Should Canada Allow Guns?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
ewalgwegrehoireioherioghiojrehiorehgrejio
1. Personal Protection
One of the main benefits of owning a firearm is personal protection. Having the ability to protect yourself and your family is essential. A gun provides an additional layer of security that can help you and your loved ones feel safe, even in the most dangerous situations. Whether you encounter a home invasion or a robbery, a firearm can be your first defense against these threats.
2. Recreational Shooting
Another great benefit of gun ownership is the ability to enjoy recreational shooting. A gun can provide hours of enjoyment and entertainment spent on target or skeet shooting and without one, you won’t be able to participate in these activities. Not only is recreational shooting a great way to have fun, but it can also help improve your shooting skills.
3. Competitive Shooting
If you want to take your shooting skills to the next level, competitive shooting provides a great avenue to do so. Owning a firearm allows you to compete in many shooting competitions, from local matches to traveling to a national competition. Competitive shooting also empowers you to test your skills against other shooters.
4. Hunting
For those who enjoy the outdoors, owning a firearm gives you the opportunity to hunt. Hunting can provide hours of enjoyment, the ability to provide food for your family, and the chance to spend time with friends or family who also enjoy this pastime. While different types of hunting require different gun types, owning a firearm opens up the possibility to start hunting.
5. Collecting
Owning a firearm can also lead to a collection. If you are passionate about them, firearms are a solid investment. Guns can be bought and sold, allowing you to make a return on your investment. With proper maintenance, your weapon can last for years and even increase in value. Whether you want to start collecting handguns, shotguns, or rifles, owning a firearm will begin a collection you can add to and enjoy for years to come.
Likewise, the term "shooting yourself in the foot" is not just a metaphor. Military medics know well that when you draw a pistol in a panic, the first round sometimes goes through your foot. Or an innocent bystander. If you keep it tucked into your waistband, it will go through something else, but that's another story.
- Trained vs. Untrained Individuals:
- Your point emphasizes the importance of proper training for individuals handling handguns. This highlights the risk posed by amateurs who may not have the necessary skills to handle a firearm safely.
- Rebuttal: While training is undoubtedly crucial, responsible gun ownership and adherence to safety protocols can mitigate the risks associated with amateur gun use. Additionally, restricting access to firearms through comprehensive background checks and licensing procedures can help ensure that only trained individuals have access to them.
- Your point emphasizes the importance of proper training for individuals handling handguns. This highlights the risk posed by amateurs who may not have the necessary skills to handle a firearm safely.
- Inherent Danger of Handguns:
- You argue that handguns, designed for lethal purposes, cannot be equated to benign tools like screwdrivers.
- Rebuttal: While it's true that handguns were invented for combat purposes, their usage has expanded to include self-defense and sport shooting. Just as a knife can be used for cooking or harm, handguns can serve purposes beyond violence. Responsible ownership and strict regulation can help ensure they are used safely and appropriately.
- You argue that handguns, designed for lethal purposes, cannot be equated to benign tools like screwdrivers.
- Alternative Options for Shooting Sports:
- Your suggestion of using gas- or air-powered replicas for target shooting emphasizes the availability of safer alternatives.
- Rebuttal: While replicas may offer a safer option for recreational shooting, they lack the realism and functionality of actual firearms. Many enthusiasts enjoy the precision and challenge of shooting with real firearms, which replicas may not adequately replicate. Additionally, strict enforcement of laws and regulations can help prevent the misuse of firearms for criminal purposes, regardless of their type.
- Your suggestion of using gas- or air-powered replicas for target shooting emphasizes the availability of safer alternatives.
- Reduced Risk of Replica Firearms in Crimes:
- You argue that replicas pose less risk in criminal activities due to their lower lethality.
- Rebuttal: While replicas may be less lethal than real firearms, they can still be used to intimidate or threaten victims in criminal acts. Implementing measures such as mandatory markings or restrictions on replica sales can help law enforcement differentiate between real and fake firearms, thereby reducing the likelihood of their misuse in crimes.
