CreateDebate


Debate Info

34
26
More Good More Harm
Debate Score:60
Arguments:55
Total Votes:60
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 More Good (28)
 
 More Harm (23)

Debate Creator

TheThinker(1713) pic



Do Guns Cause More Good or More Harm?

More Good

Side Score: 34
VS.

More Harm

Side Score: 26

Guns are meant to keep the government honest. ;)

Side: More Good

Guns freed us the tyranny of the British government but only because they didn't want to give control of the colonies.

Side: More Good
Elvira(3447) Clarified
1 point

Tyranny ?

Side: More Good
Elvira(3447) Clarified
1 point

Actually, I'm interested. What exactly was the revolution about?

Side: More Good
tcullen1(3) Clarified
1 point

This needs a bit of clarification...

1. Yes we did use guns during The Revolutionary War, but so did The British

2. We did not win the war because we had guns. We won the war because we were on our land and, because of that used the knowledge of our land as part of our war efforts.

3. A lot of American military leaders knew how the English military thought, worked, and planned. Because of this, we outwitted them. The American Generals used the British's own tactics against them. Basically we were smarter.

4. Here is my synopsis: Guns did play a role, but on both sides equally. We won the war because we were fighting on our territory and used our strong logistical land knowledge and the British Army's lack of logistical land knowledge to our advantage. The military insight which men brought over from England and Europe gave The American soldiers an upper hand; they knew their tactics. This helped The American Army plan and execute preemptive military maneuvers against The British Army saving many American lives and towns.

In closing, I have noticed, sadly, that a lot of the credit of winning The Revolutionary War has gone to guns rather than the brave men who fought for all of our freedoms. We won The Revolutionary War simply because we were smarter, knew the terain and had better military preparation. We did not win The Revolutionary War simply because of the guns we were using (that was a draw).

The next time you see a soldier or a vet please thank them.

Side: More Good
1 point

Exactly! That's why we can't have an assault weapons ban because we need to have an even playing field with the government. The rebels during the revolution had the same exact weapons as the British; rifles, muskets, and cannons. Now I know we can't have jets, drones, and nuclear bombs, but assault weapons would do.

Side: More Good
1 point

Exactly! Please read my clarification, I think you will agree.

It is so nice to read an argument from somebody who really stops and thinks rationally prior to writing.

Good job!

Side: More Good
tcullen1(3) Disputed
1 point

That is the craziest thing I have ever heard and I pray you do not own a gun. Tell me, how are gun owners going to use their guns to keep our government honest? Please give me a clear example and synopsis.

Side: More Harm

When the population has guns, it make a civil war a protracted battle ;)

Side: More Harm
2 points

I think it causes more harm because many people get killed nowadays because of gun use. Whether the use of it is legal, it also corrupts the thinking of other people that it is right to kill others. Many people also use guns for self defense, but sometimes, defending yourself could result to so much anger, thus, hinders you from doing good judgment

Side: More Harm
Scout143(651) Disputed
2 points

Actually, 99.9% of guns in American are not used in a crime, only .1% are. Guns are used 4 times more in self defense and in those cases, 98% of the time it is not fired. Only 4% out of that .1% were guns that were obtained legally. Cars kill more people than guns annually. There were 33,883 car fatalities in 2009, versus 9,146 gun homicides in 2009. Out of those gun homicides, 366 were caused by a legally obtained firearm. The rest were illegally obtained. And I don't think it conditions people that killing is okay. Criminals do not have the same values as the general populace, so they view killing as okay, but not some average joe defending his home. Defending yourself can cause anger, but mostly fear. When your life is threatened, you become fearful and go into "fight or flight". A person owning a firearm must know that owning a firearm carries responsibility, and their judgement must always stay keen, no matter the situation. He doesn't become a monster that many people think he will become because of having a gun in his hand.

The statistics from above came from the FBI and the CATO Institute.

