CreateDebate


Debate Info

28
24
Yes No
Debate Score:52
Arguments:59
Total Votes:52
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (24)
 
 No (22)

Debate Creator

HoldTheMayo(5907) pic



Should our soldiers have guns?

We send our soldiers overseas to kill bad guys, and we give them M16s or whatever. But as we all know, guns don't kill people, so why are we giving them these useless weapons?

Yes

Side Score: 28
VS.

No

Side Score: 24

The gun doesn't kill anyone, it doesn't just walk around shooting at things, someone has to control it. Its like if you hit someone with a car, the car didn't kill the person walking across the street, you did.

Side: Yes

Agreed. So why do our soldiers need these harmless guns then? What purpose could they possibly serve?

Side: Yes
GuitaristDog(2546) Clarified
2 points

I didn't say they couldn't be used as tools for killing, however guns don't kill people, the user does. The car analogy is a good example.

Side: Yes
Elvira(3447) Clarified
1 point

No, they fly instead. But they don't call those guns.

Side: Yes
1 point

Guns are the best (most efficient) tool for our soldiers (people) to use to kill other soldiers (people) with.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people... and guns are just one of the many things (tools) that people use to kill other people with.

It's not rocket surgery.

Side: Yes

LOL, are you a "rocket surgeon?" Guns can't be used to kill people - they actually reduce homicides if you check the statistics. So why do we equip our soldiers with tools that make the enemy safer?

Side: Yes
Chuz-Life(497) Clarified
2 points

See: Rocket Surgery

Your sarcasm does not lend credibility to your position.

Everyone on both sides of the debate knows (or should know) that guns are deadly weapons (tools) used for both killing and for defending one's self and others against killings.

Side: Yes
asdqwe678(93) Clarified
2 points

"rocket surgery" ... cool words ... oh wait.

Because it can be used to scare people , scare your enemies and make them surrender to prevent further violence , if not then use it to end the conflict quickly because the longer it takes the more people will suffer .

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes, only if our enemies have it as well, .................................

Side: Yes
1 point

What people mean when they say guns don't kill people is that guns don't on their own decide to commit murder and then commit said murder on their own so therefor it is stupid to Blair guns for things like shootings. People (like our solders) use guns to kill bad guys. And sometimes bad guys use guns to kill good guys. It's not the guns doing it. Let me explain it this way when someone stabs someone to death we all say what a scumbag he is and that we hope he rots in prison. But when someone shoots someone people talk about banning guns as if somehow its the guns fault. The gun is as much at fault as the knife yet no one ever suggests knife control laws. In the end its the person holding the weapon (be it a gun or not) that is dangerous not the weapon it's self. guns are tools nothing more.

Side: Yes
1 point

That's like saying: "Should a farmer plant crops?" OF COURSE THE MILITARY SHOULD HAVE GUNS.

Side: Yes

It's because it's the bullet the gun launches that technically kills people

Side: Yes

They need blasters like the storm troopers.

Side: No

I disagree. I think if they had the force and some lightsabers they would be fine.

Side: No

"This is the weapon of a Jedi knight. Not as clumsy or random as a blaster. An elegant weapon for a more civilized age." --- Obi Wan.

It sucks that of that whole movie, and of the scenes of it they have on YouTube...I can't find that monumental quote in video form.

Side: No
1 point

Stormtroopers are horrible in the field of ballistics. So I would not start off by saying that.

Side: No

LOL, that was the point.

Side: No

-----------------------------wheres the delete comment button when you need it..... andy-------------------------------------------------

Side: No

We should have swords because they are much more effective than something that can hit a target from a mile away

Side: No
1 point

in the modern era guns are a source of revenue to governments.soldiers should be trained skilled debaters.the british soldiers in afganistan won the battle in their province mainly by winning the "hearts" of the local population'.if no guns were issued to any soldiers then they would feel free to talk to their opposing soldiers thru interpreters if necessary.the only people who want wars and killing as a source of media attention are the top brass.for instance particularly america would be reliant on the sale of guns and military hardware to keep their economy healthy.this could also be said of russia britain and china.

Side: No
1 point

I don't think your soldiers should have guns. I think mine should though.

Side: No
1 point

We should give them whippy sticks, chain maille, shields, helmets and stick a red magnety thing to one guy's helmet.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/elizabethstory/8844506617/in/set-72157633719551689

And everyone will be happy.

Side: No