Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
395
debates
43.8%
won
Topic
#5626
Guns are no more hazardous than knives , matches, paper and thumb tacs.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Owen_T
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1465
rating
30
debates
58.33%
won
Description
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.
Guns are no more hazardous than knives , matches, paper and thumb tacs
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
A person made a comment of paper kills more than guns.
This tells me the topic is being interpreted wrong.
Where the topic says no more hazardous, one cannot be used more harmfully than another.
It has nothing to do with statistics or common usages.
Since it was brought up, we'll start with paper.
This is according to Wikipedia I believe about Lingchi:
Lingchi usually translated "slow slicing" or "death by a thousand cuts", was a form of torture and execution used in China from around the 10th century.
So we can see the ramifications of cuts with whatever instrument or article used to bring about death.
Is this any different than with a gunshot?
This correlates to a topic I had some time ago I believe it was "guns are as deadly as knives" or something to that effect.
This also spills over into the gun control issue. To solve the issue is not the control on guns or the use of background checks.
Before guns existed, obviously hazardous and harmful elements existed.
After the advent of firearms , those things that pre-dated remain in existence as harmful elements . As well as other things that have also come along to add to the smorgasbord of fatal occurrences.
Speaking of firearms and fire, if we're familiar with pyromaniacs and arsonists, they put firemen to work.
The reason the fire alarm goes off is because an emergency is alerted for a very perilous, adverse, hazardous fatal event potentially.
Which unfortunately regularly ensues to be mortal for individuals.
I hear about house fires and all like that with many that have fell victim to the blazes.
Then you have your terroristic attacks with explosives. That's fire again.
So yes guns are not the only hazardous applications to people. You can't get no more hazardous than death.
The amount of casualties from firearms on a yearly basis globally are impossible to count, but there is a wide consensus that there are hundreds of thousands. . According to WHO, 400,000 suicides alone are committed with firearms.
Last time I checked, that's more people dying from a gun than from paper cuts.
This is according to Wikipedia I believe about Lingchi:
For starters, Wikipedia is notorious for being unreliable, not to mention that you're not even sure where it came from Wikipedia in the first place.
Now to the point, you're arguing that if one party is completely restrained, someone can use a piece of paper to slowly cut them to death. Your faulty source claims a few people died from this thousands of years ago.
I don't even see how you can compare that with the tens of thousands of people who die from guns on a yearly basis.
Is this any different than with a gunshot?
These two things are completely different.
Your only other argument is "fire is dangerous"
Yes it is, but before I don't think I need to rebut this yet, considering you provided no numbers.
Then you have your terroristic attacks with explosives. That's fire again.
Fire that is not related to matches.
Round 2
People in the comments, come on and accept the challenge. I'll put it back out there .
I think you're arguing statistics which I thought I said I'm not arguing about.
Simply put, can somebody be killed with something other than a gun?
If you answer honestly yes, case closed .
If you say no, you're dishonest and in error. That's case closed.
I rest my case .
I regret to inform you that you closed a completely irrelevant case.
The debate topic is not "Other things are Hazardous besides guns," it's "Guns are no more hazardous than knives , matches, paper and thumb tacs."
You need to prove that guns are less dangerous than these things, something you have completely failed to do.
You can't just change the debate topic mid way. I ask you to either debate the actual topic provided or concede.
Round 3
"The debate topic is not "Other things are Hazardous besides guns," it's "Guns are no more hazardous than knives , matches, paper and thumb tacs."
You need to prove that guns are less dangerous than these things, something you have completely failed to do.
You can't just change the debate topic mid way. I ask you to either debate the actual topic provided or concede."
Let's go back over the first round and see if I said what you're saying here. I didn't change anything. You took this challenge with a preconceived idea of what you thought my position was.
Now you're trying to force it. That's what it looks like. I have to call it.
"Where the topic says no more hazardous, one cannot be used more harmfully than another."