Side: More Good
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
1 point

You enjoy to copy paste this half-truth don't you? :D

.

Side: More Harm
2 points

Yes. Guns tell people all kinds of nasty things...*

Side: More Good
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

How does the possession of a gun "corrupt" someone's thinking? Like does it whisper into their ear, "yo dawg, tis cool, shoot that nigga" constantly, or is it more like "The FLESH OF FALLEN ANGLES!, SHOOT THEM DOWN, eat them! muahahah, the flesh...the flesh."?

Side: More Good
2 points

Weapons were made to harm before they were made to defend.

If we all suddenly had a weapon, I can assure you that death and destruction would follow.

If we all suddenly had no weapons, and could never acquire weapons, I can assure you that the only violence that follows will be a few panicked fist fights that don't end in people getting killed, likely. At least, not as likely as people dying from everyone suddenly having a weapon.

Side: More Harm
YourCute(2) Disputed
2 points

"Weapons were made to harm before they were made to defend."

This is not true of weapons in general, at least as it pertains to humans. Weapons were first invented for hunting. Assuming you are referring to guns, which is the purpose of this debate, this specific statement is true. However, this point does not lead to the conclusion that guns cause more harm than good. Just as something made to be helpful can be used for harm (e.g. the discovery of nuclear fusion later being used to create the hydrogen bomb), something made to be harmful can be used moreso for good, as could be the case with guns.

"If we all suddenly had no weapons, and could never acquire weapons, I can assure you that the only violence that follows will be a few panicked fist fights that don't end in people getting killed, likely. At least, not as likely as people dying from everyone suddenly having a weapon."

You can assure this? First off, this is an impractical argument. Never will this be the case. People will always find a way to obtain weapons, and this being the case, people will need to defend themselves. This is the primary reason for guns today, as statistics show (see Scout's post).

Secondly, this is an absurd assurance. In other time periods when weapons were less readily available, people would be buried alive, brutally stoned to death, burned at the stake, thrown in pits/fed to animals, beaten to death by mobs, etc, none of which include the use of human-constructed weapons. Yet you are sure that the only violence would be a "few panicked fist fights" if weapons didn't exist? History claims otherwise, as does the nature of humanity. Never underestimate humanity's depravity.

"If we all suddenly had a weapon, I can assure you that death and destruction would follow"

Death and destruction will be present whether weapons exist or not. Guns are used as a defense against the horrible nature of some people in our world. Only a few use guns for terrible reasons, but many use guns for protection against those few.

Side: More Good
chatturgha(1630) Disputed
2 points

This is not true of weapons in general, at least as it pertains to humans. Weapons were first invented for hunting.

You just contradicted yourself within your first two sentences. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Hunting, by definition and as a prerequisite, harms other creatures.

However, this point does not lead to the conclusion that guns cause more harm than good.

They were invented to kill people, not point at people so they will leave you alone.

I am not attempting to measure the exact amount of harm and good done by weapons and guns because it's pretty self-evident. They kill people. Easily. They were invented to wage war.

If a weapon was originally created to do good, then it would not be a weapon.

Armor is what is meant to protect you, usually from weapons. Armor is inherently good, as it is created only to mitigate death by those who wear it.

Saying a weapon can do good because you use it protect people is a fairytale. If you want to protect someone, use yourself as armor for them or give them armor. Literally shield people. You don't need to be able to kill people to protect people.

People will always find a way to obtain weapons, and this being the case, people will need to defend themselves. This is the primary reason for guns today, as statistics show (see Scout's post).

Was it not apparent that I was speaking hypothetically?

Pulling the metaphor back into reality doesn't really dispute the meaning of it. If people could never have weapons again, violence would significantly decrease, perhaps onto oblivion. If everyone in the world had a weapon and couldn't get rid of it, violence would, at least, not decrease at all, and that's the best case. Moreover, people being able to easily kill each other would result in, duh, people killing each other more often, because it would be easier.

