PebHmong Discussion Forum
General Category => Debate Central => Topic started by: bulbasaur on June 29, 2016, 07:16:14 PM
-
It's a catchy argument, but it actually has a lot of problems.
1. Using this argument, we shouldn't ban anything because it's a "people problem" and not the product. Yet, we have bans and restrictions on tons of products. We have government agencies dedicated to the regulation of food, medicine, tobacco, etc.
2. We already ban certain types of guns/weapons because they are "too dangerous." Heck, just the mere act of bomb making is illegal.
3. This argument is really a side argument; it's a classic straw man. Instead of debating on whether certain laws should be passed, this argument wants to focus on the murderers/crimes. Notice that when this argument comes up, they abandon all reference to the actual issue. The two are actually two different issues. Or, think about it like cars. Cars don't kill people, people kill people. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have regulations on drivers nor have traffic laws.
4. People of this argument often like to say, "Any new laws only keeps guns away from law abiding citizens." Well, we all know that isn't true. See Orlando. Plus, using this argument, then we shouldn't have any laws.
More as they come.
-
5. They gonna take my guns! No. We just don't want you to bring your guns to Chipotle. Is that too much to ask? For some people, apparently yes. But for some reason, we can ban smoking, but not guns? Where's the logic?
-
People kill people with guns.
-
6. People load the guns. People pull the triggers.
This is just as absurd as the other arguments presented. That has nothing to do whether or not we should have better gun regulations. The mofo in Orlando should have never gotten his hands on a gun. People sold him the gun.
People loaded the guns. People pulled the triggers. People can stop crazy people from getting their hands on guns. So even using your own damn logic, you're still wrong. If you believe that it is a problem about people and not guns, then let's pass laws making people more responsible for the selling and trading of guns.
-
7. But but, people are dangerous. It's their fault and not the guns.
Then why aren't guns sold in the toy section? Why are guns and bullets sold behind the counter?
Bottom line: Guns are not toys. Guns can be dangerous.
It only makes sense to have regulations on things that can be dangerous. A car can be dangerous, so we have regulations on that. A rig can be more dangerous, so there are more regulations to drive that. A plane can be even more dangerous, so we have more regulations on that. The same thing with guns and anything that can be used as a weapon. The more danger it can possibly present, then the more regulations. It makes sense. You don't say, "I can drive a Honda, so I should be able to drive an airplane." That's just crazy talk, and that is the talk that some people are trying to argue.
-
Yeah. Like remove speed limit on the roads. Remove all the traffic light and stop signs. Remove ban on drunk driving. And see if car will kill more people.
-
8. But but, if everyone had a gun, they would be safer. Then, when they get approached by someone with a gun, they can fight back.
This is just crazy talk. Does it even need to be refuted?
-
8. But but, if everyone had a gun, they would be safer. Then, when they get approached by someone with a gun, they can fight back.
This is just crazy talk. Does it even need to be refuted?
If only everyone owns a big SUV and drive faster we won't have any car accident. We don't need laws. We need bigger SUV and faster cars so we can avoid accidents.
-
No it is the ammunition that kills. You can buy as many guns as you like but im the one selling you the bullet. Who owns you now? Here goes 2 bullets for your 50 guns. Have fun and don't go waste it all in one sitting now. :2funny:
-
1. people create weapons while guns get used by people to kill people
2. people won't deny to accept that guns kill people because it's immoral to do yet they still keep as protection (referring to police force)
-
9. But but, if guns kill, then all those convicts who used guns would go free...
Really? Is this what you really want to argue? Not only are you obsessed with semantics, you are confused by it. The worst part, it doesn't even help in resolving on the gun issue.
-
Reality: people make guns to use to kill other people.
people can kill without guns, but it's alot harder to do and riskier.
-
what is the point of this thread?
some people are stupid?
-
What's your point? :2funny:
what is the point of this thread?
-
*yawns*
"Break it down?" Refer back to #1, #2, and #3.
i'm going to break it down...Death of a person by gun. The actual death of a person wounded by a bullet/ammunition shot from a gun which it's trigger was pulled by another person, who had the intent caused by a motivation, is actually the excessive bleeding (the body's inability to circulate the blood). so gun's don't kill people, nor does people kill people...it's the motivation that killed a person. :idiot2: :2funny:
-
You're wrong.
;D...tell me I'm wrong and I'll concede.
-
Waiting for that concession.... :2funny:
-
Good to know that you acknowledge that you are wrong. :2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
happy to concede...ther e's no point to this thread. O0 ;D
-
For those who think I am just being mean to ZajDabNeeg, let's spread some education. Let's examine the flaw in his logic on the topic AND how he presented his argument.