So here I specifically say one cannot be used more harmfully than the other. No where in that statement I said guns are less dangerous .
I said no more hazardous which is no more harmful. Where are you getting less harmful?
Something that's "no more than" doesn't automatically mean less than, just no more.
Do you follow this?
Do we have this straight?
We have to get this straight so you don't go into the fallacy of moving the goalpost. Don't do that. You have to argue my position. Not strawman one up and tear that down .
Tear down my actual position.
I asked you the question and you didn't answer. I don't think you can tear down my position because you didn't answer it.
Simply put, can somebody be killed with something other than a gun?
Yes or no.
Case cl .......... I'll wait first.
I refuse to debate something that I did not agree to. To win this debate, I must prove that guns kill more or as many people as the items you listed.
I must not, however, prove that guns are the only thing that can kill people, that's not what I agreed to debate.
Whether you like it or not, those are the terms set by the title and description, in plain English.
Round 4
I set the terms. It's my topic. If you misunderstood the topic, that's unfortunate.
In other words you don't disagree with my position as I explained it.
You can't dictate what my position is, it's mine. Don't strawman it, don't misrepresent it.
So if you agree, that is correct. Many will just apply their interpretation to the topic and run with it instead of facing the realization.
The topic clearly states that in order to win, you need to prove guns kill less people than the items mentioned. This may not be your intended topic, but it's the topic you entered. You can't just claim that isn't what you meant and change your stance midway. According to the agreed upon description, I win this debate.
People actually believe you can only die with the use of guns. Debateart, you're obtuse. Nothing new.
Recorrection, for my vote.
"At round 2, Pro "pussied" out after when Pro used very "hazardous" and scary numbers. Pro then decided to "rest his case" when the debate was not even over, afterwards providing no more coherent or logical arguments than Con but rather personal whims and unsportsmanlike arguments."
Recorrected to
"At round 2, Pro "pussied" out after when Con used very "hazardous" and scary numbers. Pro then decided to "rest his case" when the debate was not even over, afterwards providing no more coherent or logical arguments than Con but rather personal whims and unsportsmanlike arguments."
Misrepresented "Pro" for "Con" in the beginning of those writings. His numbers were so scary that it trembled my fingers into typing "Pro".
"For starters, Wikipedia is notorious for being unreliable, not to mention that you're not even sure where it came from Wikipedia in the first place.
Now to the point, you're arguing that if one party is completely restrained, someone can use a piece of paper to slowly cut them to death. Your faulty source claims a few people died from this thousands of years ago.
I don't even see how you can compare that with the tens of thousands of people who die from guns on a yearly basis.
Is this any different than with a gunshot?
These two things are completely different.
Your only other argument is "fire is dangerous"
Yes it is, but before I don't think I need to rebut this yet, considering you provided no numbers.
Then you have your terroristic attacks with explosives. That's fire again.
Fire that is not related to matches."
There is a bad start with pointing out Wikipedia unreliability because of not finding a counteracting argument that is logical enough to concede with the point out done. Also you did mention that he was not even sure where it came from Wikipedia in the first place, regardless of saying "not to mention".
Not to mention, I don't exactly know if you even were aware of the numbers that came from didn't exactly come from "WHO".
However, this still remains logical. Mall did not provide any numbers. Not much I can do to help Mall in this debate. His Arguments are piss-poor. (Respectfully)
"The amount of casualties from firearms on a yearly basis globally are impossible to count, but there is a wide consensus that there are hundreds of thousands. . According to WHO, 400,000 suicides alone are committed with firearms.
Last time I checked, that's more people dying from a gun than from paper cuts."
Somewhat evidence-based, supported by legal governmental data. He most likely got it from "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10881/chapter/9"
However, this doesn't seem like it's from "WHO". It seems like it's from U.S vital statistics System.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10881."
This is somewhat accurate, though it's not exactly according to WHO. But all of this data is simply nationally representative information about lethal self-injuries, especially lethal self-injuries done by firearms.
