I'll begin by saying that I have no issue with guns being
used in society. Although, not
necessarily ideal, they have their practical uses as well as their pragmatic
necessities. Small arms capable of
delivering lethal force at range will be warranted so long as we live in a
fallen state. It is my hope here that I
may shed light on some problems which are introduced in "Pro-Gun",
and as such present a worthy argument to weight against it.
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. If such is the case, and there is in fact no
moral standing for tyrannical "gun control", than we should not
entertain the pragmatic arguments for inhibition of the bearing of arms as
valid to begin with, and as such "Pro-Gun" represents a failure in
that we have already conceded the real argument, which is that there is a right
to bear arms independent of external agency, such as government. We should never stoop to such a level as to
quantify humanity, and base those things which bring about government to secure
in question on an arbitrary basis of how it might fit in with any given
policy. The interest in life does not
outweigh the right to life of autonomous persons, and any policy which is
predicated to the contrary is fundamentally flawed. A policy which is not "Pro-gun" but
which respects our right to bear arms for the purpose of personal and the
common defense may arguably prove beneficial to members of our society. It is honest to admit that guns are
destructive devices, presenting a degree of risk outside of a controlled
environment, as it is honest to admit that by consenting to such a
controlled environment we forfeit the original purpose in which government is
justifiably established in the first place. In matters of human rights, it is of vital importance that we as a
society hold truth in utmost priority, thus reflected in all aspects of
life. We cannot argue for the
consequence of evil, but we must persist against the forces of evil.
Of secondary consequence to entertaining the adversary of
any free and decent society, is their proclivity to focus on "guns"
as if they are a primary cause of strife, rather than a commodity the people
deem valuable with valid reason. 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. Lethal force is the last option of recourse. We can only turn the tables, once a threat
has already been levied against us. All
proactive options, such as avoiding trouble to begin with, de-escalation, or
non-lethal measures provide the greatest protection. Once you draw a weapon, you put an assailant
in the same or greater level of insecurity as yourself, and once you pull the
trigger, you cannot take back the consequences, which play out in a split
second. On one hand, if you need it, you
REALLY need it, but using a gun for self-defense is about as far from ideal as
one can imagine, and that's just the plain truth that we cannot deviate
from.
Another question we have to ask ourselves is how we wound up
being "Pro-Gun". Surely, just
like having a fire extinguisher in the home, so to is it responsible to have
some means to protect oneself and their loved ones. That is fine, and the tools each head of
household deems most suitable to their unique prospects is something I respect
generally. For many people, a gun has
its place, although its arguable that something like pepper spray would provide
greater protection to the vast majority of Americans. Although it is not quite as reliable, it is
reliable none the less, and it is useful in the majority of circumstances a law
abiding citizen might face. In an
escalating situation, we are better off to avoid the threat proactively, so
disorientation and retreat is preferable where practical. When it comes to liability, non-lethal
measures allow us to think more creatively out of a problem, and require a
lower threshold of training standard to rely on day to day. In a setting with innocent bystanders,
less-lethal options are easier to employ under stress with minimal risk, and in
the rare event that you lose control of the weapon it poses less threat to your
life, as well as that of a fearful assailant, not to mention the cost of law
enforcement, damages, and challenges to recovery.
Initially, we have to ask ourselves as well, the ethics of
"Pro-Gun". There are none if
it is predicated in reaction to aristocratic rivalry. We should start from a basis of what is
right. The communities being effected by
"gun violence" are riddled with people who are
"Pro-Gun". We fail in such respect
to reconcile that most everyone thinks of themselves as a "good guy",
which is correct and natural, and they are liable to utilize a gun to protect
themselves like anyone would, but not everyone is prepared for such an
undertaking. There must always be an
underlying basis establishing what is appropriate and why, or we do not
properly address the multiple failures which lead to people shooting each other
over a couple ounces of pot.
Consider
the sheer scale of wasted time brought by the "Pro-Gun" debate as it
is oriented around guns. This is time we
could actually be putting towards the sources of violence in ourselves and our
communities, which in turn would free yet more time in coping, and yet we
persist in the nonsensical idea that guns can be thought of as collectively
"good" or "bad", as if people have no agency, that whatever
the effect, guns "happen" to us. The term "gun culture" has recently arisen, which is a
travesty, as any nation which is remotely functional at this time utilizes
firearms in some fashion, according to the values and heritage of their
culture. It should be thought long and
hard about how we allow our discourse to stoop to such a level. We, Americans, have serious underlying issues
to address and we have causations to address as well. The majority of our time as it relates to
guns, ought be dedicated from our commitment to one another, whether it be
relationships in domestic abuse, redress of mental health, or recounting from
an early point in development how children are brought in to such areas. However inappropriate the "gun
control" may appear from a state of ignorance, how much more so are we in
leading astray from reason.
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.