Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 2 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 58% |
Arguments: | 2 |
Debates: | 0 |
Time2Golf, this is due process. Due process is a legal process, in this situation, includes removal of minors from potentially harmful situations until that it can be established that they are under no risk.
If someone is sexually abusing their child, should we wait until a court has decided guilt to remove that child from the situation? Your argument is based on the assumption that they are not being harmed and that leaving them in the home is better than removing them from it. However, what if they are being abused? Can you justify allowing them to spend one more moment in that abusive context?
It's certainly a horror story when a child is taken from a parent who has done nothing wrong. However, it is much more horrific when a child in left with a parent who has.
There are essentially two arguments for the ownership of/legality of guns in American (outside of the second amendment).
1) Protection - The argument suggests that guns protect us from dangerous individuals. The problem is that WE ARE the dangerous individuals. From accidents, to insanity, to alcohol or drug-fueled violence, we are the ones doing this damage. The best mode of protection is the removal of firearms from society.
2) Entertainment/sport - Shooting is fun. I love it. Skeet, target, and hunting are fun pastimes. I was trained as a boy to properly care for, handle, and shoot a fire arm. I was 10 years old when I shot my first .22 and I was hooked. I would love to pass these skills onto my son, but not at the cost of so much death and destruction caused by the improper use of guns. I would rather pass on a safer society.
I've heard all of the arguments and both sides are certainly passionate about their beliefs. Here are some of my rebuttals to common counter-arguments.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people: absolutely true, but guns allow people to kill people with greater efficiency, which is not necessarily a good thing outside of the battlefield.
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns: Actually, not true. Outlaws and law enforcement would have guns.
Criminals will find ways to get guns: True, but the supply will be much lower the demand much higher, thus making it more expensive, thus more difficult, to get a gun.
|