"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

[Resting_Fox]

The way i see it People kill people but guns made it a whole lot easier. Guns do have other purposes than killing things. Self defense is the other use.
Say a sicko wants to come into your house, steel your money, **** your wife, and kill you. If you had a gunyou could prevent all those things from happening with one simple pull of a trigger resulting in a criminal with a wounded leg who is now immobilized. call the cops save the day. The real problem is the guns are used for murder more than self defense.

 

[Yoshi-lord]

All i'm going to say about the horrible guns of the world is. Lets kill what kills and banish it to the realm of misfit tools. Guns are evil, there used by the evil people and the're destructive power on another human being is just sickening! Guns, don't we have enough death without guns resulting in the final count of deaths in a year? If the world melted down all the guns in the world, they could use the metal to make more building to tend to the poorly. Lets get rid of guns before they get rid of us!

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Would any of you be considerate enough to go to the first page and read the entire topic before posting. As it is, you are violating the fourth rule of the Debate Hall.

 

[SuperSpy]

And with that "I need to protect my family" stuff, it doesn't matter. what do you think the police are for? and plus, to be extra safe, you need to lock the gun up so a child doesn't get to it. then in case a child gets to it, you lock the ammo up somewhere else. so what's the point? If a criminal comes in ur house armed, then you have to go get the keys or whatever, unlock your gun, and get it ready to load. Then you have to go to wherever you hid your ammo, unlock it, load it up, then your finally ready. but by that time the criminal has killed someone, stolen something, just left, or whatever else. So what is the point of owning a gun? there is no point. I think the only good use for a gun is hunting, that's different. so if someone in your house has a gun, just tell them the facts. and a family member or someone important is at a bigger risk of getting killed than a criminal. So what is the point of a gun? to protect your family? I don't think so. More like hunting, but you still have to lock them up good, so no one can get hurt. *breathes out* ok, I'm done.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

You didn't read through the debate first, did you? Figures.

 

[Cashed]

Originally posted by krillin1986
I have to agree with the topic at hand! Guns do not kill people, they just help the killer kill faster and easier! I think that gun shops should not sell guns to just every day citizens, but they should only sell them to police, and people like that! <img border="0" alt="[Dizzy]" title="" src="graemlins/dizzy.gif" />

Why should they do that? Some ppl get guns for hunting, some get them for protection, anybody that is old enuff should be able to get a gun

 

[Mr. G & W]

i didn't read all the pages, but what i noticed is that most people think that guns are necassary(sp?) for people's freedom. however, an old friend of mine was living in california a few years after WW2, and he met a japanese man. after talking for awhile, he asked the man why the japanese didn't just invade the US after pearl harbor. the man replied "we knew that not only would we have had to deal with your army, but what we feared most of all was your citizens. with guns and their backs to the wall, trying to protect their own homes, they would have been a more formidable army then anything else." so basically, it was our right to keep and bear arms that prevented a japanese invasion.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

MASSY!

I am still awaiting your reply for my most resent arguments.

 

[Chunky Monkey]

What's the Point?

What's the point of guns? To protect your family? Then you shouldn't have a gun so a child doesn't find it and kill himself or others.

Guns are unnecessary not because of the difficulty of protecting your family with a gun but because you do not need to kill someone to do that. Tranquilizer darts are all you need to incapacitate someone for long enough to save your family.
I think that the government should ban bullets because "Guns don't kill people, but bullets do.".

So...Thank You and Have A Nice Day!

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Ahem!

I would like any and all people who wish to post to read through the topic first.


IF YOU ARE PRO-GUN! I suggest you pay close attention to Massy's posts.

IF YOU ARE PRO-GUN-CONTROL! I suggest you pay close attention to my posts.

 

[Devious]

I am against guns. Why? Yes, people kill people, and guns are one tool which is effective for the purpose. Now tell me. WHY would an ordinary citizen need a gun? Now if there's a burglar, why not use some sort of a tranquilizer or dart gun? Why do we need real guns? What useful purpose does it serve? More gun murders occur in schools in the USA than every other country. Did you think the children used rocketing fists and Falcon Kick to kill their classmates? No, they used guns.

