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.
Without the gun, the guy that would have been shot would still be alive. A gun was fired, gunpowder exploded, a bullet was thrust forward and embedded its self in to some chaps chest. Yes they fucking do kill people. But oh no, lets just make sure in Georgia, Virginia, Alabama e.t.c. that EVERYONE has a gun. Now we just shoot the people who are about to shoot someone else. Simple. Fucking sarcasm for the idiots who don't understand.
Yes, those events happened. However, it was the person who pulled that trigger who made the decision to do so. The same man can make the decision to stab with a knife. It doesn't matter what tool he used, but that he did it. He is the one that needs to punished, without violating the rights of others. If we get rid of rights given by God and protected by our Constitution, then we are no better than any warlord or dictator.
And stop cursing. It is unbecoming of you who is so young. It doesn't make you look more macho.
Living by the rules of some guys who were happy about being freed from us Brits only 300 odd years ago is not a good basis for any sort of country in my opinion. The right to bear arms is an out dated concept.
I will not get onto the God side of the things are true believers of religion will note that you are to forgive those who wrong you and by using a gun to enforce that you are not truly following the word of God. It is the complete opposite.
I digress. The fact that the gun is an inanimate object is not the point of this debate. A Gun in my opinion is what kills the person, as are all other weapons, as I suppose is the human hand. However a gun is just pouring more petrol on the fire and making it easier for the person to kill, and studies have shown that shooting someone from a distance is a more detached way than up close and personal with a knife or other close combat weapon which means that guns do make it easier and leave people with less responsibility for their actions.
You wouldn't give a pyromaniac a match and a canister of petrol and trust he isn't going to light it. So don't give man a, a naturally aggressive beast, an easier gun and not expect him to kill.
The following is an example of how guns even without humans can possibly kill! The man in question was Horrocks, John Ainsworth (1818–1846) who
"On 1 September Horrocks was preparing to shoot a bird on the shores of Lake Dutton. The kneeling camel moved while Horrocks was reloading his gun, catching the cock. The resultant discharge removed the middle fingers of his right hand and a row of teeth. He was taken back to Penwortham, arriving on 19 September. Having ordered the camel to be shot, Horrocks died of his wounds on 23 September and was buried in land at Penwortham that he had given to the Church of England for a church. He had not married."
Quoted from the Australian Dictionary of Biography.
so guns can kill... with help from a camel also. But reriously if Guns don't kill people and people kill people... WHY ARE WE ALLOWING PEOPLE TO HAVE GUNS.
Also is it not funny that the NRA in the UK will have nothing to do with the extremist NRA of the USA. come on look at this seriously when normal people can buy assault/military style weapons with large magazines, which I might add is more than the ordinary police officer carries. why are you so surprised that there are so many rampages? you are basically allowing psychos to equip themselves! if all the assault rifles were gone you would not need to worry about them so much.
Also I quote "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" first up that is nonsense, second of all its dangerous nonsense as you are encouraging everyone to have guns which means a greater likely hood of gun related violence.
Yes guns kill peoiple. They project a bullet capable of penetrating a human body. Done. Who's fault is it? The person fires a gun and kills somebody with it. If I was carrying around a spear and I just happened to run into someone on my morning stroll, would that spear have killed that person? Of course. Am I to blame? Absolutely. A gun is just a tiny spear shooter if you will.
Yes, guns kill people because they do that. We cannot say:"they are just tool", because killers in the same situation, they are blamed. Nobody say "killers are just tools, they are not blamed", and how we can justify guns?
Yes, guns kill people because they do that. We cannot say:"they are just tool", because killers in the same situation, they are blamed. Nobody say "killers are just tools, they are not blamed", and how we can justify guns?
Guns have always been meant to kill. I can't think of many reasons how a gun is considered a tool. If I point a gun at someone, I'll have the intent on killing them, not using it as a can opener. I suppose it could be used as an instrument to make someone afraid. Sorry, gun lovers and/or minigun owners, but I'm sticking with my current state of mind.
GUNS ARE NOT TOOLS! A tool is an item or object that is used to help achieve a physical goal, like a hammer or a spanner. A gun is used to kill things with. There is nothing else you can do with it. A knife can be used to kill, but it can also be used to cut other materials. A gun cannot do anything but kill, therefore it is not a tool.
A gun can be used as a threat of deadly force. Police officers use guns all the time without actually firing a shot. The right tool in the right hands.
67.5% of homicides in the USA are with a gun. This means that the majority of those people murdered in USA are murdered using a gun. It is true that it requires someone actually pulling trigger or else a gun is harmless. However, we know that there are people in the world that are hot-headed and, sometimes, stupid. Posessing a gun means that when they are in the mood to kill then they can do so in a very easy a quick way.
Clearly the murder is responsible but knowing that there are a large number of people in the world that are hot-headed and selfish enough to kill another makes it, in part, societies responsibility to prevent guns getting into those peoples hands.
