The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
The Contender
LaL36
Con (against)

Its time to put down ALL guns and believe in peace! No one needs a gun. Not ever. Not for any reason

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
LaL36 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2020 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 948 times Debate No: 124108
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

* There can be no worldwide peace with guns and weapons of superior firepower in it.

* Guns have absolutely no use except to maim, Kill, Cause pain, Splatter guts, And cause horrific grief.

* It is time to do the right and the correct and only thing to do which is to put guns down forever. This includes ---everybody--- all at once, For ---everybody--- to put down their guns and take a step back and believe in peace and not violence and hate in which ALL guns are.

* Guns are NOT weapons of peace. So prove that guns ARE weapons of peace especially when they, Like the AK47 are created for only ONE PURPOSE - to kill people.

* Guns are weapons of hate, Violence, Bloodshed, War, Pain, Destruction, Murder, Grief, Horror, Suffering etc.

* There is nothing good about guns. Nothing.

Give 3 examples in each of the 5 rounds why a gun is needed. AND EXPLAIN to---the---letter why a gun is needed?

Be Clear, Concise, And accurate.

* No one under the age of 20 will be allowed to accept this debate. Why? These are ADULT issues. For those in your teens, You do not have the ability in any possible way to grasp the damage, The psychological terror of what guns are UNLESS (let me repeat) UNLESS you've experienced first hand what guns have done unto you or can do in which case you would take the Pro side especially if you've seen guts spilled out from your best friend or a loved one.
Btw, Don't be stupid and pretend you are someone you are not. People who lie, Cheat and steal are very easily found out. Not a good idea.

* Oh and btw, Do not be an atom as compared to the big bang and use an old, Outdated CDC completely debunked in several different ways CDC report on guns because this would only show how utterly stupid, Unintelligent, Uneducated you are and what you have also done is in no proper way done any research whatsoever. So you will have automatically forfeited this debate.


dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.
LaL36

Con


Thank you, Pro, For instigating and I look forward to a thought provoking debate. Good luck! Now let’s get to it. I’ll beginning by breaking down pro’s contention and then making my affirmative case after.


Contention 1: “There can be no worldwide peace with guns and weapons of superior firepower in it. ”


This contention is a little loaded if somebody were to break this down. There is an implied premise here that worldwide peace is achievable to begin with. In order to really test out this statement one would have to look to a time where there was such worldwide peace and it simply never existed as far as I am aware of. Before going on a worldwide scale let’s take this contention to the micro. If I were to ask any of the readers is it possible for you to have complete peace in your state? What about your city? Your workspace? Your family? In most cases I find people to say no. Now this could be because your uncle has an insane collection of guns in his basements but I think in most cases this is simply a reality of human nature and that is that everybody is going to disagree and be hostile. We have been doing so from the beginning of humanity. I would hope that you don’t go around killing everybody in your family or city but just taking things from the micro we could see how difficult it is to apply this to the entire world where everybody has different interests, Values, Cultural upbringings and many other variables that go far beyond guns. This is something that needs to be broken down more by pro as I’m sure pro will do in the following rounds but for now the short rebuttal to this is that even assuming that worldwide peace is achievable, The issue preventing it is more an issue (perhaps reality? ) of human nature rather than an issue of guns which I would say is more of a superficial aspect of it.


Contention 2: “Guns have absolutely no use except to maim, Kill, Cause pain, Splatter guts, And cause horrific grief. ”


My first red flag with this contention is the extremes in this statement. The first mistake I believe pro makes is conflating pro’s perceived effects with the purpose. Causing horrible grief is not a use. It may be pro’s and others’ perception of guns but it would not be correct to frame it as a use. Pro’s using the radical language of “absolutely no use except…” this means that pro now is required to defend this statement. Therefore I counter with very simple examples. Let’s take a noble soldier or police officer. Would it be fair to say that when they carry their gun their intention is to cause horrible grief? Again this could be the effect in some cases but that is not the use of it. I hope people can see the value in using guns as a form of protection. Even if pro does believe this statement the only really way to stop somebody from causing that grief is with another gun. That is the function of an officer or soldier. If a murderer grabs a gun and wants to kill a family and do all the things pro mentioned in the contention, And a soldier wants to prevent that from happening this debunks pro’s claim already. This is an example of somebody using a gun for precisely the opposite to prevent the killing of innocents, Splattering of guts, Horrible grief etc. I am going under the assumption that pro is not opposed to murders being killed to stop them from murdering.


