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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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?
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.
Same as what I just said to Chuz-Life. Guns can't be used as tools 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?
They reduce homicides because home invasions and muggings are less likely to happen if you know there is a pretty good chance the prey is packing heat. We give soldiers tools to kill because the other soldiers will be trying to kill them.
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?
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.
The reason I'm being sarcastic is because this is such a ridiculous thing to dispute. When people say "guns kill people," they don't mean that guns aim themselves and pull their own trigger. What they mean is that guns are easily abused and facilitate mass murder, and therefore gun control is something to think about. This is obviously true, so why do people deny it?
There are also stories where people shoot family members accidentally, or get shot by intruders. There are also cases where the police handle break-ins better than the homeowner could have.
A list of stories doesn't tell us much. We need to look at statistics of how often guns are successfully used for self defense, vs how often they are misused.
While a study like that would be interesting, it would be impossible to get it to a point where it reflected the true facts. In many (if not most) cases where a gun is used for defense, the act never gets reported... so it never becomes part of a database.
Also, statistics be damned... I have a right to defend myself, my freedoms and those around me with guns (when necessary) whether they (guns) are more often than not 'abused' and used in crimes or not.
I haven't given much thought to kangaroos. I don't think they should be introduced into a new area if we're not sure about the ecological impact. Does that mean I want to ban them?
I'm saying that guns are dangerous, it's ridiculous that anyone can get them and go on a killing spree if they want to, and we should talk about how we can reduce gun violence.
I don't know what the answer is, but I find it frustrating that gun nuts don't even want to acknowledge the problem.
This is not important. Why does it matter what is used for the violence only in the case of guns? Are you concerned with lowering knife violence? Are you concerned with lowering car violence? Are you concerned with lowering hammer violence?
Hammers are not particularly dangerous compared to any other blunt object. Knives are dangerous, but I don't think there's anything we can do about that other than trying to not piss people off, reducing bullying, etc. Cars are recognized as dangerous, which is why we have so many laws regulating them (licenses, inspections, speed limits, traffic lights).
The side that you don't seem to acknowledge is the law abiding gun owners right to have and to use guns to defend themselves, their liberties and the lives of others.
There are multiple positions on both the pro-gun and anti-gun side, so I wasn't sure exactly what you were talking about. I don't think anyone would argue that guns can't be used to save lives. That's a big part of what the cops are for.
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 .
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.
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.