 

[Lansuu]

I don't like guns, but...

Well, first of all... If a burglar broke into your house, what are you gonna use? Falcon Kicks and flying fists? Sorry, but I don't think I can take on a hefty 190 pound bodybuilder trying to take my stuff, nor can many people's parents/legal guardians. People take guns really seriously, because... well... they can kill you! You don't necessarily have to USE the gun, if you just point it in the direction it stops people dead in their tracks. Guns aren't necessarily a killing machine all the time, sometimes they are just threats or bluffs. Now, guns used for killing... Now I'm angry. Crazy guntoatin' hip gangster wannabes shooting up schools? Don't go off and blame the guns until you see it this way - the kids used those guns because their classmates pissed them off! Sure, blame the kids with the gun all you want, but those killings might not have been prevented if they didn't have guns, there are other methods of (mass or single) killings. There was a stimulus that made those kids wanna shoot 'em up. Humans are time bombs just waiting to go off, people!

 

[sharpcresent]

I'm not sure if this has been said but you are 10 times more likely to kill a family member with a wepon than an intruder.
I just feel like tossing this out. 10 year old childeren don't go out into the woods to kill innocent animals, they go because a gun is power, They want to be like their fathers (or mothers) and do what they do.

 

[cooldan007]

yea... i know guns are like, like really bad someone just killed somene yesterday im so so so scared

 

[kirbron_09]

guns dont kill people the bullets do

Yeah, I find it funny that some people are still stubborn enough to think we need guns of any kind... i mean, handguns are pointless...and hunter rifles....whats gonna happen? a deer going to break into your house at like 1 AM???


on the other hand, the black market theory is intirguing ...

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Awake foul beast and rise again from your lowly ashes!

Hello, it's me, your friendly neighborhood Pyro. Trying to remind you that good debates don't die, stupid people just put them to sleep.

As that is the point, I would like an intelligent person to help me with the revival of this great debate topic (Massy, Bee I'm looking in your directions). So, let the debating recomence.

 

[game and kirby]

Bah, guns should be legalised, and people with guns can kill people. Criminals can always get their hands on guns through illegal means, by outlawing them, you're only preventing law abiding citizens from defending themselves. It's not possible to have a country in which no one has a gun. It's easy to have a country where everyone has a gun. In addition , guns are not the only way to kill people .Crowbars, baseball bats, and chainsaws all do the trick. Did you know that in Scotland it's legal to kill a Welshman with a crossbow if you're ten yards away?

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Unfortunately...

I'm on your side of this debate, Gamer. For the most part. So it'll be hard for me to debate you. Maybe later I'll play devil's advocate. Or find the selected parts of your stuff that I disagree with.

-B

 

[JoshCube]

What if there was an earthquake and a loaded gun fell off a shelf and shot someone? Then the gun shot a person, not a person.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

"And in the house next door a book fell off a high shelf, mortally wounding the person under it... It was no persons fault, for the book killed the man not a person."

Wants the point of your logic?

 

[JoshCube]

Well, the topic is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Guns do kill people, as I said if there was an earhquake and a loaded gun fell off the shelf and shot someone then nobody shot that person, a gun did. And even if he put the gun up there, did he shoot himself? Nope. Guns do kill people.

 

[game and kirby]

This may be an intelligent thesis for a debate, but with the intellectual dross on these boards, it's pretty useless. Try posting something along the lines of 'how to get chicks' or 'what to believe in' you'll get waay more responses. If you're set on this debate, close this and start a new one, summarising all the previous posts, since no one is likely to slog through five pages just to form an intelligent opinion. Admirable intentions, BBT and Gamer, but really, we're not all 2000 post MBR back room members. The vast majority are going to make inane posts like Joshcube just did.

 

[ECVlion]

Let's put it this way:

"People with guns kill people."