Contention 3: “It is time to do the right and the correct and only thing to do which is to put guns down forever. This includes ---everybody--- all at once, For ---everybody--- to put down their guns and take a step back and believe in peace and not violence and hate in which ALL guns are. ”


Okay so there are two aspects to address in this contention. There is theoretical aspect and the practical aspect. I’ll begin with the practical aspect. To be brief, This is just not going to happen. It just is not possible for every single person on the planet to do it. This is because once an individual or a country does so they are vulnerable to any one person or country who is smart enough to not listen to such a proposal. Such a policy would give even more incentives for evil people and countries to keep their guns because now they know they will have the upper hand because their enemies are now in that vulnerable position. The only way this can be remotely possible is if this “worldwide peace” comes before.


Here’s an example: Let’s say both you and an enemy have guns pointed at each other. A third party let’s say it’s pro, Tells both of you put the guns down. If both of you put the guns down that’s great and we have that peace. But let’s say as your enemy begins to put the gun down the enemy raises it quickly and shoots you. Also, Are we do say that no possible harm can be done without the guns? If you have 10 people fighting in a room and one guy uses a gun to get them to stop fighting couldn’t that be an example of using a gun for the opposite of fighting? Once again this can only work if the peace is preexisting. I love my family for example and therefore I don’t think any of us brining guns to a conversation will help anyone but I think a gun might help me if I had to be in Iraq for example.


Next comes the theory: I object to this contention theoretically as well. I think a person and country has a right to protect themselves and secure their self-determination. I fail to see any other way that this can be done without at least the army having guns. I think it would be difficult for citizens to feel safe without any guns at all. What happens if five people start attacking me. I’m outnumbered there is no possible way for me to fight these men off. If there is one officer with a gun it might be possible but if he has no gun it’s a 5 on 2 what is that going to do? In the United States if there were no guns what’s to stop all the people who hate President Trump from running in there and killing him? They can easily outnumber the army.



Contention 4: “Guns are NOT weapons of peace. So prove that guns ARE weapons of peace especially when they, Like the AK47 are created for only ONE PURPOSE - to kill people. ”


Guns are tools. They are not human beings so I think modifiers would not be proper to add to them. I therefore reject this dichotomy that pro is creating of guns being weapons of peace or war. Not really sure why pro singles out the AK-47 I don’t see what’s so different about it based on what pro was saying. Regardless, Guns are simply tools that human beings use. Again let’s take a practical example. If I hit somebody in the face with a tennis racket does that say anything about the tennis racket? Is the tennis racket evil? Should it be sent to prison? Of course not it is simple the tool that I used to hit somebody in the face. Guns are simply that tool so they can’t be tools of war or peace they simply reflect the state of the person at the moment. I already alluded to examples where guns are used to prevent people from being killed I can elaborate more in the coming rounds if necessary. But I’d like to give another example. Pro have you ever seen border patrol guards in any country? I think if you look at this it dismantles your point about guns being used to kill because in this case it really is the opposite sometimes. Countries to not want to kill somebody on the border especially if it’s hostile because it can start a war many times. Therefore the function of guns is to prevent that from happening. Warning shots are fired. A gun is used in that case not to kill but to tell people to go back to their borders.


Contention 5: “Guns are weapons of hate, Violence, Bloodshed, War, Pain, Destruction, Murder, Grief, Horror, Suffering etc. ”


Again pretty much addressed in contention 4. Tools can’t have these modifiers attached to them.


Contention 6: “There is nothing good about guns. Nothing. ”


I’m going to combine this with pro’s final instructions: “Give 3 examples in each of the 5 rounds why a gun is needed. AND EXPLAIN to---the---letter why a gun is needed?


So first I hope I addressed the contention previously I gave other uses to guns and why they are necessary but I think this is a good summary. Firstly there are four rounds and I may repeat the points for why guns are necessary not sure if I can come up with 3 new points each round but I’ll try.



  1. Guns are necessary for a government to have some degree of sovereignty over the country.

  2. Guns are necessary in order for a country or individuals to protect themselves from others especially if those other people have guns which they often do.

  3. Guns are necessary to give people a sense of safety be it from themselves, An army, Or police.


Okay. That will be it for now. On to you Pro. I look forward to your response.


Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Boo! Normally I say "season beatings" to anyone who enters my debates. But I"m not going to here because I really really really like so so so so much your texture and layout and font that it"s just impossible for me to. So I hope that there"s one helluva lot of intelligence and education as well as passion behind your debate and it"s not just a cheap chip shot as is true with so so so many that have come on in here.
Contention 1: "There can be no worldwide peace with guns and weapons of superior firepower in it. "
"There is an implied premise here that worldwide peace is achievable to begin with. "
Yeah I gotta believe that there is. No wars, No hate, No poverty, No cancer.
Also in order for worldwide peace to be achievable, And I was taught this in high school (back in 1980) and it hasn"t changed though there"s been one thing added to the mix since then. And it"s 5 things and everything falls under those categories. But that"s for another debate entirely. Regardless, In order for worldwide peace to be achieved, One of those things is for all guns and weapons of superior firepower to be gotten rid of.
Many might say it"s a pipedream. Many might not. Ah but once WWIII hits and or it may not and or the next plague that decimates millions (that could be happening right now), Or a huge economy collapse or whatever that could dramatically change things, Regardless it"s going to take a huge worldwide whatever shakeup and then people---will---change. Materialistic things won"t be so becoming anymore because they will be harder and harder to hang onto.
Sure there"s going to the "one" who hangs onto his guns. But he"s going to be a standout loner. This country is the only developed nation in the world that considers it to be a "right" to own a gun. That will change within the next 5 years. There will be no choice. That sickening piece of paper, That second amendment will have to either be torn to pieces or be completely rewritten.
Why? Guns will advance so much especially within people basements. People right now are building 3D printer guns in their basements with absolutely no laws to prevent anyone from doing as such. What about 3D printer bombs that can level an entire city block? Does anyone really think that there will be no laws to curtail this from happening? AND who"s going to go from door to door saying "no you cannot build this. " or "Hmmm, We"ve not found anything. " But in reality you"ve built an army of guns, You"ve just hidden them from the inspectors. Or you were not inspected. Or you were inspected but nobody found the dangers of your guns but in a close reality check you were EXTREMELY dangerous and psychotic and ready to run amok. OR you were inspected and you passed with flying colors, All 300 of you playful guns that you built from scratch because there was nothing to stop you from doing as such.
If people really want to evade the law, They will. But the fact of the matter is, Most crimes are committed with legal guns.
So what does anyone do about getting rid of ALL GUNS in which case is an obvious necessity? What guns are is a simple mindset. That"s what is desperately needed to be changed in people"s daily lives. Screw the "it"s my right to own a gun". It"s not especially when nobody cares anymore except for those who have to grieve because daddy decided to go on a murdering rampage every 3rd day and murder his entire family because this country does absolutely nothing about gun restrictions because the worst president of all time Donald barking s--t up his you know where areas Trump sits in the big white barn.
A very important step was taken a few years ago and that is "gun violence as a public health issue" and it can be treated as nothing less.
People get hostile with a gun a lot more because they think a gun gives them that almighty "power". And without their toy, They"d be just like a little boy toy done. Dare they give up their He-Man She-Ra big Tonka Toy run of the mill dirt picker-upper power tool? Nope. Especially if it advances dramatically. Then there"s MORE POWER if not to the orgasmic phase.
Tough luck. Gotta go for that meltdown and let true human emotions of actual feelings towards something of innermost peace within yourself and not a gun you piece of fluff. K?

Contention 2: "Guns have absolutely no use except to maim, Kill, Cause pain, Splatter guts, And cause horrific grief. "
"Causing horrible grief is not a use. "
This is the after effect of the use. So yes it is the mistake of the use of the gun, No exceptions, None.
"Therefore I counter with very simple examples. Let"s take a noble soldier or police officer. Would it be fair to say that when they carry their gun their intention is to cause horrible grief? "
Who could have used something else other than a gun or not participated? When someone carries a gun, Especially at a school it strikes fear into the kids, That something is wrong/ grief. A policeman when he carries a gun, It strikes fear. And several countries, Their police officers, They don"t carry guns. I googled for a recent post"
Countries Where the Police Force Does Not Carry Firearms. In Iceland, Ireland, Norway, New Zealand, And the United Kingdom, Police officers do not carry guns. Jun 12, 2018.
No, A gun is not a value of protection. However, The uniform is. BIG difference.
The last scenario" What was someone doing with a gun where the bad guy could reach for a gun in the first place? It"s confusing. Then the good guy murders him with a gun? Either way a bad scenario. Why not take him down with a taser, Blind him with a blinding flashlight (in which case practically NOBODY is putting into play which is an extremely bad idea which could easily save millions of lives), I'm not understanding what you are trying to get at.