Guns are objects. They are not alive they are not self aware they cannot kill. They can be used to kill and they have been used to kill in the past. But in all those cases there was a human present operating the gun. The human operator was the one who did the killing. Saying guns kill makes as much seance as saying spoons make people fat and pencils misspell words.
Read the description, and don't be so literal. When people say guns kill, they're not talking about a malevolent artificial intelligence in the metal. They mean that guns greatly increase a person's ability to kill.
Sure guns make it Easier but a human still needs to pull the trigger otherwise its harmless I don't see why this conversation is focused on guns. They aren't the biggest killer at least not in my country over here in the US the leading cause of death is car crashes.
Car crashes do kill a lot of people, which is why we do everything we can to avoid them. Guns are far less useful than cars in civilian life, and far more dangerous when misused. Yet we've apparently decided that gun violence in the U.S. is no big deal.
You mean to tell me that a one ton object that can go 100 mph isn't more dangerous when misused.
No, we decided in America that violence with a club/hammer, car, poison, etc. is no big deal. But, any gun death gets blown out of proportion. For instance, what state has the most poisonings? The most drunk driver deaths? But, we document exactly what states have for gun deaths.
Could Adam Lanza have run over 26 people in his car?
I don't care about poisonings, but Texas has the most drinking and driving fatalities, and Montana has the most per capita. Not sure what your point is. Is documenting gun deaths a bad thing? Do you think Sandy Hook was blown out of proportion?
He absolutely could have. All he would have had to do is drive in an open area where lots of people were gathered. If he chose the right place he could have taken out way more than 26 with a car. That's why cars are considered deadly weapons in court.
Unfortunately, yes the Sandy Hook incident has been blown out of proportion. Way more than 26 people die every day. I know it sounds harsh, but these are isolated incidents and trying to ban the type of gun that he didn't use is definitely blowing it out of proportion.
How come you can decide that poisonings are not a big deal, but it is not ok to say gun violence is not a big deal? We tend to document gun deaths in America more than other types of deaths, wouldn't that indicate that we think it is a big deal?
People in an open area are free to move out of the way. It would be really hard to run over more than a handful of people.
What gun are you saying that he didn't use? I know there were reports that he left the AR-15 in the car, but they turned out to be wrong. Not that it really matters what gun he used.
I agree that 26 lives lost is not a large number in the grand scheme of things. Still, that's 26 families that were shattered for no reason, and future shooters will try to raise the bar. Not only have we done nothing in response, but we can't even get people to agree that guns are a problem. That's what I mean by Americans being OK with gun violence.
Oh yes, I forgot about the rule that when a mad man shows up with a gun you are forced to stand perfectly still so that he has a clear shot at you and you aren't allowed to get out of the way. What if a group held a concert in a park, so now you have hundreds of people gathered in one small area with no obstacles to stop a car and a deranged lunatic is determined to run over as many as possible. How about then?
No, the reports were that he used the AR-15, those reports turned out to be wrong. He used hand guns. Even if he had used the AR-15 the government wants to make a bunch of rules that if they were in place at the time would not have prevented the tragedy. That's part of the problem. The other part is that criminals try to avoid people with guns. When people are legally allowed to own guns criminals commit less murder even to cover the extra gun deaths. If we get rid of guns there will be more death.
There's not a rule that you have to stand still; it's just far harder to run from a gun than from a car. What if the concertgoers saw the car coming and realized they could spread out? There's a reason why shooters use guns instead of cars.
First they said that Lanza used the AR-15, then they said he didn't, then they said he did. I didn't hear that the story changed again. How did he shoot the victims up to 11 times with just handguns? I guess guns are more dangerous than I thought. All the more reason to control them.
I agree that some of the proposed solutions aren't going to help. It's a tough problem to solve. But first we need to admit that guns are a problem.
What if the concertgoers saw the car coming and realized they could spread out?
Have you ever been in a group of a thousand people confined to a small area? First, it is hard to run with so many people around you. Second, the people on the side where the car is not won't be able to see the car, and the people who see the car will be blocked from running away because of the people who don't see the car. A car going a slow speed of 30 MPH can travel .1 miles in 12 seconds, outrun that. Last, why don't you take 100 strips of paper and put them in a small square area spread out. Now take away 3 strips and you will notice that the group of papers looks almost identical. Taking out 3% of a group doesn't look too hard now does it. What do you know, 3% of 1000 is 30 and now Adam Lanza the driver has more casualties than Adam Lanza the shooter.
we need to admit that guns are a problem
Evidence shows that this statement is false, so we shouldn't be admitting that guns are a problem.
