CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Whether you are pro or anti guns it is impossible to argue their not they become less dangerous when the person handling them is experienced or trained but their still dangerous.
based on what you said i feel that points more to people being dangerous. The gun is just a tool, and if a gun is more dangerous in the hands of an experienced person, than in the hands of an inexperienced person then the only factor they have in common is the person.
Not meaning to sound sarcastic but a gun alone is 0% dangerous without anyone, experienced or otherwise, using it right?
Heavy machinery is dangerous. One has to be certified and trained to operate some construction equipment but anyone can get a gun. That just doesn't make any sense. Yes guns in and of themselves are not dangerous without the context of human use but in what world would guns exist without humans? It's like saying construction equipment isn't dangerous unless used by a human... In what world would that happen? A man with a teddy bear and a man with a gun... Which is more dangerous? The man with a gun. Deciding factor: gun. In your example the deciding factor was: human. But your context is in a world that would never exist: guns without humans. My context is more realistic: comparing a man armed with a gun to a man armed with a teddy bear. If we can cognitively and logically agree that cars are dangerous than we can agree guns are. Cars are not dangerous without operators but are still considered dangerous. If we agree that regulating car and construction equipment operation and ownership why can't we agree on regulating gun operation and ownership. A bomb or tank is not dangerous in and if themselves so should we let just anyone own and use them? No.
I stick to the the idea that if the item was dangerous it could harm on it's own.
I really believe that a man without a teddy bear is less dangerous than a man with a teddy bear. Just as a man without a gun is less dangerous than one with. Heavy construction equipment is dangerous because no one has to make it move to kill it's able to kill on it's weight alone. A spike pit is dangerous, just because touching it will do harm. Not a gun.
The point being some things are more dangerous than others. We would not allow a civilian to own a battle tank or a nuke. Bombs are illegal. An assault rifle may be too much. And regulating cars shouldn't be easier to understand than regulating guns. In order for me to drive legally I have to take a test to get licensed, register my car, and insure my car. To own a gun legally I just go to a gun show and buy one with no questions asked even if I'm a convicted violent felon or mentally ill.
From what you explained I still only believe that the people are dangerous not the machines, but I changed my argument. People or objects aren't dangerous. Acts are. We can't own a tank because that's government being preemptive, over the acts we could cause, not saying that anyone with a tank would just go blow down a convenience store.
Cars are regulated to ensure that people will know how to act to make them as least dangerous as they can be. Obviously a vehicle seems like a dangerous objects but it won't do harm just as the person driving might not. His act of running people down would be dangerous.
Finally the gun issue, how about guns aren't dangerous since alone they can't do bad, and people with gun's can be dangerous because when they make the act to fire the weapon they are performing an action that can harm.
I'll reiterate because that seemed cloudy to me, the act of firing the weapon is dangerous. Not the weapon it's self, or the person with it who may or may not use it.
How absolutely delusional is it that 50% tried to say guns aren't dangerous. They're guns! That the point. For it against them it's the entire purpose of guns.
Guns are the most effective weapon designed today. Nothing kills better than a gun. If something did, we'd buy 5 million of those every year instead of guns.
Of course guns are dangerous they where designed to kill, the danger may be lessened if the person is trained but that won't change the fact that they are holding a dangerous weapon that could kill someone. They are especially dangerous when in the wrong hands of someone say... A murderer.
Guns help stimulate the "easy" feeling if the person ever wanted to do something. I known guns literally don't hurt people but they attract many eyes and people want to shoot something with it. Naturally if your going to rob your local gas station would you use a knife or a gun? Typically the person would take the gun(if they could get their hands on one). It just makes the situation worse. I mean all object can be considered dangerous but if you have a gun in the selection of objects to use then most likely the gun will be chosen.
Yes, because saying guns are only dangerous unless people leave them alone (which is a really optimistic view of human nature) is like saying fire isn't dangerous as long as people don't touch them. Objects are still dangerous, whether they're used or not.