Contention 3: "It is time to do the right and the correct and only thing to do which is to put guns down forever. This includes ---everybody--- all at once, For ---everybody--- to put down their guns and take a step back and believe in peace and not violence and hate in which ALL guns are. "
"Okay so there are two aspects to address in this contention. There is theoretical aspect and the practical aspect. I"ll begin with the practical aspect. To be brief, This is just not going to happen. "
Possibly. But there is hope. Sure it may be a pipedream. And then there is also copy and paste time ever watch Star Trek episode Errand of Mercy? Kirk and Spock think they are doing a world of good by trying to stop the Klingons from doing evil. But in the end the Organanians stop all wars and end it across both cultures and they both hate it? Yes man"s dimwitted mind is phenomenally foggy. 10, 000 years ago it was far worse and far far far more violent and hate ridden. One in every 5, 000 was murdered. Today it"s one in every million. Man"s testosterone level has also decreased dramatically. We"ve also incorporated government and equality. And our skulls have changed dramatically. This is according to a Nova episode on violence a few months back.
"Such a policy would give even more incentives for evil people and countries to keep their guns because now they know they will have the upper hand because their enemies are now in that vulnerable position. "
According to the episode, There"s far too many peace leaders now to prevent this from happening though it"s NOT by any means an assured thing as some contemptible spiritless monster could most certainly come along and wreck everything.

Oh you don"t need to explain it. I get it just fine. It doesn"t matter though. Somebody has got to lay his guns down and stop the insanity. Ghandi did it. So did Nelson Mandella. No wars. No hate. That f--king idiot Trump wants to pick them up.
What you are playing with your example is a sort of a game of Russian Roulette. I"m sorry. I can"t play it.
OK now onto theory. Once again other countries and leaders have gotten along just fine without guns. So what if it"s a 5-2. What does that prove? That you can kill more people? That you have the "power" to kill anyone?

Contention 4: "Guns are NOT weapons of peace. So prove that guns ARE weapons of peace especially when they, Like the AK47 are created for only ONE PURPOSE - to kill people. "
"Guns are tools. "
No, Guns are weapons. Hammers and screwdrivers are tools. Human beings are the triggers that fires the weapons and builds the weapons.
I have a lifelong friend who did a tour of Afghanistan whom I"ve known for 45+ years. If it was up to him, He"d take away every single gun from every single person, Right now all across the world. I can"t blame him. One man right next to him had his face completely splattered all across his entire uniform while in combat. He tells me about it every now and then. It"s a fricken nightmare for him.
For me, A co-worker went into a place of his girlfriend, Took out his handgun, BAM, Murdered her, And within 4 years was out of prison, Tapped me on my shoulder at the downtown bus station, Talk about creepy, And said "Hi remember me? " and then said that he was the manager at a local restaurant. GREAT! Just what we should all do! Murder our girlfriends with GUNS, Because ---any other way--- it would have been probably life, And just so that when we get out we know that we will have a high paying career waiting for us.

SO DO NOT tell me or anyone that "guns are tools". They are weapons that are required to be banned. It"s a very BIG difference.
The AK47 was singled out, It"s the most widely used machine gun that was built for ONE PURPOSE ONLY, To kill people.
"Regardless, Guns are simply tools that human beings use. "
Here"s how that sentence should read"
"Regardless, Guns ARE absolutely without question weapons that human being use to murder. "
"Is the tennis racket evil? "
Here"s the difference that you don"t see, That you don"t "want" to see and or "realize", Is that you rarely can, If ever turn that tennis racket into a deadly weapon. Makes sense?
I'll close on that.
I'm out of space.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Turk082 1 year ago
Turk082
@backwardseden

"And hey NOBODY knows everything as that's an impossibility, "

Your stupidity continues to shine! How would you know I'm wrong about guns and God when you don't "know everything"?

Again, How would know I'm wrong when you don't know everything?
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
Bouncing back to why guns are more used in gun crimes, People like to off themselves more than not and what easier way than with a gun once the crime is committed? They don't want to sit there and wait for the cops to arrive and cart them off to jail. Are you joking? So the criminals want to end their lives as to the best way they can. What better way than with a gun to the back of the brain?