This is because the very nature of a weapon, any weapon, is to kill or hurt things. They are not meant to protect people. They can be used to protect people, but they were not made to protect. They cause violence, not mitigate it. Armor mitigates violence, because it's not designed to hurt people, even though armor can protect someone that hurts another.

Yet you are sure that the only violence would be a "few panicked fist fights" if weapons didn't exist? History claims otherwise, as does the nature of humanity. Never underestimate humanity's depravity.

My point was that weapons make killing each other easier.

When you take away the ease, it the killing is reduced.

That's just logic.

Death and destruction will be present whether weapons exist or not.

Sure, but it would be lesser. And destruction would be limited to tools which are not weapons, and therefore it wouldn't be violent, making it stupid, but not violent (aside from non-human destruction, but that's beside the point).

Guns are used as a defense against the horrible nature of some people in our world.

And they are also used by people with horrible natures as an offense against others.

But you know what guns and weapons in generally are primarily meant to do?

Violently kill people.

If weapons did not primarily do harm, they wouldn't be weapons. If weapons were primarily used to prevent harm, then their primary function wouldn't be to kill and harm other living things.

Only a few use guns for terrible reasons, but many use guns for protection against those few.

Everyone uses guns to kill and harm other people. Other then that, 'protection' and 'terrible reasons' are subjective, and based upon your view of most guns being used to protect, I suspect you and I differ upon what we define as 'terrible' and 'protective'.

Side: More Harm
1 point

Even if that is true, it is pointless to try to imagine a world without weapons, because it can never happen.

Side: More Good
chatturgha(1630) Disputed
1 point

So what if it's unrealistic? It's just as ridiculous as everyone in the world having a weapon. The point is that weapons help cause violence. Less weapons existing equals less violence.

1 + 1 = 2

1 + 0 = 1

Logic.

If a weapon caused more good them harm, then it would not be a weapon, because a weapon, as a prerequisite, causes harm.

Side: More Harm
1 point

Yes.*

Side: More Harm

Guns are for killing people, that's bad. You may use pepper spray for self defense.

Side: More Harm

I'm immune to that. ;)

Side: More Harm
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
1 point

Let's try it! :D

.

Side: More Good
1 point

1)Personal guns are typically not used to kill people. people use them to go hunting, or just to shoot them at targets

2)mace is a good defense to an unarmed crook or maybe somebody with a knife, but what is they have a gun. Gun's have a longer range than mace, so the crook with the gun would have the upper hand.

3) when using a gun in self defense, you are always using it to kill your attacker. Often it's presence alone resolves the conflict. There are many examples of when mass shooters in public areas are confronted by law-abiding citizens with their own gun, and either surrender or kill themselves with out the law-abiding citizen hurting anybody themselves.

In an ideal world, yes there would be no need to carry guns. But we do not live in such an ideal world and it would be inappropriate to pass laws pretending that we do.

Side: More Good
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
1 point

"There are many examples of when mass shooters in public areas are confronted by law-abiding citizens " name some

Side: More Harm
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
1 point

In Japan you cannot own gun, there never been a mass shooting same in UK, in US dies 33 people a day by gun. So benevolent gun law does not work, just redneck and gunsmith lobbyist are in favor of that stupidity.

Side: More Harm
1 point

I prefer swords. Guns are for cowards.

:)

Side: More Harm

I'm sorry but device designed just and only to cause harm and nothing else.....

Side: More Harm
1 point

Yes.*

Side: More Good

The gun violence in America demonstrates the harm they cause.

Side: More Harm
1 point

Yes.*

Side: More Good

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a startling revelation for 2015. It is projected that deaths from guns will surpass deaths from car fatalities in 2015. An estimated 33,000 Americans will lose their lives from guns as opposed to an estimated 32,000 Americans who will die in car accidents.

The gun violence in America is an American Shame!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015

Side: More Harm