debate

but this is intrinsic evidence that guns have leaded to more deaths, which you could argue has led to more lives being taken then it has saved lives im not sure i understand how you want to argue xD the point i would come to is that guns were a net loss for humanity, instead of a gain, by going by death toll and what it has done to our culture and thats actually not 100% true in japan (or china) a guy with a knife killed like 15 people in a train he couldnt do the same numbers arguably with a gun ofcourse, this is a niche situation, but it depends the scenario close range? knife far or mid? gun the majority of cases though are mass shootings though because they happen in large public places, and everywhere knifes are already heavily restricted edit:sorry maybe im over stepping, ill slink back and let you two debate how you want >w> ill stand back and mod if it needs be

@Yestotally That first statement is entirely wrong. We have been killing eachother in large numbers since we were cavemen. Also, who says killing is outright wrong? I think it's a good thing if I persay, Shoot a group of thugs that busted into my house to do harm to my me or my family. Killing is only wrong dependent on the reason behind it. You've obviously never met a navy seal. They could kill more than five in twenty seconds, with just a knife. The statement is true, guns are "Better" at killing than most other things. That's what it was made for, just like swords in ye old times. Gun's are history's equalizers, with it a disabled person, a woman, a small man are all on equal footing with their oppositions, unlike times before when we played with just blades. Factually speaking even the places with the most guns(Like the U.S.) aren't even the number one killers in their states. If you really were just on the idea of saving lives... you'd start with fastfood which makes kills one in four people with heart disease. You'd get rid of hospitals which kills more on medical errors alone. You'd rid us of cars. Now the argument against that position is that they have other uses than just killing. But guns aren't just used to kill, They're used to save lives. (Statistically speaking far more than they end in places that have studies on them like America)Certainly end a life to save one may not seem nice, but it's a fact of life. Criminals will always get guns. Making them illegal will only hurt those who follow the law, and it will take away the equal footing every person has now, and the protection that they give them.

Here’s the thing though also with guns. With what worked for other countries will definitely not work with America because of a lot of cultural issues and how people are here. Also guns are suppose to kill people like any weapon because that’s its main function if it didn’t work that’d be bad. Sure you can argue 1 negative and then there’d always be a positive to combat it but because of the way America is culturally and is in some places even if you could theoretically take away the guns no one is solving the innate violence problems and things that are happening first with how people are. This why it becomes another pipe dream of a solution because of the nature of humans in America to do or not do on things like this and where we get dismay, because this requires a lot of small changes. Like bolstering maybe police force and any ideas for school security measures to the buildings itself (Not the give teachers guns thing) or maybe ways to help families in certain neighborhoods in terms of building security and what ever else. Though even when something similar was proposed in Articles for something outside remove guns or keep guns there was an outcry by both sides This why the gun debate is uhg, it’s only a debate of daggers and forcing hands with those at top becoming the metaphorical gun in America making things harder in something that’s so nuanced tbh

well well well so we meet again leo got the evidence that proves animals arent sentient yet >w>?!

they save lives? through the threat of death xD they are murder machines guns dont save lives, people save lives >w>/! also, your saying every human is trained like a navy seal? or even implying if guns didnt exist they would be? thats pushing it my dude

Considering I never saw your argument for all mammal life, or your response. Can't respond to something I didn't read. That said. Gun's don't kill people. People kill people. (If you want to use those terms.) Murder machines that kill not even half the number of people, that cars do per year. And I was stating that it's wrong to believe that mass murders wouldn't continue to happen, without guns. They did before them, and will after.

Lamby ppl kill ppl and ppl save ppl That’s kinda it There are countless murder stories with guns and there are stories where ppl with guns who have use them to defend others in civilian situations If the debate turns into a listing of this the debate will die tbh

If you put a weapon on the ground and two people stand on opposite sides of the weapon whilst facing each other... Will the weapon really kill those two people?

people love to say "guns dont kill people, people kill people" and then say "guns save lives" hardy kek ill bow out now because napalm comes back with a nuke of knowledge >w>/ @leo oh come on, no fair iv had to dig through the pages to find your response. fine, ill repost it when the gun stuff dies down "Considering I never saw your argument for all mammal life" i gave you a bunch of scientific articles and you kept moving the goal post you think they dont have sentients, you prove it give more evidence then i did

let me explain to you, why i don't care about statistics/facts or reasoning like this. first off, let's start by saying that killing is wrong because in most countries, the law says so. you're not supposed to kill people. not even robbers, people who break into your house. no matter the circumstance, you should not kill people. literally, it's the worst thing you could do to a person. you. are. taking. someone's. life. almost every person on this planet, deserves a second chance. well ofcourse, hitler probably would've sat his life out in prison, or maybe he would've somehow busted himself out, people like him don't deserve a second chance. but most people, they do deserve a second chance. people don't choose to get born, so let them live their life out. i'm not saying that they shouldn't be punished for robbing your house, but that's not the point of the argument. so i guess there is already a flaw in that argument, but i digress. maybe hitler does deserve a second chance, but i also think he was psychologically incapable as a human, which makes it so that he has to sit in a clinic. i think hitler is out of the question regarding the second chance argument, because he was psychologically ill. if there's thugs coming into your house, then maybe, just maybe you can kill someone out of self-defense, so they stop harming your family. but it's a very unrealistic scenario, unless you're some druglord i don't think many people will come into your house trying to harm your family, just because. now that we've established that killing someone is wrong, let's move on to the next fact/statement made. "You've obviously never met a navy seal. They could kill more than five in twenty seconds, with just a knife." like you said, this wasn't the point of my argument. guns are better killing machines than knives. most thieves "Factually speaking even the places with the most guns(Like the U.S.) aren't even the number one killers in their states." this is an argument which is often used in almost any debate. i'm going to say it only once here: Just because it's a smaller percentage of a bigger problem, doesn't mean it's not significant anymore. i don't know the exact number, but that doesn't really matter here. 1% is still a pretty significant percentage. i don't understand people who don't understand this argument, i hope you understand. "If you really were just on the idea of saving lives... you'd start with fastfood which makes kills one in four people with heart disease." i'm in favor of helping people with eating disorders, but that is not what this is about. the sentence where i said "you have to take everything into account" is disregarded here, because it's an entirely different question. saving lives is part of a gun debate, but health disease and fast food chains are not (although i suppose you could say some people get a heart attack when a gun is pointed at them lol) same with the car argument, it's a fact that focuses on another issue. 1/2