"Yea yeah, You use guns for no harm, But yea yeah, The police is after you, Then you shoot them down then they have guns, And the statement is no use at all.
Sorry. That's harm.
OK. I've covered ---everything---. Again, This is why I truly HATE debating with those under 20 on guns is because you simply have no idea, None as to what you are talking about. All you did was invent excuses, Masses of them, And for truly "what good"? What good are guns? You, Until you have experienced ---any--- kind of horrific suffering, Especially due to guns, And no offense, None, Because you are quite intelligent in other areas, But no offence, Not here, And hey NOBODY knows everything as that's an impossibility, But argue with what you know best and or get one hecka-of-lot of information on that subject and then argue it. And be able to back up what you say with rock-solid evidence so it cannot be refuted and or bullied over as some raw fish turnip eaters like to do such as fauxlaw tries to do but he fails sooo amazingly well at. Then its so so so much fun to toy with that teeny tiny itty bitty jellied moldy toxic rubber chew toy he calls a roto rooter Katy Perry doll heat em up brain, OR you can simply walk away.

Please tc and haveth thee fon. Oh sorry, Fun.
Posted by Turk082 1 year ago
Turk082
Guns do not kill people. People kill people. I support our Second Amendment, Gun rights. My favorite President, Mr. Trump promised in the State of the Union to protect gun rights as long as he is president. 4 more yrs for Mr. Trump. We need to protect Israel, Too. I don't know what were do w/out him.
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
No. It depends on the equipment. PE-IR-OD. Now I'm really p**sed because in no possible way are you thinking, Reasoning, Rationalizing, Using common sense, Nor in any possible way AT ALL are you using ---any--- kind of logic. All you are doing is blurting out whatevers.
It' ---always--- depends on the equipment first and foremost, No exceptions, None. You take away that equipment, There can be no crime. Yes, This includes a person's body which would include his hands, Legs and feet if necessary to commit these crimes. You cannot commit mass murder without having the proper equipment. No exceptions, None. You ---never--- hear of someone using his hands to commit mass murder because it's never happened. You rarely hear of someone using mass murder with a knife. People do know how to get out of the way of a knife. But once the act is committed, Oh yeah, Even it's its elsewhere in the world, It's heard about. People do know how to get out of the way of a car which is why running people down is so rarely used. Murderers know these things. They are NOT stupid. This is why guns are almost always the choice of weapons. They can murder more of the masses with guns than they can with any other weapon. They are also more readily available. But because someone uses guns to commit mass murder every 3 days, It's not heard/ seen on the news anymore unless it's at a school, A religious place of worship, Shooting of a police officer(s), Unless the body count is higher than 6 or the crime is completely original. I mean wow since Kobe Bryant's death on 1/27/20 there been "As of January 31, There has been 28 shootings that fit this criteria, Resulting in 38 deaths and 112 injuries, For a total of 150 victims. "
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2020
That is 4 to a mass shooting. Really? Yep. Really. NOBODY CARES anymore. But republicans and Donald toxic ant chew on his pecker Trump do nothing about it because it doesn't care.
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
@anc2006 - See, Now you are just raising the flag below ground. What does the headliner post say? So it completely nullifies your second and third points. So does all of RD1 except for the bottom sentence regarding my slobbering homebody lovesong teddy bear.
So what if a couple of events are taken off of the roster from The Olympics? Really? That's an all-out decisive argument to keep BILLIONS of guns and bullets nto circulation OR even it's gotta be at least 100, 000 and thus 5 million bullets AND their continued upgrades that you haven't even thought about how advanced guns can become within the next 5 years in circulation? Um no. Wrong. Do YOU REALLY want an argument?
Really? That's YOUR argument? "What else do you use? ARROWS? Do you see what you are doing here? This is one of the major reasons why I truly hate debating those under 20 on guns is they invent all kinds of excuses to support them when there is no support of any kind. All you are doing is using truly miserable excuses, And they are miserable, To promote your guns and for no other reason. NONE. Now you think of how arrows, Grenade launchers, Or whatever CANNOT be used for a mass shooting unless someone is completely ignorant? Do you really think into oblivion that someone is going to be able to carry around with them arrows (how many would that be and where would they carry them in their coat pockets as guns cannot accomplish this) to do any kind of worthwhile job that could only be designed FOR ONE PURPOSE ONLY? Same is true with a grenade launcher or whatever. SO KNOCK IT OFF. More lethal ban? How is any thinking complete idiot supposed to get a hold of these things IN THE FIRST PLACE? AND since no crimes like these have been committed, Damn right they'd make a HUGE media splash.
You can imagine this "god", But you cannot think, Reason, Rationalize, Use common sense, Use logic of any kind to figure these things out and thus how these things would be swatted down in nanoseconds?
Posted by anc2006 1 year ago
anc2006
Yea yeah, You use guns for no harm, But yea yeah, The police is after you, Then you shoot them down then they have guns, And the statement is no use at all.
Posted by anc2006 1 year ago
anc2006
It depends on the user, Not the equipment. If we play fortnite on mobile, It is not Steve jobs' responsibility. We should ban irregular firearm usage, Which is what we are doing, And not ban every single gun in existence altogether.
Posted by anc2006 1 year ago
anc2006
@Backwardseden