They have the ability to kill a person if not handled with care.If guns were not dangerous would you give it to a two year old child,no! because people know that they are dangerous
the guns we protect so much what is used in war?, guns what is used as aself defence weapon in most cases where there is a loss of a life, so guns have the power to protect and harm
Press trigger, kill. Dangerous enough, mainly if you don't know what you're doing with it: i.e. small child. It isn't all about intent for something to be dangerous.
It depends on who the operator is, and what pro actions they are taking. Yes guns shoot out bullets that can kill, but people with guns don't just go around shooting trees on the side of the road, this is why there are laws, making licensed gun owners keep their firearms away from the public view.
So many people are killed by guns. Children can get their hands on a gun inside the home. The gun violence in America is atrocious. Yes, guns are dangerous.
As a father of two small boys I've come to the sobering realization that perhaps the best gage for whether or not something is dangerous is whether or not you'd leave it alone in a room with an unsupervised 4 year old.
Tall untethered furniture, like Ikea book cases and dressers, are dangerous.
Cups of piping hot coffee are dangerous.
Anything long and pointy is dangerous.
And yes sir, guns are dangerous, too.
But, it's of worth noting, if there is proper supervision present, or the dangerous item is rendered safely unusable by the 4 year old (like the gun is locked in a safety cabinet) then although they may be dangerous there is no necessity to completely remove them.
aaaaa a a a a a a a a a aaa a a a a a a aa aa aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a
Thus those things are also dangerous. Where not talking about politics, simply things that are dangerous which is significant knowledge in politics if we were talking about That as well. You even just explained how cars are dangerous even with out the intent of using them to hurt anyone.
Okay the point I am trying to make but keep getting sidetracked is that a gun by its self with no one touching it is not dangerous a gun is not going to pull its own trigger and kill you someone has to pick it up and load it (if not loaded already) and either cock the hammer, work the slide, or charge the bolt depending on the design of the fire arm then aim it at you in order for it to present a threat to you.
I understand what you are saying, guns by themselves aren't dangerous. They don't have a mind of their own, but guns in general are dangerous. Gun are dangerous for people, because people can use them to kill each other with, if guns never existed dangerous people wouldn't be as dangerous. If someone spills a dangerous chemical on the ground, the chemical isn't dangerous because it is only dangerous to people stupid enough to intentionally or accidentally touched it. Therefore it is not dangerous on its own right?
The debate is are guns dangerous not do guns make people more dangerous. If it was your point here would be valid. But the debate is are guns dangerous and the fact is guns by themselves are not dangerous
The debate also isnt "are guns dangerous on their own?" Either though. If something is dangerous for people to have, they are dangerous. The deadly chemical on the ground alone by itself isn't dangerous only to people who aren't weary of the chemical, but when we ask "if the chemical is dangerous to be there?" We say yes even though the doesn't have a mind of its own, because the question is general, therefore the answer needs to be general. Now if we specify "is the chemical dangerous to unweary people, or people stupid enough to touch it?" We say yes again. If we ask "is the chemical on its own a dangerous thing?" The correct answer would be no. The fact that guns are dangerous in the wrong hands is what makes guns themselves dangerous. With your logic atom bombs aren't dangerous at all because on their own they can't do anything.
These are all things humans need to use in order for them to be dangerous okay. Venomous snakes are dangerous black widows and brown recluses are dangerous because they will kill you. A gun is not dangerous because a gun cannot kill you a person has to do that.
You missed my point and are sidetracking from it. I was saying that unless the question "are guns dangerous?" Is specified to ask if they are dangerous on their own or not, and they are generally used to harm (whether in self defense or unjustified offense) they are generally dangerous. If the question was "are guns dangerous on there own?" Your point would be valid.
The question is are Guns dangerous that's it it says nothing beyond that. Are guns dangerous and what I'm saying is a gun is only as dangerous as the person holding it if no one is holding it if its just the gun then no. However if a gun is being held by a mad man then that man is quite dangerous the gun is just a tool. You argument can also be maid for hammers by the way. Neither guns nor hammers will hurt you unless someone hurts you using them.