- You argue that replicas pose less risk in criminal activities due to their lower lethality.
- Trained vs. Untrained Individuals:
- While proper training is undoubtedly essential for safe gun handling, it's worth noting that many responsible gun owners undergo rigorous training and certification processes. The argument that only police or military training suffices neglects the millions of law-abiding citizens who responsibly own firearms for self-defense or sport. Moreover, in situations where law enforcement response may be delayed, an armed civilian with appropriate training can potentially save lives by intervening in emergencies.
- While proper training is undoubtedly essential for safe gun handling, it's worth noting that many responsible gun owners undergo rigorous training and certification processes. The argument that only police or military training suffices neglects the millions of law-abiding citizens who responsibly own firearms for self-defense or sport. Moreover, in situations where law enforcement response may be delayed, an armed civilian with appropriate training can potentially save lives by intervening in emergencies.
- Inherent Danger of Handguns:
- While handguns are indeed designed for lethal purposes, it's important to recognize that their primary use for many legal gun owners is self-defense. Equating them solely with violence overlooks their role in protecting individuals and their families from harm. Additionally, stringent background checks, waiting periods, and safety training requirements serve to ensure that firearms are only in the hands of responsible individuals, mitigating the risk of misuse.
- While handguns are indeed designed for lethal purposes, it's important to recognize that their primary use for many legal gun owners is self-defense. Equating them solely with violence overlooks their role in protecting individuals and their families from harm. Additionally, stringent background checks, waiting periods, and safety training requirements serve to ensure that firearms are only in the hands of responsible individuals, mitigating the risk of misuse.
- Alternative Options for Shooting Sports:
- While gas- or air-powered replicas may offer a safer alternative for some shooting enthusiasts, they cannot replicate the experience or skill development provided by real firearms. Shooting sports such as competitive shooting or self-defense training often require the use of real firearms to accurately simulate real-world scenarios. Moreover, the enjoyment derived from shooting sports is subjective, and many participants value the authenticity and challenge of using real firearms.
- While gas- or air-powered replicas may offer a safer alternative for some shooting enthusiasts, they cannot replicate the experience or skill development provided by real firearms. Shooting sports such as competitive shooting or self-defense training often require the use of real firearms to accurately simulate real-world scenarios. Moreover, the enjoyment derived from shooting sports is subjective, and many participants value the authenticity and challenge of using real firearms.
- Reduced Risk of Replica Firearms in Crimes:
- While it's true that replica firearms may be less lethal than real firearms, they can still be used to instill fear and perpetrate crimes. Criminals may exploit the resemblance between replicas and real firearms to deceive victims or law enforcement officers, leading to potentially dangerous situations. Implementing stricter regulations on replica firearms, including mandatory markings and enhanced penalties for their misuse in crimes, can help mitigate this risk.
- While it's true that replica firearms may be less lethal than real firearms, they can still be used to instill fear and perpetrate crimes. Criminals may exploit the resemblance between replicas and real firearms to deceive victims or law enforcement officers, leading to potentially dangerous situations. Implementing stricter regulations on replica firearms, including mandatory markings and enhanced penalties for their misuse in crimes, can help mitigate this risk.
See posts #2 and #3 in this debate for vote reason.
Con seems to argue for the Pro side and vice versa, but I'll just judge the debate based on the arguments each side presents.
Con's points are far more detailed. They offer a rebuttal to each of Pro's points and provide sources to impact out the benefits they are giving. Pro argues that guns will increase death, but Con argues that if trained people own firearms, they can defend themselves. Neither side brings out a study to support their position on lives being saved or lost, but Con goes into more detail and also brings up a lot of other points that Pro eventually drops, like hunting or recreational shooting. That's enough for me to vote Con.
I personally disagree with Con, but they definitely won this debate. First, they actually cited sources instead of making unsupported claims. I don't agree with the points they made, but Pro did a very bad job of refuting them, so this one goes to Con.
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