The debate "Guns don't kill people" was started by
May 18, 2015, 4:56 pm.
58 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 19 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PsychDave posted 5 arguments, toughgamerjerry posted 3 arguments, debunked26 posted 2 arguments, CountryBoy1776 posted 1 argument, unfitzangetsu posted 2 arguments, Jamison posted 2 arguments, GetRekt posted 1 argument, toughgamer posted 1 argument, soullesschicken posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
GetRekt posted 9 arguments, PsychDave posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
CountryBoy1776, Damn3d, PsychDave, Bodaciouslady16, toughgamerjerry, debunked26, Pamelamccubbins, unfitzangetsu, soullesschicken, Jamison, Marvelgirl2002, Tonyabrown, WordSpeller, prisonmanic, thatmathewguy, clockstopper, Weakley, InfiniBro, Zero0, omfgcandy, owentowe, Bxat9, lararea, Mathew, sabrina, Georgi_ZKL24, ScreamingEagle, Tristanzee and 30 visitors agree.
wmd, evamara, GetRekt, jedty, sdiop, claire, barca_paaras11, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, AstroSpace, AlenaMaisel, thenbamatrix and 8 visitors disagree.
blaming guns is like blaming spoons for making people fat
Tough gamer made a excellent point. People kill people.
First off, you changed your answer
Secondly, you can kill someone without any weapons, snap the neck, beet to death, ect.
Third, if a mentally disabled person has a gun and shoots someone, then that is neither the guns nor the mentally disabled persons fault, it is the guns owners fault.
Fourth, I don't see the reason why it matters what the original intentions of guns were, now they are not to murder people, they are for self defense, to protect from other people who are trying to kill you.
Fifth, Our involvement with guns is not just pulling the trigger, we decide to buy or take the gun, we decide to buy the ammo, we decide to load the gun, we decide to take the gun with us, we decide where to point the gun, we decide to pull the trigger, we decide what we do after we pull the trigger. The gun has no say in that. It can't even talk for Pete sake so how could it be responsible for any death. I don't see how you say it's so simple that an object that has no control over itself can be responsible for deaths.
Sixth, if guns were really responsible for deaths, then why do people regret after pulling the trigger? If it was the guns fault shouldn't that justify the person who pulled the trigger?
You state over and over that an inanimate object is at fault, without ever addressing arguments counter to your perspective. You say that other methods of killing are irrelevant, but if there are other ways to kill, and knives are not to blame, why are guns the exception?
I'm red why is my color blue? Lol.
that case is pretty far from the topic.. it's very predictable what u write is what you see and that's it. But gun is very different. there is no assurance that u will kill the person by just pulling the guns trigger into him. I know gun doesn't shoot itself without any humans assistance.
Mutual dependence, without the gun u can't kill someone. (don't try to tell me that, "Yes I can! Ican stab him. etc" the topic here are Guns. go make your own topic) and without human the gun can't kill.
The blame is not only into humans there is also somehow on guns..
cause how If a mentally disabled person has a gun? Suddenly point it at someone and shoot? You cant tell me its his fault. yes iknow he's the one who pulled the trigger, but he does not know what that thing is capable of... hmm?
When a writer writes a novel, they push buttons on a computer or push a pen across paper. That is where the human involvement ends. Does that mean the writer did nothing and the credit goes to the tools he uses?
Guns are a tool. They don't do anything themselves.
I'm not blaming anyone. come on, don't you get it? Its very simple.. Gun kills and if they don't why the hell did they invent it for? I know humans are the one pull the trigger but it ends there.. After that they'll just wait what may happen next..
How can a piece of metal kill someone? Does it tempt a person to kill someone? Does it force someone to kill another? No it does not, the person who kills someone is the one who chose to do so. Even if he didn't have a gun, since he wanted to kill someone, he would have done it even without a gun. And I believe that controlling guns won't help at all but that is an argument for another time. The person chooses to use the gun for good or bad and therefore the gun cannot be blamed for the person's wrongdoing. The person has a mind, and a conscience, and a heart. A gun has none of those.
Well I guess you're missing the topic..
Your argument is somehow true but if the gun doesn't really kill humans who did? Humans? I don't think so. Humans are only the initiator but the gun truly kills the person.. The only participation of humans are that they let the Gun to kill that person..But the Gun is really the reason why that person died. Iam taking it literally because the Topic is so obvious to the point that I do not need to make deep conclusions and explanations...
P.S. youre not the one who is stupid but the person who act to kill someone by standing without a gun and pretend to have it... Misinterpretations...
Guns can be used to kill someone. So can knives, cars, pots of hot water, and rocks and sticks. Guns are dangerous, just like many other things in our lives. Blaming an inanimate object is to remove the blame from the person who made the choice. If a toddler spills boiling water on them self, you don't call the pot evil, you blame the parent for being inattentive and leaving the handle in reach and the child unattended.