I don't think we are going to get each others points, and neither of us are going to convince each we're right so I am going to leave it at that. It was fun debating with you :).
By that logical, anyone who is stronger than anyone else is dangerous. I mean if (s)he has the potential to do harm to anyone at all that makes him/her dangerous, by your logic right?
Regardless of the fact that a gun is just a mix of metals that on their own don't constitute as dangerous.
In fact, by your logic, I can assume everything is dangerous. A cup of untainted soda, with not enough liquid in it to drown is dangerous. If thrown out of a car window to a car moving towards you it can shatter the class.
The list of potentially dangerous things are too high to name them all.
Heavy machinery is dangerous. One has to be certified and trained to operate some construction equipment but anyone can get a gun. That just doesn't make any sense. Yes guns in and of themselves are not dangerous without the context of human use but in what world would guns exist without humans? It's like saying construction equipment isn't dangerous unless used by a human... In what world would that happen? A man with a teddy bear and a man with a gun... Which is more dangerous? The man with a gun. Deciding factor: gun. In your example the deciding factor was: human. But your context is in a world that would never exist: guns without humans. My context is more realistic: comparing a man armed with a gun to a man armed with a teddy bear. If we can cognitively and logically agree that cars are dangerous than we can agree guns are. Cars are not dangerous without operators but are still considered dangerous. If we agree that regulating car and construction equipment operation and ownership why can't we agree on regulating gun operation and ownership. A bomb or tank is not dangerous in and if themselves so should we let just anyone own and use them? No.
Also, if it's the person wielding the gun that's dangerous then that point you are making is a strong argument for gun control. If it's WHO is wielding the gun that makes it dangerous shouldn't we regulate WHO can legally have one? If the deciding factor in assessing danger is who has a gun then it makes sense to regulate who has one. A convicted violent felon or paranoid schizophrenic can go to a gun show and buy a gun right now with no questions asked. You're right, it is WHO is wielding the gun that makes it dangerous so we should try to prevent violent and mentally disturbed people from having them right?
Only about 1000 more die in accidents every year. Thats nothing considering both are in the 30,000. And guns are projected to surpass accidents in 2015. And there are a lot more cars then guns. Therefor cars are safer than guns.
I could just as easily argue that car accident statistics are skewed by drunk drivers, does that change that they are dangerous and cause a lot of deaths? No.
No we should not ban cars nor should we ban guns but we should regulate them. To legally drive a car one must take a test or two and in some states you must have a permit first or be 18. You must also register your car. You must also insure your car so that if you accidentally cause damage and/or harm to someone while driving. So, BY LAW, you have to get licensed, registered, and insured to drive a car. Cars are made for transportation and accidents happen that result in damage, injury, and death and we do a lot to try to prevent that and mitigate losses for it. Guns are made for causing damage, injury, and death plus sometimes they cause that by accident yet we do nothing to prevent that or mitigate losses. My paranoid schizophrenic uncle can go to a gun show right now and buy a gun, no questions asked. A convicted violent felon can go to a gun show and buy a gun no questions asked as well. It just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, but so is an unhealthy diet. Lots of things in life are dangerous, it doesn't mean the goverement has the right or authority to try to wrap us up in bubble wrap.
So should we take away regulation on all things that are dangerous? With your logic drunk driving should be legal. Same with speeding. Or for that matter owning a tank or a nuke. I mean if the government shouldn't step in and regulate dangerous things that should go for all dangerous things, right? Or just guns?
Objects themselves are not dangerous. But in the wrong hands almost every object can be dangerous. A pencial isnt't usually but I am sure almost everyone has heard stories of them being used to stab someone.