A car when misused can run down a crowed faster than most guns they can also go through walls thick enough to stop most bullets. So which one is more dangerous? Civilians need guns for the same reason cops do self defense cops are issued guns for self defense and according to the uniform crime report there were 11,000 gun related homicides in the US in 2011 of those 2,480 were listed as justifiable homicide by a cop (self defense) and 4,850 were listed as justifiable homicide by a civilian (self defense) (those numbers may be slightly off give or take a few hundred) clearly guns are used twice as much in self defense every year in the US than for murder.
Just try it. Get in your car, and see how many people you can run down. If you kill 26 people, I owe you a Coke.
Those stats are highly skewed because you're including cops and responsible gun owners. Show me the stats on how the Adam Lanzas of the world use guns. Because those are the people we want to keep guns away from.
LOL, do we really need to debate what spoons are for?
The purpose of spoons is solely to put food into mouths.
Agreed.
Obesity is caused by food going into mouths.
But you can become obese without using a spoon, or use a spoon without becoming obese. Obesity is arguably not all that bad, and it can be reversed. People choose to accept the (miniscule) risk of using a spoon. A spoon is nothing like a gun.
So, apparently, according to you, spoons cause no harm. What if we could prove guns cause more good than harm? If we could prove that when guns are around there is overall less deaths, would you agree that guns are ok?
Yes, they are tools. It is the choice of the individual on how they treat their tool. A man can use it for good, like a carpenter or a blacksmith. However, it can be used for evil. When a person is knifed to death, we never blaim the knife, but the perpetrator. We never even really think anymore about the knife after the crime, but only bringing the criminal to justice. Yet, when a gun is used in a murder, we suddenly say the gun is the perpetrator and the criminal is mentally insane, or a victim to a gun culture? Why the change in opinion? It is groundless. Yes, the main reason a gun was created is to kill. However, it is the choice of the individual on what to do with the gun. The same reason a sword is used. If a person was murdered by a sword, we never reacted the same way to it like we do guns. But, a sword has the same purpose of a gun. Why do we suddenly change face? So no, guns do not kill people. It is the person who picks it up and CHOOSES to use it for evil who must be to blaim. Not the tool he used.
The difference is that swords are so much less deadly than guns. Do swords kill people? Well, I guess, but it happens so rarely that it doesn't matter. Do guns kill people? Yes, they kill many people who would not have been killed had the perpetrator used a less deadly tool such as a sword or knife.
So, if swords kill people, then shouldn't they be banned? I'm just using the logic that has been presented to me. Yes, there may be a small percentage that are killed by swords, but we have to think of the children! We don't want them to have to worry about being attacked by a maniac with a sword! We are cultured people! We can't allow this to happen!
Use that argument and see yourself get laughed at on the way out. The reason why is that almost all of the sword owners (including myself) haven't gone and killed someone. Compare it to guns. 99.997% of guns in America today have NOT been used in a crime today. That 0.003% now suddenly justifies banning guns? More people are killed by cars, even with proper education, testing, and regulation. Yet it is not such an issue. If we can offer more gun-safety classes for schools and more training offered, then that percentage will go down even further.
If this is not about gun control, then what is it? What I have been saying is that guns cannot kill because they must have an operator. That operator makes the decision on how to use the gun. A nuclear bomb is impossible to get, so that is irrelevant.
Yes, guns must have an operator. But they give their operator far too much power. If Adam Lanza didn't have a gun, he might have just hanged himself instead of killing 27 other people. That's how guns kill.
Why should nukes be irrelevant just because you can't get one? What if you could get one? Or if you prefer, a smaller, more realistic bomb?
Too much power? Okay. Then what prevented people who had too much power and abused to use guns and kill millions? That's right. Guns. Lots and lots of guns. Guns are a freedom maker. The main reason we have such a great country is because of our right to own firearms. But if a dictator gets too much power, "We need to ban guns so he can't use them". Won't work. He will disregard the law. A gun is a power equalizer.
You're making a reasonable argument for the right to own guns. But that's outside the scope of this debate, which is just about whether guns kill people. As you said, guns give people the power to kill millions.
Yes, I did. Guns can't, however, kill people just by being there. They don't beckon someone over or tempt someone to kill. To actually kill is the decision of the killer. Cans can wield enormous power, for both sides. And the majority of the time it is the good guys who stop the bad guys.
Of course they tempt people to kill. Adam Lanza, for example. If guns didn't make his crime so easy, it wouldn't have seemed like such a good idea to him.
Guns can wield enormous power for both sides, I agree. That's because guns kill.
The third most common murder tool used in the US according to the FBI uniform crime report is "hands and feet" so my question is do hands and feet kill people or do people kill people using there hands and feet? The second most common murder tool is the knife do knives kill people or do people kill people using knives?
People kill people using their hands and feet, or using knives. These objects can be used as weapons (as anything can be), but they mainly serve useful purposes. Guns are only useful for turning people into killers.
