Is gun control a real issue and is the reduction of guns the solution to mankind's overall safety?

Voting #government #society #families #ethics

The participant with the most points wins.

2 more votes required before voting can close.

Voting ends in:

45 : 5 : 26 : 16
DD    HH    MM    SS
Like this debate? Score 0
···
X Facebook
Con Instigator Opens first
Instigator Avatar
1
Mal
Rating
1390
Debates
469
Win rate
45.52%

Match format

Type
Unrated · 5 rounds
Time
One week
Limit
10,000
Vote
Six months · 3 votes to close
Pro Contender
Contender Avatar
0
Rating
1502
Debates
2
Win rate
75.00%

Please quote exactly. Do not rephrase or reinterpret. Answer all questions directly. Failure to comply with all this is an automatic forfeit.


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.

Send a message for questions on the topic.


Round 1

1 of 5
avatar
Mal
Con #1

FORFEITED

Round 2

2 of 5
avatar
Mal
Con #3

Is gun control a real issue and is the reduction of guns the solution to mankind's overall safety?


This is the stumbling block the person I was debating could not overcome in discord.


Let's go over a few points the person made and see if the opposing side can do any better if the opposing side is actually still available to participate.


The person was making an illustration about dropping bombs in a neighborhood.


So the equivalent being made albeit false, was people owning guns to bombs dropping.


Owning a gun doesn't necessarily warrant a safety issue as imminent danger of a bomb dropping to potentially harm someone or greater.


So the person failed on that point.


The person was trying to argue a reduction in guns but couldn't quantify a reduction which made another issue.


You can listen to this discussion on YouTube going to j. talks to the people.


Without quantification , we don't know how little or how much is justified.


Why is this an issue?


We begin to run into hypocritical measures.


The person argued just one gun removed from the hands of civilians would solve the issue of safety.


Just one gun qualifies the parameter of reduction but barely shifts the safety issue.


Not only because it's just one gun but let's say it's one gun out of the hands of a responsible law abiding citizen that can no longer protect him or herself thus really leaving the safety issue unresolved if not worsened.


So these are some of the fallacious things brought out .


Another one with an example of a car. If a road is determined to be highly unsafe, the potential for vehicular fatalities increase. Not fatalities but vehicular ones.


So we can't focus on a pocket of safety to apply it across the board of safety.


The person went into error there trying to do it with guns.


We don't reduce the guns nor cars but change roads or environments for resolutions.


Now I'll leave it there. I got the ball rolling, we can get into straight questions and answers and actually engage.


Many of you won't go on discord voice channels or stream yards because you won't engage. If you're fearful of being so called trapped with questions, I guess you actually have to know what you're talking about here.



Round 3

3 of 5
avatar
Mal
Con #5

I rest my case.

Round 4

4 of 5
avatar
Mal
Con #7

People don't need to be wasting people's time. Just because we disagree. Mature up.

Round 5

5 of 5
avatar
Mal
Con #9

Another case closed on the cowardice.

New comment

Kohai
Kohai Administrator
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro
Winner
Full forfeit