This remains logically coherent.
Do you cook often? Have you particularly seen any animal get slaughtered for consumption purposes?
Do you by any chance have watched gore recently? Or do you tend to watch them more often? Perhaps you have those repetitive desires of exploring the "gore facility" as guided by your wicked curiousity.
"I hear about house fires and all like that with many that have fell victim to the blazes.
Then you have your terroristic attacks with explosives. That's fire again.
So yes guns are not the only hazardous applications to people. You can't get no more hazardous than death."
You're already halfway through the argument and you're making piss poor relations to ISIS incidents. Not only, you're talking about "explosives" which literally are not even matches or thumb tacs or even paper. This isn't related to the Topic debate even. Poor argument.
So... after all of the flaws as well as connections to historical concepts (that are not necessary and irrelevant to the topic), while making these piss poor relations to ISIS suicidal bombing incidents, you come up with the conclusion that guns are no more hazardous than death? And your way out of this is through piss poor semantics?
"Before guns existed, obviously hazardous and harmful elements existed.
After the advent of firearms , those things that pre-dated remain in existence as harmful elements . As well as other things that have also come along to add to the smorgasbord of fatal occurrences.
Speaking of firearms and fire, if we're familiar with pyromaniacs and arsonists, they put firemen to work.
The reason the fire alarm goes off is because an emergency is alerted for a very perilous, adverse, hazardous fatal event potentially.
Which unfortunately regularly ensues to be mortal for individuals.
"
I only have these few words to say:
1. Bruh
2. Bruh
3. As if the fires have caused more human death than guns or knives.
4. Poor argument because the whole debate says "guns ARE no more..." when it's not "Guns WERE no more...", also this dude's trying to find a crappy loophole that is just not even a loophole but a massive FIREwall (in his own words) that he already passed through all cooked like his career.
"This correlates to a topic I had some time ago I believe it was "guns are as deadly as knives" or something to that effect."
Seems like a very dull belief. But the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) that has the quote "You brought a knife to a gunfight." already shows how dull that belief is, if used in a gunfight, or gun battle.
So we can see the ramifications of cuts with whatever instrument or article used to bring about death.
Is this any different than with a gunshot?
Yes, because death by a thousand cuts involved using a weapon that can cut a thousand times, hence the weapon is used a thousand times.
Whereas, a gun used one time can instantly send the individual to death.
Poor argument.
"Lingchi usually translated "slow slicing" or "death by a thousand cuts", was a form of torture and execution used in China from around the 10th century."
How does this help prove that Knives are more dangerous than guns? How does this show that Knives are more hazardous than Guns? How does this help anyone observe that there is much of an "equal" sense of comparison between knives and guns? Does it mean Hazardous in terms of reaching death?
Can't see anyone who wrote "Paper kills more than guns". False argument. One flaw.
Regardless, I'm going to be voting based on which one makes better argument.
It's very difficult to find sense in something that doesn't make much sense. I already noticed from the beginning that the topic is too dither due to the fact that we are missing data.
Which generality is this? What generic proportion does it have? From where does this generality commonly function within? It's quite ambiguous
This debate is too generic. But if I was to say anything, Knives are more hazardous. (Because of their concentration in this world (where it is more familiar with kitchens and cutleries and how they are more accessible than guns).
You seem like you were invested in this debate. Would you care to cast a vote?
#3 has situation-based terming, I can't speak for all situations except around 25% to 65% of it.
Kinda ridiculous.
This is a way of how we can evaluate how hazardous guns are, compared to knives:
Object identities (Colloquial terming of the objects used, Statistical or average terming of the objects used, other terming used all in order to make this as logical as possible and allow it make as much as sense as possible, followed by empirical considerations and empirical data):
Guns:
Handguns: Typically weigh between 1 to 3 pounds (0.45 to 1.36 kg).
Rifles: Generally weigh between 6 to 10 pounds (2.72 to 4.54 kg).