Heavy machinery is dangerous. One has to be certified and trained to operate some construction equipment but anyone can get a gun. That just doesn't make any sense. Yes guns in and of themselves are not dangerous without the context of human use but in what world would guns exist without humans? It's like saying construction equipment isn't dangerous unless used by a human... In what world would that happen? A man with a teddy bear and a man with a gun... Which is more dangerous? The man with a gun. Deciding factor: gun. In your example the deciding factor was: human. But your context is in a world that would never exist: guns without humans. My context is more realistic: comparing a man armed with a gun to a man armed with a teddy bear. If we can cognitively and logically agree that cars are dangerous than we can agree guns are. Cars are not dangerous without operators but are still considered dangerous. If we agree that regulating car and construction equipment operation and ownership why can't we agree on regulating gun operation and ownership. A bomb or tank is not dangerous in and if themselves so should we let just anyone own and use them? No.
If the gun and pencil are the same as your point suggests then let me ask you this... Which would you rather your child be playing with? A gun? Or a pencil? A gun right? Why? Because it is more dangerous? You see things in if themselves can be more dangerous than others. A gun is more dangerous than a pencil. To argue otherwise seems illogical to me. Who are you more afraid of? A man with a pencil or a man with a gun? A man with a gun right? Because the gun is more dangerous than a pencil right? I'd like to see someone commit mass murder at a school, mall, or movie theater with a pencil. Shit if like to see someone kill a man with a pencil. I'm sorry but there's no way I'm gonna feel threatened by a man wielding a pencil attacking me. I can shove my hand into the pencil tip and break the lead without breaking skin then break the pencil to pieces and crush it into splinters with my shoe. Your argument is flawed man. You can't compare guns to pencils lol
The man with the gun obviously equals more than the others.
What we, or at least I, mean is that the object has potential numbers instead of full numbers. They stand at neutral, until added to something.
Almost like this. They are infinitely dangerous before their infiniteness is quantified by a person that's not infinite.
Jokingly I heard a joke where a comedian said something along the lines of "I know 7 ways to kill a man...with my pinky no less' and yea, he was kidding but it makes me think also, a pinky is such a useless finger but it can sill have it's dangerous properties.
Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous. Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.
As Theodor Roosevelt once said "the rifle is like a vote. It's usefulness depends solely on the character of the user" simply put a gun is only as dangerous as the person holding it.
Those kinds of people will find a way to get a gun regardless of the law. I wouldn't care if he has a gun or not because as long as guns are legal I will have a gun as well.
Well it makes the dangerous person more dangerous, thus they are dangerous. If guns didn't exist therefore dangerous people couldn't get guns at all, dangerous people would be less dangerous. Of course I'm not saying we could wipe them out of existence of course.
To say that criminals are gonna break the law to argue that a law shouldn't exist isn't a strong point. Here's the flaw: then why have any laws at all. Every law is broken. Criminals do more than wield guns. Should we legalize rape because some criminals still raped someone even though it was against the law? No. Do laws deter people from doing bad things? Yes. It is illegal to drink and drive and people still do it; Does that mean it should be legal? No.
im saying its pointless to out law guns and it wont make us safer becouse in addition to not disarming the criminals it disarms the people they prey on its a one two punch of fuck you John Q Pubic
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse by saying this, but the gun isn't necessarily more dangerous because it made a dangerous person more dangerous. A hammer would make a dangerous person more dangerous, and so would a boxing glove. It's not the tool that's dangerous it's the users.
Though I see the point of everyone saying it is. It has dangerous properties, like the ability to be fired and kill, a knife has sharp edges, a hammer has blunt edges, but I stick to the belief that without a user it's just a harmless object.
I don't see why someone need to specify how something is dangerous to call it dangerous. Nothing is dangerous with out an explanation to how it is. Name things you consider to be dangerous and I can argue its not because its dangerous due to X, Y, Z. poisonous insects aren't dangerous, they are only dangerous if they bite. Otherwise you are saying that one explanation to how something is dangerous isn't valid where every other one is with no logic as to why. The only way to specify something as dangerous with this logic without performing a double standard would to specify a thing and what it is doing or being used for. Do you agree that an atom bomb sitting in the middle of a city that will only detonate when touched isn't dangerous? After all it won't just blow up on their own.