I believe guns should be controlled and their presence limited because they can be very dangerous, but I think people need to keep in mind that the gun isn't deciding to hurt someone. It is a piece of metal, nothing more or less.
I fail to see how I am making myself like a stupid.
the bottom line is guns are meant to harm others and that's a fact. well in that case were the person uses his gun for selfdefense purposes is clearly not its purpose.. wayback on 15th century , "Ottoman Empire" invent their weapon which we call "guns" now. They invent that for them to have their own advantage point. They used it to OBVIOUSLY do that to kill their enemies. And if they did not do that they will not be able to kill their targets from a distant place by just holding a bunch of bullets with out their GUNS...
Guns are not meant to kill people. I cannot say what the original intention of guns were but I can tell you what the intention of guns now is. Guns are meant for protection, not solely killing people, when you do shoot a gun you should be trying to protect yourself or someone else so you shoot to kill, but only if you have a reason to fear yours or someone else's life. It is up to the person who has the gun who chooses what he is going to do it, because even if the original intention of guns were to kill, it is still the person's decision to kill. If he didn't want to kill but still did, then he shouldn't have bought the gun.
you can't also blame people. they made gun for a purpose and that's to kill who they want or what they want. gun is their tool *just what like u said* to kill who they want but without it its very impossible for u to kill that person by *again* just standing there and staring at him without a tool like a gun. you're just making urself like a stupid...
no offense bro its just my way of explaining my side.... I hope u don't take this personally. Lol peace
It is not the child's fault, but neither is the gun making the decision to kill someone. If a toddler spill a pot of boiling water, we don't blame the pot. Guns are certainly dangerous, but they are just tools.
no that is the fault of the parents for allowing the child the gun or not putting it out of reach
and now the bullet? what about the air? It serves as the medium for your bullet to reach its end point. what I want to say is that what is the purpose of gun if it does not let people die. why the hell did they invent it? its true that u can kill others by stabbing them etc. but there's this case that a 3yrs old child accidentally killed his playmate using his fathers gun? I think that's not the fault of the child. He has no idea what's that gun's capable of.
Technically speaking though it's the bullet that actually kills the person.
It seems that the only argument surrounding guns killing people is that if I pretend to have a gun I can't kill anybody which is true, but I don't need a gun to kill somebody. There are so many ways a person can kill someone else. They can be stabbed, poisoned, run over etc, but the one thing all of these have in common is that there needs to be a person to kill the other. Guns or any inanimate objects don't do anything. People do things with those objects.
cant help my slef
" guns dont kill people rapper's do" if you are not from the uk and dont know google it.
the thing is over here we may not have guns but we have a quite a high rate of violent crime involving knifes and other wepons I believe it is higher than in America but at the same time here you can sued for protecting your house with anything more than a rubber duck basically. so at least with being allowed guns you have the chance to protect yourself and family properly.
the fact is a gun cant pull its own trigger or aim its self therefore a person has to be there to do that them selves.
but the topic here is if gun kills or human? but gun is clearly the answer. you can't kill a person by just standing there and try to act to pull a trigger even there's no gun, if you answered human kills and not guns.
You're still killing the person, you're just using the firearm as a tool in the murder.
as if gun will pull it' s trigger and shoot it self smh. okay lets put it this way try to act like you're holding a gun *even though you really don't have it. just imagine* and try to act like u pull a trigger like even though there's really no trigger, nothing happens ryt? but this time hold a real gun and do same thing there's a difference ryt? it's very logical. your argument is purely invalid. GUN KILLS.......
I was not arguing that all guns should be banned, but you may want to do some research into the relationship between gun availability and crime. The states with the loosest gun control and the highest number of guns per household also have some of, if not the highest rates of violent crime, murder and gun related deaths.
When guns are available, there is more gun crimes. There are more guns available for criminals to steal, there are more guns for children to find and play with, and there are more guns at hand if tempers flare. The number of crimes prevented by a good person with a gun is substantially less than the deaths caused by the availability of guns.
Blaming guns for killing people is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat!
Yes people getting guns may make it easier, but it doesn't increase it. There is evidence from US States both before and after gun ban, and the murder and homicide rates increase when guns are banned, because there is this thing called the black market where people can get guns illegally, because they are already going to break the law by killing someone so they don't care if they break the law to get them, and because guns were banned, people couldn't protect themselves. Normal citizens who obey the law, have to go through training, which I have been through, and in that training you are taught how, when and where to use a gun. Then you get a certificate, then you go to court to get your license for conceal carry. At least that is how it is in Virginia but I don't know about every other state. Keeping guns available to the public, may increase crime a very little bit, but decrease innocent deaths.
Guns themselves don't kill people, but easier access to guns makes people killing people much easier.