Shotguns: Typically weigh between 7 to 9 pounds (3.18 to 4.08 kg).
For a rough average, considering a mix of handguns, rifles, and shotguns:
Average Mass of Guns≈ (2+8+8)/3 =6 pounds ≈ 2.72 kg
Rough average estimation of Guns, considering a mix of handguns, rifles, and shotguns is approximately equal to 2.72kg.
Knives:
Pocket Knives: Generally weigh between 0.1 to 0.5 pounds (45 to 227 grams).
Kitchen Knives: Typically weigh between 0.3 to 1 pound (136 to 454 grams).
Hunting and Tactical Knives: Usually weigh between 0.5 to 2 pounds (227 to 907 grams).
For a rough average, considering a mix of pocket knives, kitchen knives, and hunting/tactical knives:
Average Mass of Knives≈ (0.3+0.7+1)/3 =0.67 pounds≈0.3 kg
Rough average estimation of Knives, considering a mix of pocket knives, kitchen knives, and hunting/tactical knives is approximately equal to 0.3kg.
A comparison between the rough average estimation of Guns and knives:
Average rough estimation of Guns is 2.72 kg.
Average rough estimation of knives is 0.3 kg.
In that comparison, on average, Guns weigh almost 9 times more than knives.
Advantages of Weight and Mass:
Since guns weigh more and since guns are more solid than knives, judging by the composite materials and the mass of guns, as well as their weight and the method of they are made generally, Guns are capable of "packing more force" than knives due to their durability in composition. They can therefore cause more disturbance in the human body, if for example, their lateral sides are used to damage the body by applying excessive force, especially on the skull. But, still, even with guns packing more force, knives still have this sharp point even throughout their non-sharp points that allow them to cause severe damage to the human body, depending on where you strike the sharp point at, despite the packing force they have compared to guns. The Weight advantages still contribute to the hazardous rate of these items being used as weapons. The situations that the advantages of weight can help cause are knocking someone out of consciousness, causing someone a hemorrhage to the brain, or other damages to the head that can be fatal.
Guns in battle, can allow the person to "burst" out the areas of their body, depending on the bullet shot by the gun (assuming there is a bullet that has been shot by it, because without the bullet the guns are simply less useful than they usually are for battles, or for situations in battles). Guns cause much more damage to the human body than knives do, due to the impact of the bullet, or the force of the bullet. The damage of the bullet's impact or force can cause the body to have a "linear" directed motion of a force thrusting through their body, followed by the locomotion of the bullet (through the act of shooting, depending on the area that is shot through). This in total, allows the bullet to cause a "Gunshot wound". A gunshot wound is much more severe than a knife wound, because it doesn't cause as much as damage as a knife does per an act of damaging force on a person. (this is all of course, during one glimpse of a moment).
Knives in battle, can allow the person to bleed to death if an artery has been cut through, and multiple stabbing can lead to a more severe form of Major haemorrhage if an artery or multiple arteries have been cut through, or cut. (And of course, damage to the parts of the human body, including the internal and external tissues, meaning the muscle tissues and the outlier tissues, the epidermis contributing to the hazardous rate of knives). However, this during one glimpse of a moment, the cutting only cause a risk of blood loss (depending on the situation) and not furthermore damages, apart the areas damaged by wherever the knife has been cut through. This in total, allows the knife to cause a "knife wound" (all of This is only through an act of stabbing).
Based on the one glimpse of a moment, Guns appear to be more hazardous than knives.
For the other parts of the topic, knives are on average just more hazardous than matches, paper, and thumb tacs. Conclusively, Guns are are on average more hazardous than matches, paper, and thumb tacs because Guns are more hazardous than knives.
However, I believe that matches, paper, and thumb tacs can be more hazardous than Guns, only if they are known how to be used in a unique way.
I genuinely do not know how even the most pro-gun person could genuinely believe this.
Paper kills more people than guns?