Guns don't kill people, people kill people

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 312
Topic's author
#91
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,175
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
People have historically demonstrated that knives, bombs, cars and poisons can kill plenty of people even if you somehow succeed in removing all the illegal guns.
So you're going with the old "if we can't completely solve the problem then we shouldn't even bother" argument.

Please show me one other instance where we rely on this logic in real life. If a measure to make cars safer won't prevent 100% of car accidents do we throw up our hands and say it's pointless?
#92
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Mharman
A nail gun. He was a carpenter, after all.
It was a serious question. b9 put it best above. How many child murders before you consider gun control?

Anyway, if you want a simple answer, we are the first world country with the worst gang problem.
Says who? You're about equal with other developed nations on the crime index. 
Topic's author
#93
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,175
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
No one is claiming the gun should be held accountable.
Aren't you?
Uh, no.

If a toy is shown to be involved in excessive choking incidents, we recall the toy. No one would argue this is "holding the toy accountable".

The idea being pushed by this talking point is that the presence of guns is irrelevant, if someone ends up dead only the people involved should be factored into the equation.
Yes, that's what's called accountability. Because the use of firearms in a violent altercation DOES NOT HAPPEN without the people involved. Once again, guns are inanimate objects. 
Your response to my point proves the very point I was making.

You're the one talking about accountability, I'm talking about recognizing the root causes of a problem to inform how we go about solving it.

As I already explained, no gun safety advocate pretends that gun deaths occur without a person somehow involved. But gun advocates love to pretend the gun is not part of the equation.

Let's try a simpler version; if it were legal for me to own a nuclear weapon and I purchased one, then used it to destroy my entire city, would you argue that the millions of deaths which resulted were merely "a person killing people" or would you recognize that the presence of a nuclear weapon was the problem?

Case in point: if by some chance I were involved in a car accident that resulted in the death of another, do you factor my car into the equation?
Yes, that's why we require people to get drivers licenses before they can legally drive - because we recognize that the danger posed by having the wrong person behind the wheel of a car is far greater than the person by themself.

The car is the difference there.

This is pure sophistry. You purposefully created a hypothetical where a child dies as a result of being shot.
You act as if the scenario I created is entirely made up with no connection to reality. It's not. Children do end up getting their hands on guns and accidentally killing others.

That aside, the purpose of any hypothetical is not to paint a picture of the world, it's to test one's logic. If the logic of "guns don't kill people" held up then there is nothing to pin as "sophistry". This is really simple; in this scenario a child is dead whereas without a gun in the picture today child would be alive. The conclusion is simple; guns do kill people.

You can make whatever argument you want to pretend that's not actuate, but you would have to abandon the same basic logic you would apply to any other scenario.
#94
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
No one really knows because no one ever bothers to even try this, which is what makes it so strange that you keep coming back to this hypothetical which has no tie to reality.
It actually does though. If your goal is to kill as many people as humanly possible you would really go with a knife into a school instead of something that would get you a higher kill count such as mass poisonings?  Just think about which strategy you would adopt if that is your goal and guns aren't available.

There US leads all developed nations on earth when it comes to gun deaths per Capita. Is it your position that gun ownership rates has little to do with this?

Obviously you need a gun to do that, but it isn't the root cause of why the violence was initiated to start with. I advocate we prevent violence altogether if we can without restricting freedom.

What is with this stupid talking point you've latched onto lately? Since when does disagreeing with you on guns equate to hating Americans and wanting them to die?

Because I am objectively correct that gun bans won't work and that we can address the root causes if we focus on them instead of disarming people from the government 
#95
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,639
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
It actually does though. If your goal is to kill as many people as humanly possible you would really go with a knife into a school instead of something that would get you a higher kill count such as mass poisonings?  Just think about which strategy you would adopt if that is your goal and guns aren't available.

There is no political party, right or left, that is serious about reducing mass shootings. If you ban all the fringe rifles that crazy people use, they aren't going to use "a knife" or "poison"
They will use the most popular weapon of all time in America, the handgun.

Criminals, who can have access to literally any weapon in the world prefer...wait for it...the Glock.

Have you heard any party calling to ban handguns? None, zip, nada. 

What this means is that even if politicians do for once what they say they will do, America will still have mass shootings....with handguns.