Guns can be used for self defense and prevent other murders. If it were possible to prove that having more guns in circulation leads to less murders being attempted overall, thus less overall death, would you still be for banning guns?
Actually, I'm not in favor of banning guns. I just think it's crazy how much everyone defends them.
I think it would be wonderful if more guns led to less attempted murders. But then I'd have to get one myself, as I don't want to be the only guy without one.
In America criminals have to think that anyone can have a gun because anyone can have a gun. The gun nuts actually make it safer for the non gun people because the perception becomes that everyone has a gun so you shouldn't mess with anyone. Since it seems like so many people have guns in America, you don't actually have to own one to get protection.
I guess it depends on where you live. When I'm walking around outside, I assume that no one has a gun. If I found out that any significant percentage of people around here were packing heat, I'd definitely want a gun of my own, and I'd be ready to shoot first.
I didn't realize you were a criminal. Imagine that you want to harm another individual. Let's also imagine you would like to survive that encounter. Let's say Bob has his NRA hat on and has his gun in his holster openly out legally, and you have Tom who doesn't seem to be armed. Your hungry and you need to attack one of those people, who do you attack Bob or Tom?
You are probably ok, there are probably not a lot of people packing heat near you. I'd be ready to shoot first We don't need crazies like you armed.
I'm not a criminal. Not yet anyway, because I don't own a gun.
In that scenario, where I was looking for a target, I would attack Tom. But if I were paranoid about someone shooting me, I would consider Tom the bigger threat, and take him out first.
What's wrong with being ready to shoot first? Is it better to wait to be shot? And why don't you want me armed? Isn't your plan for everyone to have a gun, to make us all safer?
Hmm, maybe because I'm not a criminal. Not yet anyway, because I don't own a gun.
I don't want criminals to be armed, the difference between you and me is that you want victims to be disarmed.
What's wrong with being ready to shoot first?
A good person doesn't word it that way, and from your first sentence I pegged you perfectly as a possible criminal.
Isn't your plan for everyone to have a gun, to make us all safer?
If you read my post earlier I said that the idea that anyone could have a gun is enough to sway criminals, as seen in America. That's why we see so many shootings in gun free zones.
Well your analogy works. Hands and feet kill people in the same way guns can kill people. Both someone attacking another with a gun and someone attacking another with hands and feet are equally as culpable. However, if you removed someones hands and feet or their gun the opportunity for someone to kill on the spur of the moment. The difference is we need hands and feet but do not need guns.
Guns kill people but they are just the instrument, someone could kill, not as easily, with a knife, frying pan, or their hands. The person kills the person, not the gun. The gun is just the gateway, it makes the choice easy.
I say this because I own and regularly use guns but I rarely kill things with them. It's certainly not their sole dedicated purpose if it's not what I (and almost every gun user I know) use them for 99% of the time.
Knives are not just used as instruments dedicated for killing, they can also be used to cut meant and other foods /packaging etc. plus cars also have the use of transport...clearly.
There is no other purpose for a gun to exist other than to kill. Be it hunting or an American maniac shooting up public places. The same goes for any weapon of war...
I agree, but you are mistaken. Hammers have a higher death rate. More children are killed by hammers and clubs than are killed by assault rifles each year. Guns are easier to use, but not more likely to be used.
Yea, it specifically said what I made my comment out to be, was not the case. It's a comical approach to saying that even though the gun is used by people, it's still just a tool.
Even if it makes it easier that doesn't mean anyone with access to a gun will go and cause mass murder.
You, are absolutely correct, and i'm not being sarcastic. They are also tools, I feel if they had them, they wouldn't do anything with them they'd just boast that they have them.
Plus, we might as well, we have them. Why not make it a fair fight?
no they dont kill people, when you set a gun down on the table will it miraculously get up and go kill someone on its own, no, but when you put a dumbass behind a gun, then you have some problems
Generally, commentators thought that liberals were attracted to more densely settled areas, where sidewalks make sense. Here liberals found a communitarian, let’s-share-our-space approach that jibed with their values. Conservatives, on the other hand, put higher value on personal independence and property rights, and so tended to embrace a ”get-off-my-lawn,” go-it-alone worldview. They settled in areas where homes were farther apart and unconnected by sidewalks, and where personal space was less likely to be trampled by trespasser. And just to make sure that their personal space was less likely to be trampled by trespasser, they embraced gun ownership ;)
Guns do not shoot at their own will. It's like how knives are inanimate objects. They can help us accomplish chores, or they can also be used as a tool for killing. bleah.
You could argue that intention kills people, and guns are only a facilitator. But you can accidentally shoot someone/yourself with a gun, i.e. if you were a young child, and didn't know much about the dangers.
Oh, OK then. But it's well hidden sarcasm, so it might not be seen as such. When I voted for George W. Bush both times, I thought they'd know I was being sarcastic, but they counted my votes anyway!