I would say nothing is dangerous without intention. If the gun is left alone it wont and can't do any harm, it has dangerous properties because if it's used to do harm it can. Someone refereed to me a teddy bear. It also had dangerous potential but it also won't and can't do harm. An insect that can move on it's own is more dangerous than a gun that can't but just how the gun has to be used the bee has to attack, but I wouldn't necessarily go that deep to say bee's aren't dangerous.
Not by their self. It's because a nuke won't do any harm on it's own.
However you do have me thinking, I see flaws in my explanation. I don't have an answer I can agree with for if a bomb is set to detonate. Obviously the bomb that is about to explode is dangerous, but it was caused by someone. So I say that the bomb is now dangerous because it can do harm with out an influence at the time of doing harm.
But, and don't get upset, I also think things aren't as black and white as 'is dangerous' or 'isn't dangerous'.
Not by their self. It's because a nuke won't do any harm on it's own.
When people ask "are nukes dangerous?" People will say yes because they can potentially cause people a lot of damage, they can put people in danger. We don't start thinking whether or not nukes are dangerous on their own. Obviously they are not dangerous on their own... Nobody is claiming guns walk around and shoot themselves at people. I feel as though this "guns don't kill people, people kill people", "guns aren't dangerous", etc, etc, etc... Is all really just an excuse that anti-gun regulation and pro gun people use to twisting things in their favor...
The statement "guns are dangerous" is a general statement, the question of this debate is a general question therefore deserves a general answer. The question being "are guns dangerous?" Is just that, nothing beyond that. It isn't asking "are guns dangerous on their own?" Therefore ANY reason as to why guns are dangerous is a reason to how they are dangerous, even if they are dangerous because they make people more dangerous. By this logic that was started by pro gun, anti gun regulation/control there is no such thing as a dangerous tool... No tool can ever be seen as dangerous... Yet anything else can... This gives off a twisted perception on things in my honest opinion.
However you do have me thinking, I see flaws in my explanation. I don't have an answer I can agree with for if a bomb is set to detonate. Obviously the bomb that is about to explode is dangerous, but it was caused by someone. So I say that the bomb is now dangerous because it can do harm with out an influence at the time of doing harm.
The bomb in my hypothetical situation hasn't been detonated but for some reason it is incredibly unstable. I would merely just say bombs whether unstable or not but that hypothetical situation doesn't present as much as a problem for your logic.
But, and don't get upset, I also think things aren't as black and white as 'is dangerous' or 'isn't dangerous'.
I agree... Heck dangerous is subjective, anything subjective at the most we can be critical about... But never 100% right. Though I haven't heard the logic as to why things that are only dangerous in the wrong hands can't be considered generally dangerous. I don't see how that is so illogical, is it illogical for me to see bombs, and grenades as dangerous? Is it illogicAL for me to see bazookas as dangerous? How? What is so illogical about that?
For the 1st part, my main debate was that, things on their own aren't dangerous, so what you said was agreeing with me but also telling me that any danger level at all qualifies danger. i recently changed my opinion to not only keep my own idea in mind but to take some reasonable arguments into consideration. I changed it to this, the weapon isn't dangerous because it can't do harm but the act of using the weapon is because that's really the only place anything can be done. in an act.
For the second part, based off of my initial argument, any unstable material is dangerous, it can do harm at anytime.
For the third part, it's not that I don't see them as logically it's that i see them as obviously stated by society which got me to thinking. "Is it really the object or is it the person using the object" as i said above though, I now have a new way of thinking. The age old "Is a pencil dangerous" comparison being used, we could say logically it's not. Then again, it's dangerous for a baby to hold it, I use pencils everyday, but i don't want a baby playing with anything that it could hurt itself on. Obviously the baby could hurt it's self on anything in the house, but that doesn't make anything in the house dangerous do you think, I ask honestly?
Though due to my changing opinion I would now say, the bay isn't dangerous, the pencil isn't dangerous, the baby playing with the pencil is dangerous. And that is an act, not an object or or person.
