CreateDebate


Debate Info

26
20
I agree. I disagree.
Debate Score:46
Arguments:39
Total Votes:49
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I agree. (24)
 
 I disagree. (15)

Debate Creator

Sitara(11080) pic



Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

I am tired of people saying "guns kill", "guns are dangerous", and my all time favorite: "guns should be banned". All of these argument are full of logical fallacies. Guns are inanimate objects. They can do nothing without human action. Someone needs to pick up the gun and pull the trigger for something to happen. I am so tired of people not knowing this.

I agree.

Side Score: 26
VS.

I disagree.

Side Score: 20
2 points

I held 3 guns and shot them off when I was 19. The sun was setting and I couldn't see the target. Long story short, the boys who were with me were scared of me.

The targets were blown off the sticks.

You've got to be stupid if you don't think that people are the reason why others get hurt. It's not like the fucking guns grew legs and arms and aimed it's self at you/others.

Side: I agree.
1 point

I know right? I am a liberal, but damn people can be stupid.

Side: I agree.
1 point

I agree. Thats the point that i was saying in my past debates. But seriously, he doesnt get me anyway. And he tells me that gun is a symbol of this and that, and then i got tired and never replied to him anyway. It's getting frustrating already

Side: I agree.
1 point

It would only be common since.... Because a gun has no heart no state of mind.

Side: I agree.
1 point

Guns don't kill people, more often than not the government kills people. What they're trying to do is take away guns from innocent people just trying to protect themselves, while they get to keep and use any guns they want. It's an attempt supposedly to reduce murders after Sandy Hook, but in all honesty, I doubt the criminals out there would just give up their guns to the government. Once again, this whole ordeal is just another way of stripping the people of their constitutional rights.

Side: I agree.
Roblovesargu(61) Disputed
1 point

More often than not the government kills people? Care to expound on that claim?

Side: I disagree.
1 point

I completely agree with this, guns should be ban in all the areas of world. It stamps bad effect on teenagers which are ultimately our future.

Supporting Evidence: olive leaf extract (www.comvita.co.nz)
Side: I agree.
1 point

In the end, its the man who pulls the trigger, not the gun. You can leave your gun by the window and it can watch anyone go by. Your gun won't chase after them, no it'll just sit there.

Side: I agree.
1 point

I agree a gun is a tool like hammer etc. People can go using any way they like too but it is only considered evil if they use it in an inappropriate way.

Side: I agree.
1 point

Agreed. :)

Side: I agree.
1 point

I agree, it is not the gun but the hand of the person in which it is in. It all depends on the person, their character, their feelings, their personality, and the state that they are in. If they have an illness or are in great stress, depression, anxiety, sadness, or anger they are the ones who have control of the gun. Not the other way around. Just like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, the 20 year old had the gun and was the one to point it at the little children and pull the trigger. He had an illness and his parents did not do anything about it. In fact, as we may all know, his mother kept a collection of guns that were in reach of her sick son's hands. All guns should be out of the reach of infants, youth, and teens. They are kept in homes for collecting, hunting, or protection, and even then guns are not responsible for killing people. People kill people.

Side: I agree.

Lister: Rimmer, what's going on out there? Is that Mahatma Gandhi? What's he doing practising hand-to-hand combat with a nun?

Rimmer: That's not a nun, Listy. That's Lieutenant Colonel Mother Theresa.

Side: I agree.

"Kill" is an action and actions can only be performed or started by people/nature. The mechanism to squeeze the trigger must be started by a person or nature. The gun is not taking the action of "Kill", the person is.

The bullet was fired from the gun, which was triggered by the squeezing action, which was started by the person.

The statement "Bullets kill people", rather than "Guns kill people" would make more sense, but what shot the bullet? The gun.

What fired the gun? The person. It's cause and effect.

