CreateDebate


Debate Info

78
63
yes no
Debate Score:141
Arguments:104
Total Votes:159
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes (57)
 
 no (47)

Debate Creator

benjamin1010(15) pic



Are guns dangerous

yes

Side Score: 78
VS.

no

Side Score: 63
3 points

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.

Side: yes
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
0 points

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?

Side: no
Poetic_logic(4) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: yes
2 points

Of course guns are dangerous, they were designed to kill, its a weapon.

Side: yes
2 points

Yes guns are dangerous because they can kill people and animals.

Side: yes
2 points

Hmmm? Well, I suppose it's pretty dangerous to shoot yourself in the head... so, I'lll go with yes! Final answer.

Side: yes
2 points

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.

Side: yes
2 points

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.

(guns are also awesome)

Side: yes
2 points

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.

Side: yes
2 points

guns are dangerous even though people never listen to the law there will be less

Side: yes

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.

Side: yes
2 points

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.

Side: yes
2 points

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

Side: yes
1 point

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

Side: yes
1 point

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.

Side: yes
1 point

With the pull of a trigger on a gun, you can kill a human being. Therefore, guns are dangerous. I rest my case.

Side: yes
1 point

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.

Side: yes
1 point

Guns will always be dangerous. The responsiblity of the person holding it is what really concludes that answer.

Side: yes
1 point

Guns will always be dangerous. The responsiblity of the person holding it is what really concludes that answer.

Side: yes
1 point

yes, because it is dangerous and specially to the children, they want to use them without knowing about that things, so it is dangerous to us.

Side: yes

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.

Side: yes

Guns are more dangerous than a rattlesnake. Guns and violence go together.

Side: yes
1 point

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.

Side: yes
0 points

guns are dangerous they can kill people

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

Side: yes
batmanfan373(1) Disputed
0 points

guns dont kill people. People kill people, the guns dont float around and randomly kill people, a person has to do that.

Side: no
markmcd9929(47) Disputed
3 points

Ah, yes, but guns give people the power to kill other people

Side: yes
Poetic_logic(4) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: yes
Poetic_logic(4) Disputed
1 point

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?

Side: yes

Of course, guns are dangerous, but driving a car is as well. More people die in accidents than killed by guns. Should we ban cars too?

Side: yes
Roblovesargu(61) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: no
Poetic_logic(4) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: no
TheAshman(2299) Disputed
0 points

I didn't notice anything in this debate about the politics of gun ownership it was a simple yes or no do you think guns are dangerous

Side: no

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.

Side: yes
Poetic_logic(4) Disputed
1 point

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?

Side: no
4 points

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.

Side: no

Yes, but the people opposing guns don't seem to understand the nature of people. i guess they can only see the potential of said weapon.

This is an agreeing statement, if it sounds like it doesn't my apologies.

Side: no
Poetic_logic(4) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: yes
Poetic_logic(4) Disputed
1 point

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

Side: yes
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
1 point

I see what you mean.

The danger level might be like this analogy.

The man = 1

The gun = 9

the pencil = 2

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.

Side: no
1 point

Sairbaby is correct, and going on what I said as well. Guns are not toys, they are weapons.

Side: no
2 points

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.

Side: no
1 point

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.

Side: no
zephyr20x6(2387) Disputed
2 points

Guns make dangerous people more dangerous. Who would you rather fight? Someone with a gun or without a gun?

I actually didn't realize it was you warrior lol, pic took me by surprise lol.

Side: yes
warrior(1854) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: no
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: no
RiflemanAK(5) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: yes
kandjo(1) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: yes
warrior(1854) Disputed
1 point

And if the other guy has a faster firing semi auto hand gun with a 17 round mag. Advantage to you.

Side: no

put a gun on a table, tie a person to a chair and if the person is hurt in anyway by a gun somehow when you come back, then you will have your answer.

The saying Guns don't kill people, people kill people is majorly prevelant here.

Side: no
Roblovesargu(61) Disputed
2 points

Majorly prevalent? That doesn't make sense.

Guns owners are 4.2 times more likely to be killed by a gun. That's a statistic. Not a saying. Facts back up the fact that guns are dangerous.

Side: yes
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
1 point

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'll pay your medical bills if it does.

Side: no
1 point

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.

Side: no
TheAshman(2299) Disputed
2 points

So are you saying hand grenades and bombs aren't dangerous either?

Side: yes
1 point

Duh of course guns are dangerous

Side: no
Sickology(392) Disputed
1 point

Sorry I put this statement in the wrong category

Side: yes
1 point

not really if you use them for the right reasons e.g to hunt

Side: no

People are dangerous.

Side: no

How about I say shooting people, IS dangerous, the gun isn't.

Sleeping on the pillow isn't dangerous, breathing into it while you sleep is.

A hammer isn't dangerous, hitting someone with it is.

I am officialy chaniging my argument instead to that of acts being dangerous, objects aren't.

Side: no
1 point

No. People are dangerous, not inanimate objects .

Side: no

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/

Side: no
1 point

Guns arent dangerous, unless they fall into the wrong hands. Like how chemicals can be used to make good stuff, whereas in the wrong hands they kill.

Side: no
1 point

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

Side: no