I don't see any use of guns that other weapons couldn't cover, ex. tranquilizer. After just reading the first post I'm even more convinced that guns aren't necessary. Of course the police force, etc. should have guns, but it would be senseless to have guns when you can use other weapons which keep a criminal alive.

~Devious

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Did you only read the posts that agreed with you? The idea is to keep an open mind about what is being said. Every one of Massy's posts, I digest their content and try to see how it relates to the world as I know it. Unfortunately, in my world his arguments sometimes seem moot or anti-social, where in his mine are anti-social.

But, in the end we both get a better understanding of the overall implications of gun-control, from both sides of the pond. I only hope that I can "make him see the light" and embrace guns as a tool for humanity... Of course, being a subject, he might not want to.

(An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man a subject )

 

[ECVlion]

um...its very hard to read because of

.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Massy:
<strong>
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

hmm...after deciphering one of your posts, I see you have a point. But I think it would be more efficient to leave a criminal alive, so they can confess to other crimes they may have done. And often, criminals are disadvantaged kids who find guns and go crazy. Do you want to kill them?

~Devious

 

[Gamer4Fire]

The short answer is yes, but if you wish to discuss that, post in the capital punishment thread.

 

[NeoKirby]

ok course people kill not guns because guns are dead not much of a debate???

 

[Gora_Nova]

Well I have to agree with Gamer4Fire on this one. In my opinion I think guns (treated with care) are safer than without one.

Think of this, I'm only 150 lbs. and a big 220 lbs. bodybuilder comes into my houes and tries to **** my wife, steal, or just plain hurt my family for some reason. I'm outmatch by far. Without a gun my only hope is for me to keep that big guy busy while my wife and children get out and the big man beats or kills me. But what if I had a gun and I'm keeping the man busy my wife can get the gun, get close enough then pull the trigger. Then the bad guy is hurt or dead and cannot continue the crime.

 

[Massy]

Thing is, that there is a pretty specific situation. If a small infantry division were bearing down on my house, I'd like to have a gun too, a big one with shiny chrome. But that doesn't happen all too often, nor does someone breaking into your house who you must have a gun in order to stop. I believe that on the whole the common ownership of firearms does more harm than good.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I believe just the opposite. The common ownership of firearms has saved millions of lives in this country. From people protecting themselves to people coming to the aid of the police. Yes, it has happened on several occasion were the common citizen helped some cops out by being in the right place at the right time.

Although the inverse is true where a criminal uses a weapon to commit a crime, but a lot more people are saved by firearms in this country than are hurt. It's not "the numbers speak for themselves," it depends on how much value you put on the tool. Is saving a families life equal to the loss of another family? Is the loss of this tool to save the family equal to the worth of still risking the second family’s life? I don't believe so; I think the chance to save oneself outweighs the absolute of being attacked by a criminal.

 

[Serious Sam]

The thing now is that police do not have to protect us by the ruling of the supreme court. So if we have no guns who will protect us? I don't know which law this is but it is all over the radio.

 

[Craftstar]

I believe the gun rules should be stricter. Not to be hard on people who like to protect their families, or people who hunt, but gun-toting rednecks with nothing better to do than aimlessly fire their rifle. This may have been mentioned, buit a movie came out recently called bowling for columbine. In the movie, it is suggest that maybe if bullets costed a ridiculas price, perhaps shooting would go down. I feel thats a very interesting thought.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

We already went over the ammo=$$$ thing a ways back. This topic is only three pages long, please read through it first before posting.

 

[smashattack]

This debate is slowly fading, so I'd like to liven it up a bit with some info I found. Should be interesting.

Did you know that the media is totally biased? Sure, they claim that they're not, but they really are. USA Today stated that fourteen thousand fatal gun accidents occur each year, when in fact the number should only be fourteen hundred. The media does not mention, however, the 2.5 million successful defended crimes each year with the use of handguns. Stories involving children who are killed in gun accidents are more likely to make the news than stories involving somebody protecting their life with a gun.

And then sometimes somebody tries to use a gun for defense, but the use seems to go terribly wrong. The media jumps all over this kind of stuff.

