Personal tools

Argument: The protection of property is not a good justification for yielding a lethal weapon

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate(s)

Extended argument and supporting evidence

No property is worth the taking of a human life, even if it is the life of a burglar. This argument is based on the assignment of a very high value to life. It might even be argued that the right to life is absolute, though this is a much harder claim to support. Nevertheless, the protetion of private property is not a sufficient grounds to establish an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, many countries and provinces adopt this interpretation, making it illegal for a gun-owner to kill a burglar, unless that burglar is threatening the gun-owner's life.[SOURCE NEEDED] The main intention of this argument is to diminish the strength of a justification for owning a gun: the protection of property.

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits