Should Canada Allow Guns?

in every country guns could be allowed. The question is what rules should exist if guns were one day allowed and how strict

shut up 🤫🧏😣

i would just like u to know this debate was a joke and the opposing person is actually my good friend i was just joking around with him because he said he is smarter than ai so i had to prove him wrong so i am deeply sorry if u got offended as i didn't even know there was voting my friend later told me at school that there a voting system i hope u understant thx for reading

2 Canadians debating this. In America, our left wingers are like Canadian right wingers on guns. Our right wingers are stacked up on FREEDOM!

I noted they reminded me of ads, but I didn't make the AI connection,
Even now I don't 'know they used an AI.

So no one's going to point out that CON blatantly used AI-generated arguments without attribution or permission from his opponent? I dislike this kind of thing in general because it sets a poor precedent.

Lemming vote part 1/2

Grayflounder142 Round 1.
Saying that "america gun violence is up by exactly 15.9%"
Doesn't really tell me much, it's more a 'statement, that one can make various inferences about. It lacks a source, a time frame, lacks explanation of 'why the gun violence might have gone up.
Which western Media, where is this quote from?
Generally speaking I suppose one could 'claim media is saying this, but such a claim without proof requires one watches the same media, to accept it.
Round one claims vaguely American gun violence has increased and claims the media has identified guns are a downfall of their generation. Therefore guns are bad.
What if I don't agree with anti-gun media,
What if I identify other causes for gun violence? or identify it as positive, what if the gun violence is only by law abiding citizens against criminals attempting to rob them?
I can't tell without a source.

Silent_assassin Round 1
States various benefits of guns, protection and recreation. Reads a bit like an ad (Not a bad thing). Has sources.

R1 thoughts,
Both debaters state guns being good or bad, causing harm or protection, which work as general ideas, but require further proof of truth.
Though even such truths can be subjective, hence why I was a bit disappointed that Canada did not play a larger role in the debate.
Hunting for example, one might argue would have been more a necessity in early Canada than modern Canada, though there are still people who don't live in cities, who need guns to protect livestock, or for protection in more rural living locations than the city.
A problem I see with the debate is how it sounds purely guns or no guns. Description is a bit wasted, and voters have to assume that there are 'some guns, at least for military and law enforcement.

Grayflounder142 Round 2
Interesting argument, though it's a claim.
I am unsure what 'properly trained means, even in the flintlock era, I can imagine some farmer teaching his son to shoot, teaching them basic common sense rules such as don't let the barrel point at other people, unless you intend to shoot them.
Similar to a knife, don't cut stuff 'towards yourself, but do we need a 'license for a knife?
Well, in some blasted common sense lacking places, though it's only 'needed by law, not 'truly needed to avoid injury.
Still, guns 'can be dangerous, and even many gun enthusiasts advocate for training, sometimes even that training be mandatory, but such an argument doesn't cease all guns, people require drivers licenses for cars in many places, doesn't mean no cars.
Tool https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tool#:~:text=%3A%20a%20handheld%20device%20that%20aids%20in%20accomplishing%20a%20task
"a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task"

The argument that there are pellet metal/plastic guns, that can be used instead of real guns, 'does lend against Silent_assassin's recreation argument.
Is recreation a justifiable reason to allow an activity that can be dangerous to oneself and/or others?

Silent_assassin Round 2
Successfully in my view, rebuts Grayflounder142's argument that untrained individuals are dangerous. Simply require training.
Though personally I prefer government staying all the way out of my business.

'Does make arguments that guns do not exist purely to kill.

Makes argument that pellet guns would not fulfill the recreationalists desires,
What is needed here by Grayflounder142 to overcome this, is simply to show and prove guns consequences to lives and such, not be worth the recreational benifits,
We 'do outlaw and lessen various activities, despite participants desires in those acts, to continue as they had in the past. Boxing requiring gloves, various football rules over time, and so on.

I'm uncertain on whether it has been successfully argued either way, that replicas would pose more or less danger in crime.
As Silent_assassin says, they can still be used to threaten, how would a person 'know a replica or not?
Though as Grayflounder142 argues, less accidental stray rounds, as well as unsaid less guns used in intentionally violent death causing crime, though that would still have to be proven to be more common/deadly, which there 'are some decent arguments for such.

Round 2 Thoughts
Grayflounder142 in my view has made an error in their lack of round 1,
Much of this debate allows Silent_assassin to frame the issue, and much of the issue becomes compromising, allowing 'some guns within limits.
Japan is pretty lacking in guns I think, but even there, exists (Highly regulated) shooting ranges.
This is why framing a debate is important, properly framed one could argue that Japan does not allow guns to anyone but the police and military, and that hunters and target shooters exist in circumstances that one would not call 'Allowing guns in Japan.
But Silent_assassin has been able to vaguely argue 'many compromises allowing guns.

Lemming vote part 2/2

Grayflounder142 Round 3
Makes the claim that guns cause death and violence.

Silent_assassin Round 3
Makes argument that even non military/police individuals can train in guns.
Continues with the compromises, that 'really hurt Grayflounder142, due to debate title and definitions.
Restates claim that guns are important enough that replicants lack of realness takes away from the recreational value. (This is something that Grayflounder142 should have been able to argue against more strongly)
Makes weak (I don't mean this negatively or that it is badly done) argument that replicants pose similar enough level of danger as real guns in crime.
Though of course I assume they realize real guns are more dangerous, I assume they're just mitigating Grayflounder142's arguments strength some.

Round 4 thoughts,
John Dillinger's wooden gun.

Debate thoughts,
Grayflounder142 by title's black and whiteness, lack of description, and lack of depth in arguments, allowed much of the debate to be on Silent_assassin's terms,
Allowing Silent_assassin to make compromises allowing 'some guns as seeming reasonable.
I would have liked in the debate for the goalposts to be more clear, more historical examples, more data, and more Canada.

BOOOO YOU STINK YOU GON LOSE