Guns are not scary. They're tools. Don't be so scared of inanimate objects

November 2, 2015, 11:55 am

Agree28 Disagree45

38%
62%

The debate "Guns are not scary. They're tools. Don't be so scared of inanimate objects" was started by AstroSpace on November 2, 2015, 11:55 am. 28 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 45 people are on the disagree side. That might be enough to see the common perception. It looks like most people are against to this statement.

AstroSpace posted 6 arguments, Freyja posted 2 arguments, rob5998 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 7 arguments, Sosocratese posted 1 argument, Apollo8 posted 1 argument, MylifeisaJoke posted 1 argument, AstroSpace posted 7 arguments, AngryBlogger posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

AstroSpace, bigB, liberalssuck, andrewkorman, DannyknowsItAll, Freyja, truth_or_ture, Regalgeek, rob5998, franciscotrejo, WASIM21656 and 17 visitors agree.
Lane, PsychDave, erikD9921, wmd, pajrc1234, roshni, Sosocratese, Sumerian, Apollo8, Ishita, MylifeisaJoke, zoeclare7, historybuff, AngryBlogger, Jared_Lee, david365, jjrocks1738, Pictobug_1, swp16, M, multishooterftw and 24 visitors disagree.

according to a Florida state University study about 2.5 million crimes are stopped with guns

3 years, 11 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

It is not an irrational fear. It is the addition of a gun that takes someone from being threatening to being lethal. It is difficult but possible to kill someone with your bare hands. It is easy to kill someone with a gun. Guns are a force multiplier. If someone threw a grenade at your feet, would you be afraid of the person, or the grenade?

3 years, 11 months ago

Which is an unreasonable fear. A man can kill you with his hands. People are scared because they're taught that guns are scary. The person that wields the gun is what's dangerous.

3 years, 11 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

Immobile means not moving, inanimate means not alive. If you are killed in a rock slide, you were killed by inanimate objects. If you are killed by explosives, you were killed by am inanimate object. Does that mean you should not be afraid of explosives? No, they are dangerous and a healthy level of fear is a good thing. Guns are dangerous, and being afraid of dangerous things is healthy.

If someone points their finger at you, you are unlikely to be terribly afraid. If that same person points a gun at you, you will likely be quite afraid. The person did not change, so that means it is the presence of the gun that creates the fear.

3 years, 11 months ago

Inanimate literally means docile and not moving. Do you think a gun just grows legs and shoots people? I don't think so.

3 years, 11 months ago

Inanimate objects can't harm you lmfao.

3 years, 11 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

It does actually. Being afraid of am inanimate object that is capable of harming you is logical.

3 years, 11 months ago

That has no relation to anything I said.

3 years, 11 months ago

a falling tree is an inanimate object, I'm not scared of trees so I'll just stand under it.

do you think?

3 years, 11 months ago

Alright buddy, whatever ya say.

3 years, 11 months ago

Your face is probably more scary than any gun in existence, so yeah, comparing guns to you makes them seem like toy guns from china. It's good to know everyone shuts on you post after post lol. 5/10 for the trolling. You are moving up young jedi.

3 years, 11 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

Having lots of armed people hasn't really done America enough good to outweigh the bad so far. The idea that more guns would make the streets safer has been tried for years and there are now more shootings than ever. If more guns hasn't helped yet, there is no reason to expect that they will start to now. It is time to try controlling guns and seeing if that improves the situation.

3 years, 11 months ago

And it is much less likely that anyone would need to save you since there are far less people with guns that could shoot you. And since citizens with guns don't actually end up stopping mass shooters anyway, it wouldn't help.

3 years, 11 months ago

If someone attacks you no one can save your ass

3 years, 11 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

I would feel safer in Paris than in any major US city. Paris has been attacked once by terrorists, the US is attacked every day by its own people and occasionally by terrorists. You are far more likely to be involved in a mass shooting in America since there are far, far more of them.

3 years, 11 months ago

Go live in Paris lmfao. See how safe you feel there.

3 years, 11 months ago

America has a mass shooting almost every day. hundreds of them every year. outside of warzones there is no where on earth that has that problem. you lag so far behind what everyone else in the modern world has figured out. the more guns there are, the more shootings there are.

3 years, 11 months ago

I'm not ignoring your points at all, I'm proving how flawed they are and how much reasoning they lack. How can you quantify how many people are saved by guns? Just seeing someone with a gun might disway you from robbing a store or shooting someone. If you do shoot someone in self defense, that death probably goes towards the "Gun homicides" charts, which are anti America.

I'm making it easier to get guns? Because it must not have been very hard for the Paris shooters, lmfao.

3 years, 11 months ago

my points are definitely still valid even if you choose to ignore them. how many shooters in America are stopped by citizens with guns? very few. your whole argument that arming people will save lives isn't true. it doesn't work that way. you are only making it considerably easier for bad people to get guns and kill people.

3 years, 11 months ago

Really?

First of all, last time I checked Canada isn't over bombing the shit out of ISIS and the taliban even close to as much the US. You have to realize Islamic extremists hate America and Americans, they don't really care about Canada.

Second of all, your argument is totally flawed because of the terror attacks that happened in Paris. Don't use canada as proof that gun control works. France has absolutely no guns. Guess how many people were killed by Islamic extremists in Paris. Oh, around 130. Gun control works greeeeat!

You'll have to use some other evidence that gun control works, because that Canada stuff is totally irrelevant. Also, you think the terroists in France bought all of those guns legally or soemthing? Hell no! They smuggled those in and killed countless unarmed civilians. If you're really about disarming the country's innocents that's pretty sickening.

