Good morning/afternoon/evening to you. I thank my opponent, shas04, for taking this on and I thank you for reading this.
I believe that (at least in the United States of America) the police almost need to have weapons on them, even just during their regular hours. The US Constitution also puts power for everyone and anyone to have a weapon of their choice so it is technically legal within the USA.
- If you were assaulted on the street, by someone big and strong, a police officer using his fists, even with combat training, won't be too effective. But a warning shot of a gun would probably end it almost instantly.
- Any old Joe Shmoe can go to a shop and buy a weapon, and if the regular police officers can't stop them immediately because they have no weapons, could end tragically and delegalizing weapons for the police, whilst there are no anti-gun laws in the US means that acts of violence, shootings, robbery and other crimes would increase at alarming rates.
- On top of all that, the police having guns can save lives, full stop.
The bottom line is: for as long as guns are legal in the USA, I believe the police should carry weapons with them.
That's all for now and thank you. Remember, get both sides of the story.
Have a good day.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-08-26 15:03:08| Speak Round
It is quite constraining for Pro to talk only about a state with no anti-gun laws, because it then becomes hard for us to have a meaningful debate. What Pro should do instead is focus on the states where this debate actually takes place. Pro should talk about states with firm anti-gun laws already in place, only then we can have a meaningful conversation.
Two responses to Pro's first point. Firstly, these police officers have combat training, which side Pro agreed with. The clash here is whether this training is actually effective or not. My contention is that this training is often very effective, because of the extensiveness and the rigor of the training. As a police officer, you are often trained arduously for months together before being sent on the streets, and this training consists of varying types and degrees of combat. For Pro to come up here and say that this training is useless is a complete assertion, and a comprehensively untrue assertion at that. But secondly, very often, these criminals are outnumbered by two or three policemen, and so, even if we were to accept Pro's premise that these criminals are big and strong, and can beat up a policeman, these criminals are outnumbered by the police, and can therefore be apprehended even without the use of a weapon.
Pro's second point is negated because we've established that this debate takes place in a state with anti-gun laws.
But thirdly, Pro said that the police having guns can save lives. Two things to note here. One, this is a complete assertion, and pro has to explain why this holds true in an anti-gun state. But furthermore, since Con, wants to talk only about criminals who only use guns. Even in this scenario, police having guns doesn't necessarily improve the situation, because in these cases, there are hostages involved, and the only thing actually stopping this is the number of policemen, which is completely exclusive of the police having guns. Pro needs to respond to this. But two, this point is in direct clash with the argument I'll make on police brutality.
(a) Guns are not the answer
(b) Police holding arms doesn't necessarily reduce crime
(c) Police holding arms intensifies police brutality
(a) In this argument, I'll be telling you why guns, and other similar weapons, are, on a principle level, unacceptable. Two sets of analysis.
1. In anti-gun states, guns are not a proportional response
Anti-gun states, like the UK and Australia, have strict policies against gun regulation That's why any "Joe Schmoe" can't walk into a store and buy a gun. This means that guns are not that prevalent in states like these. This also means that the amount of gun-related crimes are at a very low percentage. That's why, when a man walks into a store with a knife, threatening to steal money, I don't think its a proportional response to shove a gun in his face and threaten to disengage his legs, or take his life away. What instead is a better model would be to apprehend the man and let him face the punishment he deserves, instead of threatening to kill him.
2. The impacts on society
With my first strand in place, this, in fact, would have a great impact on society. This would tell people that the police aren't going to threaten to kill you at any given instance. This would make people feel safe in society, without having to look behind their back every second, wondering if every time there was an incident, the police weren't going to come charging in, gun blazing, threatening to shoot if anyone stepped out of line. This would let people know that they are not going to be caught in the cross-fire, and that they can actually breathe easy. As a result, this would create more public support for the police force itself. This would create citizens who are more respectful and appreciative of the police force, and, as a consequence, would end up in the government spending more on the police force. This looks like improved police facilities, more advanced technology, and such. Ultimately, this would end up in a better-protected society, what Pro wanted to talk so much about. Note that this is in direct clash with Pro's argument on saving lives, and needs to be responded to if Pro wants a chance at winning.
Due to time constraints, I have to post both of my remaining arguments in the next round.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-08-31 12:54:29| Speak Round
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-09-05 12:56:02| Speak Round