You can stop hyperventilating now over the false concern politicians have for gun violence.
#96
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,624
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
This might be a good compromise.
A compromise?  With gun people?

Gun people don't compromise, they cry like little bitches if you even mention semi-automatic weapons with large magazines, and you think they would compromise on smart guns.  Cool technology, but get real.
#97
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 4,873
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@badger
 How many child murders before you consider gun control?
That assumes gun control is the answer. It's also an emotional argument when you consider how rare those events actually are. They are horrible, but to look at those events and say we need such sweeping policy changes is absurd. If you want a solution to these problems, we should examine the data rather than having the fearful response of "see gun, ban gun."

Says who? You're about equal with other developed nations on the crime index.
Are you talking about overall crime or gang violence here?
#98
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 4,873
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Smart guns as a technology could one day dominate the market. I have no problem with this either, as a 2A advocate.

You can say that we're a bunch of crybabies who never compromise, but all I see is non-stop crying from the left about the fact that we have them, and repeated pushes from the left to increase gun control measures the second we give them any compromise. If we're going to compromise, we need the left to honor the compromises and stop pushing for more.

My point here is, that at the end of the day, you and I could argue endlessly about who's crying and who's unwilling to compromise. None of it will be productive.
#99
BeardedToothFairy
BeardedToothFairy's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2
0
0
3
BeardedToothFairy's avatar
BeardedToothFairy
0
0
3
From an anti-idealist perspective, the child who was shot to death was killed by the gun. The gun is a physical object that has a certain level of power and potential danger attached to it. It is the responsibility of adults to ensure that guns are kept out of the hands of children, as they lack the knowledge and experience to understand the potential consequences of their actions. While it is true that the child who found the gun made the decision to play with it, it was ultimately the presence of the gun that led to the tragic outcome. It is important to acknowledge the role of human agency in this situation, but it is equally important to recognize the inherent dangers of certain objects and take steps to minimize the risks associated with them.

#100
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,624
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Mharman
Smart guns as a technology could one day dominate the market. I have no problem with this either, as a 2A advocate.

You can say that we're a bunch of crybabies who never compromise, but all I see is non-stop crying from the left about the fact that we have them, and repeated pushes from the left to increase gun control measures the second we give them any compromise.
What second would that be, specifically, what compromise are you referring to?  

If we're going to compromise, we need the left to honor the compromises and stop pushing for more.

My point here is, that at the end of the day, you and I could argue endlessly about who's crying and who's unwilling to compromise. None of it will be productive.
The question nobody has even tried to answer is this, why today does anyone need a semiautomatic weapon with a large capacity, the only answers have been buzzwords like "freedom", or the American Revolution, but realitistically, what are you preparing for when you buy one or more ar15s?

The uncompromising attitude is exemplified by the whole situation where the suggestion that maybe you don't need them while at the same time not being able to answer the question as to why you need them in the first place turns you into a crying little bitch. If you don't know why you need one,  then why cry like a little bitch at the suggestion that maybe you don't need them? It is a completely irrational gun fetish, and we don't want irrational people owning weapons of mass murder.

I think it makes you feel tough, but I just don't understand how you confuse being a crying little bitch with being tough?  We are talking about a weapon of war, only good for one thing, mass murder, it's pretty clear that anyone who thinks they may need to kill a lot of people in a short period of time should not be allowed to get one. It's clear that if you don't know why you need to, then you just want to, and that is the problem, people who just want to kill a lot of people for no reason.  We read about unhinged shooters killing a lot of people with these weapons almost daily, and on the other side of this is the fact that I don't think there is a single example of a situation where somebody actually needed one to protect themselves or to maintain their freedom.  If you know of one, please direct me to that news story.

The last person that should be able to own a semiautomatic weapon with a large clip is a crying little bitch who can't say why they need the ability to kill a lot of people in a short period of time, they just want to.  


#101
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,624
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
The problem is it is a strawman for pro gun arguments. Nobody seriously makes it. 
Then why are we reading it again and again in these gun threads?  

In the above scenario the kids parents and or guardians are at fault for not locking up the gun, and usually when social services find guns in a house irresponsibly handled like this, they remove the child until the home is made safe. 
Yeah, the mantra of responsible gun ownership. that's BS and you know it.  

