The debate "People kill people. Guns should not be banned" was started by
January 8, 2016, 10:42 pm.
58 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 35 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 7 arguments, Aditya04 posted 1 argument, rob5998 posted 3 arguments, KoEun posted 1 argument, reece posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
Monster posted 3 arguments, sloanstar1000 posted 1 argument, Socrates posted 1 argument, xjackts posted 1 argument, aliot posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
AngryBlogger, PsychDave, Sachin_21, rob5998, Aditya04, Naruto_uchiha, dalia, David, solo10166, truth_vs_true, gamelia94, Talks_N_Rants, ReadyToBegin, RightWing, confident, AlenaMaisel, jayhard, thatdebatingchick, KoEun, reece, aftermath, duelist1, sabrina, darthsnoke, josiah, mandala, TheControversy, akdavid, oscar90000, H_Muneer and 28 visitors agree.
M, Zzmo, Wookie, Monster, Godfather98, sloanstar1000, swp16, Socrates, xjackts, wmd, Theblackhandxix, Tania, danielle, Firplius, aliot and 20 visitors disagree.
I think guns should be banned everywhere. knife and swords are ok imagine samurais as policemen -O-O- XD and every policeman will be fit too. No big tummies
that is a very small percentage of all gun deaths.
If people switched from mass shootings to using knives there would be fewer deaths. That is a net win.
It's not only guns that can kill people. There are many things out there that can be used to kill people. Simple things of everyday life can have it's harms. baning guns won't solve the problem because if I have the desire to kill I could use a knife, brick, poison etc so are you saying that you want to ban everything that can potentially kill someone at the end of the day.
correction i meant to put if guns were to be taken away people would start using knives or other weapons as murder weapons..
Where do soldiers come in?..i simply stated that IF guns were to be taken away people would just start using guns..and you absolutely took my statement out of context because not ONCE did i say that knives were as dangerous as guns..You put those words in MY mouth because you wanted an argument lol
Fair argument, I admit. The mass shootings are something that needs to be addressed, and not all countries will work the same on this. I would like to say though that it is difficult to keep guns from people that plan mass shootings. In the case of terrorits, there is often outside help. In the case of the mentally sick, they don't get flagged or show any reason until after the damage is done. In the case of weapons obtained through the relative, there is no way to stop family members from doing this unless they are responsible. What I am saying is that the regulations against the criminal or the sick is, while very well agreed on, often times decided by a doctor or security that can raise flags. These people don't always get the opportunity to ask this question person by person. Therefore, the question must be addressed by broad answers rather than by individual ones. Unfortunately, the line that needs to be drawn on regulating guns is often at a place decided by either uninformed individuals, or at places where ambiguous changes occur. The "they're taking our guns" claim isn't entirely baseless, but seeing as how between political parties and movements do not have middle ground, most of what is decided is by "all or nothing" decisions. Give an inch, a mile is taken. It's no surprise that the conversation always escalates, either on the "everything should be allowed" to the "nothing should be allowed". What I am saying is that a broad, clear line for regulation is difficult to establish across 49 states (Hawaii is not connected to the mainland, lets say their situation can be different), yet if there are different lines between states the line become meaningless with state crossing. From my understanding, the mass shootings that occur are like a fever during a cold, it is a symptom or warning that something is wrong, and instead of being an immune response it is something that leads further to trouble. Even if guns are enablers, guns do not provide the reason to do shoot. I agree with the idea that when shooters are made as interesting stories, they continue as a trend.
pepper spray, tazers and brass knuckles are all illegal in Canada. it works just fine here. so yeah, those don't need to be legal either. maybe pepper spray, I've never really thought that one needed to be banned.
You are basing opposition to gun regulations on the slippery slope argument that it will lead to banning baseball bats? No one here is actually advocating a ban on guns, merely saying that there is no reasonable use for some beyond killing people, so why would they be necessary for the public.
In your example of the shop keeper, what would have happened had the rioters had guns? What if both sides had automatic weapons? I am not faulting him for defending his livelihood, but it could have turned into a bloodbath.
As has been said repeatedly, guns don't need to be banned, but they should be more controlled than they are currently. There are more shootings in the US than any other developed nation that is not at war. That is a problem that needs to be addressed.