But then I guess if this was true, then someone who accidentally bumps into a boulder that rolls down a hill and then into traffic through the city and then flies through the window of a bank that is getting robbed and then startles one of the robbers and causes him to fire his gun, which then the bullet blows off a young child's head, then it would be the person who bumped into the boulder technically killed the child. o.o

Side: I agree.
3 points

I do agree with this point BUT not all of us who more left winged people lack understanding of this, nor do as many of us as you think want to outright ban guns. I haven't noticed many people on CNN trying to ban guns. The thing others ALSO have to understand is guns were designed to kill people, and are dangorous. I think some regulation is definitely necessary here. I also understand if outright banned guns criminals would still have guns through the blackmarket, however having guns legalized with no regulation does make access to guns a significantly easier for EVERYBODY. Black markets are harder to find, and possibly more expensive. If criminals could they will probably much rather legally buy them. Plus the more guns we manufacture, distribute, and sell will only result in more guns on the streets, the more regulation the less guns are made and sold and less guns end up on the street. Psyche evaluations and background checks are a minimum we should require. I think we should only allow handguns, and possibly shotguns. Automatic weapons that can shoot a hundred bullets a minute and other higher grade weapons at least should require all that and safety training. As for the gun shows I don't see how it would cost a lot to send a couple guards to check everyone of buying their guns legally at the door. Also perhaps it would be a good idea to require people get "gun licences".

Side: I disagree.

Cars don't kill people, people in cars kill people.

And we require them to take a written test and a driving test, and a hearing and vision test, be over a certain age, have a valid license and insurance, register ownership, obey traffic and emission laws, and and...

Side: I disagree.
2 points

"I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, you are only going to kill a man."-- Che Guevara

I agree with the general point but I simply believe that guns can be taken out of context. A gun kills, that's what it's designed to do. If you kill a criminal you still kill a man. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights promises a right to life. Criminals are humans.

"Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atop

Side: I disagree.
Sitara(11080) Disputed
2 points

No, guns are inanimate objects. They can do nothing without human action. Saying that guns kill is like saying that spoons make people fat. It is the human action that kills, not the gun. The gun is merely a tool in the killers hand. If you want to ban guns, maybe you should ban cars too, since they can be used to kill.

Side: I agree.
2 points

A nuclear weapon also is an inanimate object. That doesn't mean they should be made available to everyone and that the right to own one should be supplied with tax payer money. The difference is that cars are not designed to kill or destroy.

Side: I disagree.
Scout143(652) Disputed
1 point

Everyone does have right to life, liberty, and security of person. So if a man threatens my life and my security, I have the right to protect myself by any means necessary. The criminal risked his life and his rights when he threatened mine. I don't want to kill, but I will if my life, or those around me are threatened.

Side: I agree.
endhypocrisy(65) Disputed
1 point

Rights still apply not matter what situation is taking place, or what status a person has. I turn once again to the UDHR:

Article 2.

•Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

As bizarre as it sounds, "other status" could include criminals.

Side: I disagree.
kozlov(1754) Disputed
1 point

A gun kills, that's what it's designed to do

No, in reality a gun shoots bullets. A gun would not do anything but lay there without a person to use it.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person

Agreed, but perhaps to achieve this goal we should keep lunatics at bay.

Side: I agree.
endhypocrisy(65) Disputed
1 point

And what are bullets used for? To kill people!

It says "everyone". That includes lunatics.

Side: I disagree.
1 point

Exactly. :)

Side: I agree.

While it's true that guns don't fire themselves, the point of "guns kill people" is that they make it much easier for people to kill people. It's very hard to go on a killing spree without a gun.

Side: I disagree.

It isn't always the action a person that triggers the gun. Accidents occur also, which they would less if there was successful action, coercive or not, against gun ownership. At least this argument goes to the utilitarian.

Side: I disagree.
Sitara(11080) Disputed
1 point

Hence the need for guns to be designed with safety features. I would have no problem with that.

Side: I agree.
Scout143(652) Disputed
1 point

There is never a gun accident. It is always a negligent discharge. It is an idiot that neglects their gun and reaps the consequences. That's why citizens must be trained.

Side: I agree.
1 point

You may see it as a case of idiocy, but when there's a story of a three year old shooting himself playing around with "dad's toys" people see at something else. In fact, if it makes society feel better they can restrict guns and this can be worth it for the utilitarian even if crime rates go up.

Side: I disagree.
1 point

Actually, it's the bullet that goes in and puts the person in a permanent offline mode.

Side: I disagree.
Sitara(11080) Disputed
1 point

No, it is the HUMAN who does so. If you want to ban guns, you need to ban cars to because they "kill".

Side: I agree.
Sitara(11080) Disputed
1 point

No, it is the HUMAN who does so. If you want to ban guns, you need to ban cars to because they "kill".

Side: I agree.

A gun cannot go off by itself. It takes a deranged mind to pull the trigger, hence, guns do kill people.

Side: I disagree.