The Instigator
aari
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
zombie_orchestra
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

do guns really kill people

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 456 times Debate No: 73890
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

aari

Con

some of the reasons guns are not to blame for shootings is because the guns can not load them selves they can not take the safety off and they can not pull the trigger so with out the aid of a person a gun is just a long metal tube with plastic or wood on it.
zombie_orchestra

Pro

I accept this debate. I will be defending the stance that guns indeed are responsible for killing people. Reading your argument, I understand that you expect a strictly objective response.

Still, I think it is well worth mentioning before I go into my main argument, that guns used by people that has caused deaths are also partly responsible. Why? Because it is a effective killing tool. In a horrific school shooting scenario like Sandy Hook. 26 people killed in 14 minutes. Do you think that the assailant would have reached to the same number before the police arrived if he was using a knife, or his bare fists?

You say that guns can not load themselves, can not take the safety off, can not pull the trigger. Well guns can't stop it either. The fact is that guns often are loaded with their safety switched off. Guns are susceptible to malfunction. Accidents can happen. Someone might drop it. Placed against a tree, it might fall by itself, blown by the wind or some other natural force, hitting against a stone, going off, and shoot a man right in the chest. Unlikely, but possible.
Simply the presence of a gun will decrease your safety depending on your environment. If a toddler finds a loaded gun on the street and accidentally fire the weapon, killing someone, would you really hold the toddler responsible?

PS: If you are tempted to say that you hold the person that left the gun on location responsible, you are missing at least one of my points.

1. Guns are sometimes accessible to ignorant, unstable or careless individuals.
2. Accidents happen. In fact, many people die every year from gun related accidents.
3. Guns are effective killing tools that increase fatality rate before police can intervene.
Debate Round No. 1
aari

Con

aari forfeited this round.
zombie_orchestra

Pro

zombie_orchestra forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zombie_orchestra 2 years ago
zombie_orchestra
The problem is, without points and arguments, you will stay in "the idiot's courtroom" and actually not learn anything of importance. Think critically before you have an opinion on something. Otherwise it is just mindless rambling. I'll respond to you when you start to make sense.

By the way, which person older than fourteen says "lol"?
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
Lol points? What purpose do they serve me? Aknowledgement of the validity of my beliefs? In a courtroom filled with idiots, a idiots actions are perfectly justified. I'll pass. I love knowledge. I post comments to learn. I debate concepts I do not understand so I may understand them better. Sometimes I fail. Usually I learn at least something. Its as simple as that.
Posted by zombie_orchestra 2 years ago
zombie_orchestra
That explains why you do not even make any.
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
I never post arguments to make a point.
Posted by zombie_orchestra 2 years ago
zombie_orchestra
Yes I would. You are really sinking your own ship. Did you ever have a valid argument to begin with?
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
Lol if the person who made the decision to fire that smart bomb was in front of you now, choking on a piece of food, would you save him?
Posted by zombie_orchestra 2 years ago
zombie_orchestra
Was there a point or an argument somewhere in there that I missed? Your comment seems more intended towards someone pro weapons. Of course I agree killing is bad. That is exactly why people shouldn't have tools to make it easier.
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
In my opinion any killing is not justified. It is seldom about religious differences. Typically love is the cause. Love of money, love of power, revenge cause a loved one is taken away. The last is a self perpetuating cycle which grows exponentially. Eventually the original reason is lost and just the killing continues. I'm a South African. Our war was based on skin colour, not religion or country. We just decided as a country to stop the cycle of killing. We forgave our enemies and ourselves. Its not as easy path. But nothing worth having comes easy. Consider it.
Posted by zombie_orchestra 2 years ago
zombie_orchestra
What about when these "smart bombs" are being misdirected towards civilians and innocent bystanders? Take the Amiriyah shelter bombing as an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
Now that would depend on whether they are used to blow people up, blow something up that threatens people's lives, or are just used as a threat to stop people who want to kill other people. Many people believe that when the odds of winning are small enough, humans will just surrender. Unfortunately its not the odds of winning as much as the belief in what we fighting for, that determines mans decision to fight.
No votes have been placed for this debate.