So do we draw the line at anything that doesn't explode? Archers? Throwing knives? The argument always goes uphill to say that a regulation is necessary. I don't argue against regulation, but that the intent of regulation being to discriminate between criminals. Heavier types of guns are useful such as in the cases of riots. I remember reading about a store owner during the middle of a riot, and the people below tried to loot his store. He used a semi automatic to push the crowd back, without hitting them, only suppressing fire. The people in that crowd didn't back off, but started shouting about how they were going to get in the store, take his shit, and rape his family. These instances would be much rarer, however self defense or as a hobby even these types of guns are useful. Also enforcement of certain regulations is a matter, because if it can't be enforced then its pointless. Other than criminals or the mentally ill, people shouldn't be barred from many guns banned that are banned out of no other reason than fear. The point is that the slippery slope can be argued with anything that provides a severe advantage over another, even considered self defense. Do you favor banning pepper spray, tazers, or brass knuckles?
no one is ignoring the human potential. There are a myriad of laws in existence to try to stop that. But just because you have laws stopping the person doesn't mean that you should ignore laws controlling the weapon. Do you believe that people should be allowed to own c4? how about rocket launchers, or nuclear weapons? dangerous weapons need to be controlled. No one in their right mind would want a private citizen to have a nuclear bomb. The only difference is in the level of destruction can make.
Then in this case, wouldn't it be fair to say "without guns, knife and long blade crimes would happen, so right now knives and long blades would be banned instead the way guns are."? I guess blunt weapons like bats or hammers would also fall under this, or have some degree of regulation due to popular uses. I believe there was a time in Japan where swords were illegal despite guns existing. Also, doesn't the UK ban knives and confiscate bats? Why would they have to go that far? It's something that shifts responsibility or the dangers a person can do onto an item, the item may or may not enable the person to do so, but regardless the human potential is ignored.
In what way did I take your statement that knives are as dangerous as guns out of context? You say that knives are as bad as guns when logically, historically, anecdotally and measurably they are not.
Knives require closer range, more effort and have less stopping power. All of these combine to make guns substantially more lethal.
I will ask again, if knives are as bad, why do we arm soldiers with guns?
your exact statement was "knives are just as bad as guns". that seems pretty clear to me. also it seems really dumb. guns are much more lethal than a knife.
yes someone who wants to kill could use a knife, but they are much less likely to succeed with a knife than with a gun. they are also not going to be able to kill as many people in a mass attack scenario.
guns are far more dangerous than knives. I'm not sure why I even had to say that.
...Sir ..if they were to ban guns what do you think would be the next weapon that people would run to??...that's what i meant when i stated that people would just start using knives to kill people..basically I'm saying that there are other options to kill someone :)..so for you to take my statement out of context and flip what I'm saying into making it seem like I'm saying knives are more dangerous than guns baffles me lol ..and oh i have plenty of 'logic and 'common sense' but the fact that you're the ONLY one who misunderstood my statement tells me a lot about you your logic and common sense sir
A knife requires a great deal more effort and proximity to kill someone than a gun. If knives are as dangerous as guns, why does the military spend all that money on guns rather than just handing every soldier a knife? Look up what a force multiplier is if you want a complete explanation, but basically it is when a piece of technology lets one person have the equivalent force of a group. One person with a gun can kill as many people as several people with knives. That doesn't mean knives aren't dangerous, but to claim that they are as dangerous as guns shows a complete lack of logic and common sense.
Well the fact that you aren't taking into consideration the other weapons that could be used in place of a gun is absurd..and yes knives ARE just as bad as guns..Can you kill someone with a knife?..exactly so why wouldn't they go out and start using knives if guns were to be banned??..
you say that the the law gives you the right to an AR 15. firstly the amendment doesn't make sense anymore. it no longer serves a purpose.
secondly the amendment doesn't specify which arms you can own. if the government can ban you from owning an artillery piece then they can ban any weapon they like. they could easily decide that the second amendment only applies to non automatic weapons, or only bolt action rifles if they wanted to.
and the reason the government has never tried to curtail weapons in the US is the same reason they are having trouble with it now. Americans love their guns, even if they cause alot of problems. and they don't trust their government.
