protection, but at this time, it was unfortunately in another room and inaccessible. As the intruder neared, their heart racing the husband did the only thing he could to protect his wife, and took them on with their bare hands, rendering them unconscious. It was the neighbor coming home from their own bachelorette party. They then learned to have a proactive self defense strategy, got an alarm system, kept their phone charged, got a dog.
Darn, failed to post
Wow, even another round of no real evidence! This is too easy.
my wife's a doctor folks, ok them leftist bullies bully America,ok folks. ok, look you are man or woman,thats it,ok folks. Facts dont care about your feelings,ok folks.
Great, another round of snoopy's abstract ideas that have no data, statistics, or real significance to back it up. Should have gotten a better opponent smh.
Hey, Boat-
Please re-read the DART Code of Conduct and desist with the mindfuck.
https://www.debateart.com/rules
Still carrying on.
Or maybe Pegasus? DeShawnte? d'Quavion?
Guess you are making this up as you go along.
Do you live in Atlanta? Maybe your name is D'Shavious or some weird black name
>>Your name is James. You live in Atlanta. I've seen you at school. Your pretty sexy.
I am not James so I don't see how you got this.
lol i'm just trolling i'm not gay
btw brady is the goat
How do you know that much about him? I thought you lived in New England since you once called Tom Brady the GOAT.
"Your pretty sexy."
Are you gay?
Your name is James. You live in Atlanta. I've seen you at school. Your pretty sexy.
Define sexy and tell me how you know me personally.
What's confusing? Your sexy.
???
Your sexy
Evidence would help your case and I am sure you have the space for it.