For the 1st part, my main debate was that, things on their own aren't dangerous, so what you said was agreeing with me but also telling me that any danger level at all qualifies danger. i recently changed my opinion to not only keep my own idea in mind but to take some reasonable arguments into consideration. I changed it to this, the weapon isn't dangerous because it can't do harm but the act of using the weapon is because that's really the only place anything can be done. in an act.
For the second part, based off of my initial argument, any unstable material is dangerous, it can do harm at anytime
I'm saying that any reasoning to why something is dangerous can be good reasoning, of course there is bot only how something is dangerous but how dangerous something is a pencil can be a dangerous thing, but not nearly as dangerous as a gun. You can redefign your opinion of dangerous as simply anything that has the intent to hurt you, or simply acts themselves. All you are doing is excluding one qualifier of dangerous for absolutely no reason. I don't lack a reason to consider guns dangerous since they make others dangerous makes themselves dangerous. That qualifier of dangerous is a reason in itself, and I haven't heard a good reason for it to not be considered a good reason. The only opposing reason you have given me is reason enough to say that guns by themselves aren't dangerous, which I agreed with all along.
For the third part, it's not that I don't see them as logically it's that i see them as obviously stated by society which got me to thinking. "Is it really the object or is it the person using the object" as i said above though, I now have a new way of thinking. The age old "Is a pencil dangerous" comparison being used, we could say logically it's not. Then again, it's dangerous for a baby to hold it, I use pencils everyday, but i don't want a baby playing with anything that it could hurt itself on. Obviously the baby could hurt it's self on anything in the house, but that doesn't make anything in the house dangerous do you think, I ask honestly?
It can sometimes be the person, object, and the act. Sometimes just one, or just two, you can measure danger by how much. A pencil isn't very dangerous, as the amount of deaths by pencils isn't nearly as much deaths by guns, which compared to the gun the pencil isn't dangerous, however everything and anything is "dangerous". Drawing with a pencil isn't dangerous, unless its a baby drawing, however your opinion that a baby is dangerous may radically change if it lacks possession of a pencil. A person isn't necessarily dangerous without a weapon. So does that mean I can say no being is ever dangerous and only objects are dangerous? Since the amount of dangerous a criminal is changes when he lacks or possesses a gun, however the criminal is still dangerous. See how being so nitpicky about what can be considered dangerous can be?
The only opposing reason you have given me is reason enough to say that guns by themselves aren't dangerous, which I agreed with all along.
I laughed, that was my starting argument all along.
I don't lack a reason to consider guns dangerous since they make others dangerous makes themselves dangerous. That qualifier of dangerous is a reason in itself, and I haven't heard a good reason for it to not be considered a good reason.
I remain that a thing that can't act on it's own isn't dangerous. if it can't influence without being influenced, i also remain that it's instead the influence itself that is dangerous, no the object that was influenced. Which is where I move back up to my starting argument of objects not being dangerous on their own.
however everything and anything is "dangerous".
maybe taken out of context but it seems like you say that everything is dangerous, I say nothing is dangerous it's the way things are used that makes them dangerous, this is because the so called dangerous things, which could be anything as we both agree, isn't doing harm on it's own. The person using them to, or the force making them is.
A person isn't necessarily dangerous without a weapon. So does that mean I can say no being is ever dangerous and only objects are dangerous?
I think that is a false statement, there's enough martial arts on the planet to qualify people as dangerous based on your principles of what is dangerous, but would you personally say martial arts is dangerous? I wouldn't, I'd say that using it is.
See how being so nit picky about what can be considered dangerous can be?
That comes back to the gray area, but yes I do. that is why i soundly believe in no object, I will count people as an object for the purpose of drawing a line, no object as dangerous. Just the actions these objects take, though not every action is dangerous the dangerous ones used to harm are.
It gets down to a point where eventually I'd be saying people aren't dangerous, the body isn't dangerous the mind isn't dangerous it's the act of having the thought to harm that's dangerous, and sure it's tedious but I like to put specifics on things like that. A gun isn't a dangerous thing since it won't pull it's own trigger, the person isn't the dangerous one. it all comes back to actions that is the only one i can firmly believe can be dangerous because it's the only one actually doing anything.