The continental army was founded on June 14, 1775, so yes the US did have a formal army after Lexington and Concord. Even after they were eventually disbanded. In 1796 I believe the army was founded again. The government were still fans of weapons like the ones I mentioned before. You are right the 2nd amendment is to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. That does not negate the fact that by law I have a right to my 30 round magazine AR-15. Our founding fathers wanted us to be free, the law was put in place to protect the citizens from the government, that's why those guns were never banned after the constitution was written. If they wanted to ban them then they would have even after the war of 1812 there was a chance. Even during Lewis and Clark expedition and the great expansion into the west when there was no law out there. I mean history has shown that our government could have banned guns many times but they never did. I wonder why? Why is it now all of a sudden everyone wants to get rid of guns? I mean we are the same people we were hundreds of years ago, we haven't evolved if want to believe it or not. This argument is futile with people who do not own guns or think it's barbaric to own one. (not saying it's you Dave, but in general)
When the founding fathers wrote that, there was no military to speak of, so having militias was the defense against invasion. Would you honestly expect a civilian militia to succeed at defending the nation against any organized military in the world? The other reason for the second amendment was to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical, but this faces the same problem. If the military supported a tyrannical government, no amount of civilian weapons would be effective at countering them. If the military did not support the tyranny, armed civilians are irrelevant since the military itself would put a stop to it.
I am not in favor of banning guns, but to claim that knives are as dangerous as guns is absurd. Which makes it easier to kill a large number of people, a lot automatic weapon, or a knife?
Guns aren't the problem it's the one's holding the weapon.
Our founding fathers new of weapons with high capacity magazines. They were still legal in our country.
such as: The Girardoni Rifle (a 22 round magazine-fed rifle)
The Belton Flintlock (shot 20 rounds in 5 seconds)
The Puckle Gun (an early gatling gun)
The Pepper Box Revolver (could shoot 20 rounds with one pull of the trigger)
President Madison signed a letter of marque and reprisal allowing a citizen with 12 pound cannons on his ship to attack shipping lanes (the citizen was not part of the military)
Our founding fathers knew of the evolution of weapons and understood it; suggesting the idea of our ancestors only using muskets during the Revolutionary War and not having the ability to see the advancement of weapons and where it was going is asinine within itself
Even if guns were to be banned they'd just go out and start killing people with knives and etc. Just because you take the guns away doesn't mean crime is going to stop.
Well I think that guns should not be banned. If we illegalize guns because people can kill each other, it has no diffrence of making everyone who owns a gun a latent murderer.
Owning a gun can never be a reason for someone to kill others, as a matter of fact it's their mental preoblems.
If the government really want to stop from people to shoot each other, I think making some stirct rules and punishments would be way much better.
well the right to bear arms isn't have arms to hunt.
I believe that not all guns should be banned but that all assault rifles and military hardware should be. You do not need an M-16 to kill a deer if you call yourself a hunter.
What many people fail to think about, is that when the 2nd amendment was passed, there weren't as many mentally ill people. If there was, they would most likely be left to die. Along with that, mass murders weren't a "thing" back then. It had never been done before, and robberies or fights with a musket or one of the old pistols would ridiculous stupid. They were big, hard to use, and could take over a minute to reload. If someone tried to use a musket on the street shoot someone in colonial times, they would have most likely missed, and would need to take at least 10-20 seconds to reload. The reason they had this, is so people would know how to shoot weapons, and use guns incase the british (Or another country) tried to attack again, making a quick army. They didn't really have training then. Now, we can train troops how to use deadly weapons, instead of them already knowing how. Let's face it, the only reason civilians use guns now is for entertainment. If that's just Shooting for fun, or Hunting. We need more gun control.
all guns should be banned! but since that would never happen changes need to come in that extremely limit the availability of them! I'm from the UK so I don't really understand the need for guns? perhaps someone could tell me the reasons for guns? I just don't understand
What are you getting at?
because it's alot easier to debate if you use a straw man argument.
which guns? this is where the gun fanatics lose me. they're hypocrites somewhere down the line because they don't actually think all guns should be available to the public. That's gun control.
There are very few people on the planet that think guns should be banned altogether, so I'm not sure why this is even a topic.
Ever heard of the gun show loophole? I could go to a gun show and buy an assault rifle without any red tape. Maybe an ID check but I doubt it.
you already have to go through a crap ton to get a full auto weapon.
A lot of people seem to think gun control means banning all guns. But in reality its just limiting what guns you can buy, and ammunition. Which I totally agree with. There is no way anyone should be able to own an assault rifle without going through a lot of background checking and red tape.
I do not agree with guns being banned. I absolutely agree that they need to be controlled. All responsible gun owners agree that guns need to be controlled. That is what stops children and criminals from buying guns and hurting themselves or others. The disagreement is what those measures should be and how they should be enforced.