I guess other than we both agree on that the god of bible is false, We disagree here. I have notes:
1) I don't use guns, And I don't want to use them either, And I would not use any until if I was drafted into an unavoidable war.
2) Guns can be helpful in some places.

Some of my arguments, You have not refuted. I agree that guns are cruel and thus it should not be used to kill people, But you have not yet refuted my second and third points yet.

Olympics are respectful competitions of the physical strength and skill. Before guns are invented, Arrows were on the same position, And there are respectful competitions of Archery in the olympics where none is intended to be killed. If you say, "Ban those damn' arrows from usage! " then the people that are just practicing aiming will be sad consider they are practicing a skill that would earn them medals and they aren't harming anybody either. Do this to guns, Those harmless, Competition-only guns, Then there will be one less way of practicing aiming.

ALSO, IF YOU AS WELL BAN GUNS, WHAT ABOUT GRENADE LAUNCHERS? You cannot just ban one weapon and expect people to not harm each other. If gun is banned there will be a replacement of a gun. People won't stop fighting each other if you just ban guns. There are people that shoot no matter what. K, They don't intentionally break the law. They just want to make a mess out of the country and make them seem like the "good ones" when in reality they ignored the laws. If you just ban guns then the gunmen, Which have guns, Would require guns to shoot down. What else do you use? ARROWS? Eventually because the gun is the most efficient out of the portable materials, Then the ban would be useless consider the federal government would not be able to use 200 years of weapons and the gunman would easily shoot down any officers with anything inferior than guns. The weapons superior to guns? More lethal, Ban? What do you mean? The sentence of statement is too vague t
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
Get rid of guns and police won't be carrying guns. Regardless, And I simply googled it "In some countries including Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, The United Kingdom (Northern Ireland excepted), The police do not carry firearms unless the situation is expected to merit it. "
It's time to put guns down!
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
@anc006 - I don't remember you ever posting anything in regards to this. If so I probably ignored it for the same reason that it just doesn't hold any merit liker right here, No offense because like I said, You are pretty god damned intelligent for a 14 year old unlike nearly everyone 5 years you're senior here on DDO or a lot older than you like fauxlaw who holds absolutely no intelligence and education whatsoever.
OK. . . Defend a country from what? From it's own ridiculous hallucinations of wanting to maim, Murder and kill? Ah yes, Such is this glorious country at it's finest. Look very closely at what I said in the opening RD. . . "This includes ---everybody--- all at once, For ---everybody--- to put down their guns and take a step back. . . " Ever watch a Star Trek episode Errand of Mercy? Kirk and Spock think they are doing a world of good by trying to stop the Klingons from doing evil. But in the end the Organanians stop all wars and end it across both cultures and they both hate it? Really? This is how man REALLY is? IT LOVES WAR, Bullets, The shattering of open wounds, Bullets ripping open guts, Splattered on the sidewalk, Children dying in the streets. Right? The fact of the matter is, Is that man's testosterone has decreased immensely over the past 10, 000 years. His skull shape has also changed dramatically and violence has gone way way down. 10, 000 years ago one in every 5, 000 was murdered. Today it's one in every million. It's gone down because of government and equality. All of this information came about on a Nova episode from about 2 months ago on violence.
Knives cannot in any possible way do the horrific damages that guns can do. Arrows, Same thing. Native American Indians lost because of the arrow in a very big way VS the gun. Millions cannot be slaughtered in concentrated war efforts with knives and arrows in mere days. Carrying arrows in the home and be able to slaughter your entire family with them? Not quite likely as with a gun.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.