I laughed, that was my starting argument all along.
Yes and I've agreed with all along... No offense but you can'thonestly think, I'm arguing whether or not objects have a mind of their own. What, at least, I think we have been arguing, is whether or not one can say objects are dangerous, not whether or not objects are dangerous on their own.
I remain that a thing that can't act on it's own isn't dangerous. if it can't influence without being influenced, i also remain that it's instead the influence itself that is dangerous, no the object that was influenced. Which is where I move back up to my starting argument of objects not being dangerous on their own.
The dabate is "are guns dangerous?" And I am arguing there is nothing illogical to say that they are, even if it is dangerous in the sense that they make others dangerous, I haven't heard a logic against that. The debate like I said before isn't "are guns dangerous on their own?"
maybe taken out of context but it seems like you say that everything is dangerous, I say nothing is dangerous it's the way things are used that makes them dangerous, this is because the so called dangerous things, which could be anything as we both agree, isn't doing harm on it's own. The person using them to, or the force making them is.
Dangerousis subjective meaning that you can argue anything is dangerous, just like you can argue anything is cool or lame. The difference between dangerous and cool/lame is that one can be more critical about what is dangerous logically, where as cool/lame not as much, or at least somethings are more dangerous than others.
That comes back to the gray area, but yes I do. that is why i soundly believe in no object, I will count people as an object for the purpose of drawing a line, no object as dangerous. Just the actions these objects take, though not every action is dangerous the dangerous ones used to
harm are.
Why? Why only people and acts? That's what I've been waiting to hear. You make the argument that nothing on It's own can be dangerous, I make the argument back that things can be dangerous in the sense they make others dangerous. This has where it ended as far as I seen. My logic of how objects are dangerous refutes your logic to how they are not, yet I have yet to see a refutation of my refutation. This has how it is gone to me:
"Are guns dangerous?"
Me: yes, of course.
You: no, because they aren't dangerous on their own, people who use them to cause harm are dangerous.
Me: making guns dangerous in the sense they make others dangerous
You: guns aren't dangerous on their own, people who use them to harm others are dangerous
Me: making guns dangerous in the sense they make others dangerous
Etc etc etc... It just keeps repeating...
Is their a miscommunication or what is going on here?
I am trying to argue they are dangerous even if it is indirectly dangerous.
I think that is a false statement, there's enough martial arts on the planet to qualify people as dangerous based on your principles of what is dangerous, but would you personally say martial arts is dangerous? I wouldn't, I'd say that using it is.
Indirectly, yes... Especially if MMA is often used to harm people, if it isn't then I say no because it isn't dangerous enough for me to personally consider it dangerous. EVERYTHING is dangerous, but what we all call personally dangerous often depends on how dangerous any sort of particular thing. EVERYTHING is addictive but some things are MORE addictive than other things soda is addictive but not in the sense meth is.
It gets down to a point where eventually I'd be saying people aren't dangerous, the body isn't dangerous the mind isn't dangerous it's the act of having the thought to harm that's dangerous, and sure it's tedious but I like to put specifics on things like that. A gun isn't a dangerous thing since it won't pull it's own trigger, the person isn't the dangerous one. it all comes back to actions that is the only one i can firmly believe can be dangerous because it's the only one actually doing anything.
And I'm being specific that things can be indirectly dangerous, or directly dangerous. It seems to you that things are only dangerous or not dangerous, there is no indirect.
... No offense but you can't honestly think, I'm arguing whether or not objects have a mind of their own.
None taken, and of course not. What I am saying though is that dangerous is a state of mind, mindless objects can't have.
What, at least, I think we have been arguing, is whether or not one can say objects are dangerous, not whether or not objects are dangerous on their own.
That is it, and I am beginning to believe it's a moot point. My mind is set on the idea that if the object can't do harm without physical interaction then it's not dangerous. That is why I do believe unstable objects and thing set to detonate are dangerous.