1. His presentation was weak. Once he wrote, "tell me I'm wrong and I'll concede," that was the demise of his argument. He left himself with only two options, and both options would not lead to a favorable conclusion for him. Of course, I am going to tell him he is wrong, so he can either...
A. Concede as he claimed, but by doing so he admits he was wrong all along.
B. Not concede and accuse me of arguing semantics. He could try to argue that is not what he "really meant" and it doesn't actually relate to the "real issue." If he chose this option, he would leave his original argument to fail because his original argument is nothing but semantics, "Guns don't kill, people do." Thus, if I am wrong for arguing semantics, then he is also wrong for arguing semantics in his original claim.
2. Insulting me, the topic, the thread, etc. does not help his argument at all. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. If anything, he contradicts himself. He wrote, "there's no point to this thread." But, he himself made a point in the thread. That means his original argument was pointless.
His debate skills need work, but let's be nice and actually look at his argument and see why it is wrong.
3. He wrote, "Death of a person by gun. The actual death of a person wounded by a bullet/ammunition shot from a gun which it's trigger was pulled by another person, who had the intent caused by a motivation, is actually the excessive bleeding (the body's inability to circulate the blood). so gun's don't kill people, nor does people kill people...it's the motivation that killed a person."
That's a handful, but it is full of holes.
A. Some deaths by guns are accidental, and there was no motivation. Now, the entire argument is moot.
B. As stated before, the entire argument is an argument on semantics. It actually has no bearing on how to create better gun laws. We can do this for almost anything. Let's look at flight safety...
Issue: Should there be stricter regulations on airplane checks before flights?
Person 1: Yes. X amount of airplanes have crashed in the past 10 years.
Person 2: No. Airplanes don't crash. People crash.
Person 1: Ok, and people use airplanes, so let's make sure people don't die from an airplane.
Person 2: AIRPLANE DO NOT KILL! PEOPLE DO!
Do you see how absurd this line of logic is?
-
hahhahahaha. Refer back to...
2. Insulting me, the topic, the thread, etc. does not help his argument at all. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. If anything, he contradicts himself.
The most pathetic part of all this is that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of. Only a "kid" would resort to attacking the person instead of the argument. Only a "kid" sees his/her own point. Unlike you, I broke down what you wrote; you just rather talk about me. Which one of us is the "deaf kid?"
And the worst part, YOU ALREADY CONCEDED. You admitted you are wrong. Why you mad? hahahahahaha. :2funny:
no disrespect nor am I insulting you but why not concede when it's like talking to a kid? ;), better yet, a deaf person who only sees his point. ;D
-
You have to be nuts to want to carry a rifle into a restaurant. You're not even coming back from a hunting trip. You're the kind of person we need gun laws for....because you shouldn't have a gun!
-
The problem with some people is that even after they have been proven wrong, their ego won't let them accept it. It is somehow the other person's fault. I am apparently a "deaf kid" because all his claims got refuted?
A normal person would see that when their line of thinking is wrong, they change their mind. If you are driving down the wrong road, you would obviously turn around when you realize it. For some people, they don't; they just keep driving. Worse, they blame everything else. It's not my fault your argument has holes and contradicts itself.
-
It is obvious your feelings are hurt. So, feel free to insult me. Insults don't bother me. They only show that you know you are wrong. You just can't admit it. :2funny:
sorry to hurt your feelings... ;) O0
-
And we're back to this again, "But but, guns don't kill people. People kill people."
Well, guess what? You're still an idiot because you still don't have a point. Laws are for people, not guns. Required gun safety course are for people, not guns. Background checks are for people, not guns. You seem to think we are blaming guns, but no. We are blaming people. You are too stupid to know the difference. Just because I want tougher regulations on traffic and cars, that doesn't mean I am anti-cars; it means I am anti-bad-drivers.
-
as a gun owner I agree with more laws on guns.
-
Refer to #1, #2, and #3.
Weapons don't move on its own now does it? Unless it does, I'd have to agree that people kill people.
-
Think of it this way. Can anyone just open up a medical clinic? Pharmacy drugs don't kill people, people kill people. The obvious answer is no. We can't have untrained and unlicensed people giving out drugs to people. We can't have any and all drugs just out for anyone. That's dangerous. Will some crazy people break the law anyways? Probably. However, we will at least have a system to control some of it.
There are tons of products that are regulated. There is reason why you can't buy bombs at Walmart. Sure, some people just want to set off bombs in an abandoned field just for recreation. But, we know that the number of deaths by bombs will also go up. Bombs don't kill people. People kill people.