I am just glad to know that when I am 90 years old, I don't have to be completely defenseless like the elderly in some other countries.
The statistics are clear, if you own a gun for "protection" it is something like 40 times more likely that the gun will mistakenly kill a friend or loved one than it will ever be used to protect a friend or loved one, and everyone who buys one for protection blathers on about "responsible" gun ownership.

The fact is, owning a gun does not make you and your family safer, it puts you and your family in much greater danger.
#102
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
Yeah, the mantra of responsible gun ownership. that's BS and you know it.  
Why is it BS to expect gun owners to be responsible?

The fact is, owning a gun does not make you and your family safer, it puts you and your family in much greater danger.
Okay good luck living in bear country with a 30 minute police response time without one. 
#103
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/
There are an estimated 70,000 defensive gun uses a year. Please provide statistics for accidental gun deaths. 
#104
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
70000 is the low estimate by the way. The higher estimates are 1 to 2 million defensive gun uses. A lot of homicides are prevented in those gun uses as well as prevents of worse victimization had the defensive gun uses been taken away as an option. Obviously freedom to defend yourself is more important than the statistics but the statistics are not on the side of the population that wants to do what Hitler did and disarm the population. 
#105
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,357
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
So you're going with the old "if we can't completely solve the problem then we shouldn't even bother" argument.
This is you assuming. Banning guns doesnt actually help with anything.

How about change your society so it prays to God and rejects LGBT, the movement that castrates kids while convincing them that Christianity is their enemy.

How about fixing the largest in history rates of deppression in USA?

How about not giving kids pills when they misbehave?

How about that? No? Nice.
#106
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,624
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
There are an estimated 70,000 defensive gun uses a year. Please provide statistics for accidental gun deaths. 
I'm talking Semiautomatic weapons with large magazines, got an example where one was needed to defend, sure, you can use one on a thief, but you don't need one for a theif.   

In terms of stats for how often they are used to defend, here are a few:

#107
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
In terms of stats for how often they are used to defend, here are a few:
I already gave the stats for how often they are used to defend and linked an article with several citations. Estimates are at the Lower end 70k and at the higher end 2 million. 
#108
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
You have refused to actually state how many accidental gun deaths occur a year compared to the 70k lives saved
#109
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
549 people in a year die from unintentional firearm deaths. Less than 1% of fire arm deaths compared to the potential 70k people a year who would be severely victimized or murdered without a gun. 
#110
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/accidental-shootings-cdc-data-children/
#111
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,639
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
How about this compromise, leftists clean up all the crazy people and homeless people, then we can ban guns, starting with cops and bodyguards.

If that's not worth it to eliminate the violence porn on main stream news, then nobody is really serious about actual gun control.
#112
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
The funny thing is the right had all those people cleaned up with a little invention called mental institutions but the left thought they were unconstitutional and now they suffer on the street 
Topic's author
#113
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,175
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Just think about which strategy you would adopt if that is your goal and guns aren't available.
No thanks, I'm not a mass murderer. Show me one that ever decided to use poison as their weapon.

Obviously you need a gun to do that, but it isn't the root cause of why the violence was initiated to start with.
No one is arguing that getting rid of guns gets rid of violence, it just makes violence less deadly, which is what matters.

Would you seriously argue that a product designed to kill someone is less effective at killing someone than an product designed for cooking?

Because I am objectively correct that gun bans won't work
Won't work at what? Stopping 100% of all deaths which would have resulted from a gun?
Topic's author
#114
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,175
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Banning guns doesnt actually help with anything.

How about change your society
Gee, why didn't we think of that?
#115
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
No thanks, I'm not a mass murderer
How would that stop you from using logic? Just use logic and then extrapolate from that about the decision making of others. It is a way to gain a sort of empathy.

Would you seriously argue that a product designed to kill someone is less effective at killing someone than an product designed for cooking?
Ban guns and then what? Women jogging just have to accept being raped because they don't have a gun as an equalizer? Women are weak. I am not kidding about that. Even women that are professional athletes are usually overpowered by a 6ft tall out of shape 50 year old man. I don't want my wife to have a complete inability to fight back ever. I don't want my mother or sister to be helpless either.

Guns are more effective at killing their potential rapists, which is the point. 

Won't work at what? Stopping 100% of all deaths which would have resulted from a gun?