And I am arguing there is nothing illogical to say that they are, even if it is dangerous in the sense that they make others dangerous, I haven't heard a logic against that. The debate like I said before isn't "are guns dangerous on their own?"
Although the object can be used as a dangerous one, anything can. The main reason I rest on this side is because I don't want to say everything is dangerous, but since anything can be used dangerously, everything must be.
Dangerous is subjective meaning that you can argue anything is dangerous
True, all too true. I feel that the simple fact that the object on it's own can't do harm, makes it not dangerous. You feel that if the object has potential to do harm it's dangerous, but not that everything is dangerous.
Why only people and acts? That's what I've been waiting to hear. You make the argument that nothing on It's own can be dangerous, I make the argument back that things can be dangerous in the sense they make others dangerous.
Actions are dangerous because that's where any harm can occur. I feel the things can't be dangerous just because they make others dangerous because anything can make someone more dangerous. In fact everything does, just in way varying degrees. A man with a teddy bear is more dangerous than a man without just as a man with a gun is more dangerous than a man with a teddy bear.
I say no because it isn't dangerous enough for me to personally consider it dangerous.
It seems that it's not whether or not they are dangerous is actually our argument, but instead it's a thresh hold for us.
I set my thresh hold at 0% since I believe objects don't do harm alone.
You set yours at death or serious injury, which is why you say a pencil isn't dangerous, but agree that a baby with a pencil is dangerous.
And I'm being specific that things can be indirectly dangerous, or directly dangerous. It seems to you that things are only dangerous or not dangerous, there is no indirect.
Yes, basically I'd rather not go into indirects again for all the possibilities like pencils with babies, or elderly with dry foods.
As an end to this, I think what we can agree on is that danger comes in levels and what we would say for society is dangerous is death or injury and the definition of danger is set at 'normal' people, not babies or handicapped.
Also based on this threshold, that would make you correct. Guns can have people killed, elderly, normal, handicapped all the same. Pencils and pillows can not have most normal people killed. Just that I refuse to step to the norm.
Zephyr... There will always be dangerous people, who would you rather fight if you were dangerous? If I was dangerous I would pick someone without a gun. The gun doesn't make a person dangerous, the person makes the gun dangerous.
Was that the same Roosevelt who had two sons who shot a panda bear from a tree? Grenades are illegal as are torpedoes, so why not certain types of guns be made illegal too? Least of all those which can rip through human flesh? A simple handgun that holds 6 bullets at once is more than enough to defend one's home against an intruder. Some people have ADT or a dog, or neighborhood watch.
Majorly prevalent as in it should be written all over this debate. What you said only reiterated my point, the person with the gun is dangerous, the guns it's self can do no harm what so ever, and if you want to dispute facts. Then I'll do you one better than a reading, or a statistic that neither i nor you can test.
Go get a dangerous kitchen knife, put on the table, or if you want to really test boundaries lay it on your body in a non compromising position, and wait for that dangerous weapon to attack you.
I know a bit of martial arts, specifically for countering weapons like bats, crowbars, or any other medium range swinging tool, and a few moves for countering small jabbing weapons, so I'd rather you have a knife, but the debate is saying if they're dangerous. I am saying they aren't dangerous, you are dangerous. You as in the wielder of any weapon.
Guns are not dangerous. It is the negative intent of people that is dangerous. It is not guns that kill people, it is the person that is using the gun. If I shoot you in the head with an AK-47, would you say that I shot you or would you say that the AK-47 shot you? The negative perception that guns are dangerous has to change and the society has to understand that it is the malicious intent that makes people dangerous, whether they have a gun or not.
no more than cars, cigarettes, swimming pools, police, politicians, doctors, alcohol distributors, army recruiters....http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com/death-rates-cause-by-doctors-vs-gun-owners-a-satirical-look-at-the-subject/
No! The gun itself is not dangerous. It is indeed the mind or function of the brain of the person in control of the gun. The gun doesn't kill, it needs something to fire it. The mechanisms in it can be dangerous but only if something triggers it