Those who get their information from the popular media are unlikely to realize that erroneous killings by civilians total only about thirty per year; even less likely is the average person to know how...this compares to the police who erroneously kill five to eleven times more innocent people each year.

A child under fifteen is 351 percent more likely to drown at home in a swimming pool or a bathtub than to be killed in a freak gun accident. I suppose that the time to ban swimming pools and bathtubs is near!

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Actually its because guns saving people is so normal that it isn't news. What are you going to do, post a hundred times in a newspaper how guns have saved people yesterday? No, you're going to post about the one freak accident that hadn't happened before in all of histroy, because that is news.

 

[Massy]

Any source for that statistic, or is it just propaganda, again? I really question how one actually compiles data like that - gun deaths are easy to quantify, death certificates, the works - how does one gather data on something like "successful defended crimes each year with the use of handguns" ? Unless you can provide a credible source (ie. not a site that has the words "gun facts" in its title), your "facts" have incredibly little relevance.

As seems obvious, smashattack fails to speculate as to why I might have discouraged the use of statistics in the first post of the debate, that being because anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of stats can twist figures into what sadly passes for "debate" in the US media.

 

[smashattack]

To Gamer4Fire:

That's true, too. It occurs so often that nobody bothers to tell about it, so it seems the media is "accidentally" biased, meaning that they dismiss the regular occurrences. Too true.

To Massy:

How's this? "Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control". Kleck, Gary, and Kates, Don B. Copyright 2001. Printed by Prometheus books. Printed in Canada on acid-free paper. Includes bibliographical references and index. Dedicated to Diane, Matt, Tessa, E. Spector, P. Kates, and C.B. Kates.

Is that enough for you? As you see, the book is rather new, and it even gives its own sources (newspapers and such).

My info that I am giving right now was originally published in Injury Facts, pp. 16-17, 32, 101, as well as the New York Times, 9 June 1992:

From Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control:

Indeed, handgun accidents kill only about half as many children under age five annually as does the ingestion of common household poisons (roach spray, lighter fluid, ammonia, iron supplements, ant poison, and so forth).

And where does a debate go without statistics, anyway? I mean, look at this one... it pretty much died. It was going nowhere, would have remained nowhere unless somebody used some facts. Seriously, look at your first post... "I believe the majority of guns are used in offense rather than defense" (sorry, you said not to quote you on that, but I did). Come on, now, what does that accomplish? Nothing. My facts just overrode your belief (rather, misconception), which is a common one.

 

[Massy]

Such a shame to go to all that trouble, only for you to realise that you quoted the wrong statistic - I'm sure more children do die as a result of ingesting poison - I was referring to your bogus claim that "The media does not mention, however, the 2.5 million successful defended crimes each year with the use of handguns."

I don't know about you, but personally I'm capable of debating without pretty little meaningless numbers to back me up (Either you've never taken a stats course to work out how easily data is to manipulate to serve your ends, or you attended one and didn't learn anything, I think I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.) The debate died because it had run its course, unless you have anything new or interesting to bring, your unwarranted rehashing of some of the main points is just irritating.

 

[smashattack]

The quote I posted was not "the wrong one". I was simply making another point. Two, in fact. One, that I can back up what I've said, and two, that handgun accidents don't occur as often as ingestion of household poisons.

So... if you don't want to use statistics, how, then, should we go about debating?

 

[Nall]

I will say this. Guns don’t kill people. People (Bad People) who own the gun make the decision to kill other people. Yet Guns are a dangerous thing, and should still never be in reach of children. I’ve heard stories of careless children who kill other people (by accident) with a gun. I’m not bothered by the current legal age for gun use. 21, or 18 even, is a good enough legal age limit. If one is 21 and intelligent and responsible enough, he won’t the decision to shoot someone with a gun. If he does then he’s obviously a bad person. But I’ll say that guns are still a problem, and it makes killing a lot easier for people not responsible enough or people who like to kill. They are however useful for defense, in case a burglar breaks in your house and tries to hurt you.

Sig/Away Special Foaming Spray, just spray once and watch sigs fade away............