It won't work in making society safer overall. Besides the fact that getting a full gun ban is not even politically feasible not is it practical as zip guns are actually a real life thing as are 3 d printers and counterfeit guns. 
Topic's author
#116
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,175
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Obviously the child who was shot to death was killed by the child.
But does this mean the child is responsible for that action. 
No, it means we deal with the very simple fact that the gun is what enabled this tragedy to follow.

Every gun advocate here is trying to take something really simple and overcomplicate it. If a toy was found to be dangerous to children because they kept choking on it, we would remove the toy from our stores.

Recognizing that a product is dangerous and that it's presence will result in harm is a common sense reaction in any other case, but suddenly when it comes to guns the product has nothing to do with the situation and it's entirely 100% about the irresponsibility of whoever we can manage to coherently point the finger to. It's mental gymnastics at its finest.
Topic's author
#117
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,175
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You have refused to actually state how many accidental gun deaths occur a year compared to the 70k lives saved
Why would you compare accidental deaths to lives saved? That makes no sense. If you were comparing lives saved to anything it would be lives lost. And when you do that calculation be sure to remove any life "saved" which was only saved because the perpetrator themself had a gun.

Not sure if this point was in reply to my OP, but if so the only reason I used that example was to point out a concept, not to paint a picture of reality.
#118
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,639
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Except that small Chinese plastic toys don't also save lives. You left that out. Common sense here.

because the perpetrator themself had a gun.
Most Rapists don't use nor need a gun.

#119
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
If a toy is shown to be involved in excessive choking incidents, we recall the toy. No one would argue this is "holding the toy accountable".
Yes, actually, that would be holding the toy accountable since the consequence is "recalling the toy" and not charging the manufacturers with criminal negligence.

As I already explained, no gun safety advocate pretends that gun deaths occur without a person somehow involved. But gun advocates love to pretend the gun is not part of the equation.
Gun advocates don't "pretend" that the gun does not factor into the equation; gun advocates acknowledge that a person's decision GROSSLY SUPERSEDES ANY FACTORS WHICH DON'T MATTER UNLESS THE PERSON'S INVOLVED.

Let's try a simpler version; if it were legal for me to own a nuclear weapon and I purchased one, then used it to destroy my entire city, would you argue that the millions of deaths which resulted were merely "a person killing people" or would you recognize that the presence of a nuclear weapon was the problem?
Did the bomb arm itself? Did it detonate on its own?

Yes, that's why we require people to get drivers licenses before they can legally drive
And how many accidents involve LICENSED drivers?

because we recognize that the danger posed by having the wrong person behind the wheel of a car is far greater than the person by themself.
Please explain how the process of acquiring a Driver's License excludes "the wrong person."

You act as if the scenario I created is entirely made up with no connection to reality. It's not. Children do end up getting their hands on guns and accidentally killing others.

That aside, the purpose of any hypothetical is not to paint a picture of the world, it's to test one's logic. If the logic of "guns don't kill people" held up then there is nothing to pin as "sophistry".
The sophistry stems from your attempt at conflating the involvement of an inanimate object with that object's accountability. We are not disputing whether the use of firearms was involved in a scenario purposefully created to highlight firearm use (e.g. getting shot.)

This is really simple; in this scenario a child is dead whereas without a gun in the picture today child would be alive.
Because, once again, you created a scenario where the child dies as a result of being shot. If the scenario consisted of that child dying as a result of being stabbed, or choked, then we'd acknowledge the knife use and the use of one's hands as painfully obvious.

The conclusion is simple; guns do kill people.
I possess and own firearms. They've never been involved in the accidental or intentional death of anyone. Since they haven't killed anyone, are they not guns, as a result? Your conclusion is flawed.

You can make whatever argument you want to pretend that's not actuate, but you would have to abandon the same basic logic you would apply to any other scenario.
Feel free to test the basic logic of arguments. I can assure you that they are consistent.
#120
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Women jogging just have to accept being raped because they don't have a gun as an equalizer? 
Where the fuck do you see multiple women out for their morning jog with a GUN on them?

These arguments are now beyond senseless and moving into the bizarre, and every time this happens they become more ludicrous. Just be honest: the easiest solution to having a small dick and living in fear of everyone around you finding out is more important than someone else's dead loved ones. At least then all the cards are on the table.