3 years, 11 months ago

do you know how many Islamic extremists have attacked in Canada with automatic weapons? the answer is 0. mass shootings are almost never stopped by average people with guns. it just doesn't happen. more guns creates more opportunities for attacks to happen. automatic weapons are completely unnecessary for private citizens. and I did mean fully automatic. Canada has semi automatic weapons. but the maximum magazine size is 5 rounds, so no shooting sprees.

3 years, 11 months ago

No automatic weapons? What, you mean semi automatic or fully automatic?

3 years, 11 months ago

Hahaha are you kidding me? Oh, what a great idea. That way ISIS can shoot us all with fully automatic weapons while we have nothing. Great solution.

3 years, 11 months ago

and eliminate the gun from the equation and the damage they can do is greatly reduced. I don't think banning all guns is the solution, but much more control than America has is needed. something similar to what Canada has. no automatic weapons, no magazine sizes over 5, serious restrictions on hand guns. these are all prudent measures.

3 years, 11 months ago
Freyja
replied to...

Of course control is required - I agree with your statement. I'm trying to say that guns aren't the problem, and you seem to agree with me. Some control is required, not because of the guns, but because of the people who may get ahold of them - again, you seem to agree with me on this. Guns absolutely can be dangerous when in the hands of someone who would use them for unlawful reasons, I certainly understand this. But in such a situation, it isn't the gun that is dangerous; it is the person. I have already stated this, but if the person didn't have the gun, they'd probably find something else. So the gun isn't the problem, the person is. Eliminate the person from the equation, and the gun is fine.

3 years, 11 months ago

your point ignores the fact that we do control inanimate objects that can be dangerous. to drive a car you need a license and insurance. to buy some dangerous chemicals you need a valid reason. we restrict access to explosives or radioactive substances

. all of these are useful for various things but we as a society decided that restricting access to them is for the public good. irrationally fearing guns doesn't make sense, but deciding that there is a reasonable level of restriction is perfectly sensible. I don't think the any person needs to own a 50 caliber, vehicle mounted machine gun. if you agree that's reasonable then gun restrictions is just a matter of degree. some control is required.

3 years, 11 months ago

People say that life is unfair, but life is perfectly balanced and fair. It is humans who are unfair and spread lies like these. Humans are creatures who believe they are entitled to everything life provides. Just like life, it is humans who manipulate guns. By the logic that guns are dangerous, anything would be dangerous and is. However, we should stop looking at guns as dangerous things and start looking at them as tools of dangerous people. This is also why I believe that guns are not the problem. There are dangerous people who don't need a gun to kill and if they don't have one, they'll find something else. But people who aren't out to hurt anyone would never use a gun on another human unless in self-defense. Take the potentially dangerous people out of the equation (by simply changing them into non-dangerous people -- and yes, I know that would be near impossible to do), and guns aren't even a danger factor anymore. This is why guns aren't dangerous, people are. Don't be afraid of guns, be afraid of people.

3 years, 11 months ago

I don't think that's what he was trying to say. He might have been, but it would make sense to be afraid of having to use a gun because of what using one entails. Respect could be a closer word to explain it, because if you don't "respect" the power behind a gun you would be reckless, as owner or being confronted with a gun. I'm all for owning guns, and that's because what you'd have to protect yourself against can be scary, as well as what needs to be done to live.

3 years, 11 months ago

So you want to be powerless Apollo?

3 years, 11 months ago

as there are two types of fears
one that you know what it is and you know it is gong to hurt you, and another one is that you don't know what it is.
As a citizen from an area where guns are not allowed among normal citizens, we often associate guns with murders and crimes.
If we see a psychopath carrying a pencil, we feel fear because what he could do with the a pencil can be deadly. If we see a police with a gun, we feel safe. At least that's how we feel. I know it is a different case in the US

4 years, 1 month ago

Guns are scary. And they should be. Throughout society, guns have always been synonymous with murder, crime, power and protection. This is the very stigma placed on a weapon. But the stigma in itself serves as a buffer, a warning for us.

It is synonymous to murder and crime. Not necessarily. But society have shaped us into thinking that we should fear guns because we fear being killed. This is our instincts telling us to fear possible threats. This is not a matter of which we should believe but is rather a direct response via instincts.

It is synonymous to power. Yes, precisely. That is why we should fear guns but not to the point of cowering in fear suppressing your own voice. We should fear police power because they, in turn, keep us safe. We should fear power, like we fear a higher being, because it shapes our morals. But not to the point of being inherently oppressive of others.

It is synonymous to protection. But we should still fear it. Lose the fear, then you become complacent. And complacency is never a good act. It makes us less aware, less appreciative of the protection we are supposedly given.

Fear to gun is a natural response for survival and is also a disciplined response to respecting its power to protect us.

4 years, 1 month ago

By that same reasoning, you shouldn't be scared of nuclear weapons, or any type of weapon really.

4 years, 1 month ago

Guns can be used for many things, but they are designed for killing.

To be clear, I am not saying guns are evil or that we should get rid of them. Guns are a tool just like a knife or a saw. When handled responsibly, they are safe and a healthy respect for guns is always a good thing.

That said, fear of something that is designed to kill is a rational response. Very few people are afraid of the gun itself. Most are afraid of who has a gun and how they could use it. This is a reasonable fear, though it does often go beyond what is rational.

4 years, 1 month ago

Guns are used for sports too, many guns aren't made to "kill you."

4 years, 1 month ago

people are afraid of lots if harmless things that can't hurt them. guns are made for the sole purpose of killing. if it isn't a hunting rifle or shotgun, it is made for the sole purpose of killing people. I'd say it is reasonable to be afraid of something made to kill you.

4 years, 1 month ago

Guns are just tools, but they are tools designed for killing. Fear of guns is logical.

4 years, 1 month ago
Discuss "Guns are not scary. They're tools. Don't be so scared of inanimate objects" religion science society
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.