Once more, a terrible argument.

How is it terrible because its true is the truth terrible because its life and the truth hurts and kills. Plus guns will never be handled properly because of stupid people. A gun it's self is not dangerous it's a tool all tools have right way to use them and a wrong way. Plus history itself needed guns to advance to we're we as humans are today. Guns are just life there is no reason to fight about it because without guns we would still be killing. I'm pretty sure you would rather watch someone get shot then someone get decapatated.

Read my other replies here. A MK19, M2, intercontinental missile, Atomic bomb, etc all aren't dangerous by themselves. Does that mean that it should be legal to possess said objects just because if you're not directly influencing them , they cause no harm? It truly is a stupid argument because a simple dolt with an M9 could kill twenty people, easily, before being taken out. Give that guy a knife and he might be able to take out two. It isn't about it not acting on its own, it's about ease of violence with it.

>Comparing a God damn nuke to a side arm Are you -blam!-ing kidding me?

It's referring to people saying its a tool and can't do anything by itself , are you illiterate?

That's beside the point. A nuke requires more than just a deranged person with a happy trigger finger in order to use. Not to mention it's not legal to own a nuke, or an intercontinental missile. So I don't know why you're even bringing those up, you're not even allowed to have the supplies to build them.

Plus Atomic bombs are not legal any were, are they still in use mabye but atomic bombs only were used in war a few times.

Irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant in most of your posts you talk about atomic bombs like every war there is a atomic bomb dropped so explan to me how it's irrelevant.

That's not my point at all, you are failing to even show a minimal level of comprehension. I might as well leave now because your reply actually helped my case. My entire point was to point out why an atomic bomb would be illegal when it doesn't do anything without being directly influenced? You just pointed out that they are illegal and should be that way? Tell me, why should they be illegal, they're just a tool.

They should not be legal when did I ever say that. What I am saying that you are not comprehening is there is no reason to fight about guns. They are a part of history and will never go away you are being ingorant and not paying attention to a single thing I have said.

Let's lay this out. You- Guns are tools , therefore they should be legal. You- Guns don't kill people on their own, therefore they should be legal. Me- Nuclear weapons are tools, therefore they should be legal. Me- Nuclear weapons don't kill people on their own, therefore they should be legal. You- No, nuclear weapons are illegal. Me- thanks for proving my point. Have a nice day.

Appeal to extremes, try again. Lrn2debate

Yes I and every one on this site who said this realizes that a gun or a bomb can't do anything by its self, but its a simple way to say its who controlls the gun or bomb is at fault not the gun it's self. Guns are tools like I said (used for hunting and defending people) but sometimes someone uses it like the real reason it was made to shoot the enemy. If its to my understanding that you where in the military like you said so is it the post dramatic stress disorder or did you run around slapping people with a sponge because guns are bad and mommy wouldn't like if I used one. Going on the fact that I'm being a dick right now lets look at this do you really think that the human race would be where we are without guns. No we would not we would probably be a few hundred years from where we are now. Slaves and women rights would still be around. ( I'm not saying this as a fact but we would have gone more advanced slower with guns) you aren't even going to read down this far because you read the first thing assume your wright post something then wait there doing nothing for me to respawn. Have a nice day!

I'm not arguing that guns should be stripped from the military. Nice Strawman , once again. You failed to address what I brought up and went straight into saying it is a tool, this "debate" is pointless as you are either yanking my leg or you are legitimately too foolish to even pick up on simple points. You keep bringing up the military or military action in the past as if it applies to civilians, please don't do that. Also, before I go to sleep I would like to point out that it is highly more likely for a gun to be involved in a deliberate killing or an accidental killing than actually being used for protection. One more thing . Another argument that is constantly brought forth from the NRA or people who follow them is that if you outlawed guns in the US that criminals would get their hands on it. Do you understand how stupid that sounds? People use drugs as an analogy but that is entirely different as they can be hidden so well from customs and if you are semi-intelligent you could produce or grow any drug. Simple dolts are out on the street dealing, that would not happen with weapons. Do you understand how hard it is, even now, to obtain a weapon illegally? Imagine harsh regulations on them, it would be next to impossible for the petty thieves in the US (the ones that are usually involved in shootings) to get their hands on them. Of course gangs are going to be able to get them but they don't just hand them out to other people since they have illegal weapons now but it isn't gang members that commit most of the killings attributed to guns. The most common people to use guns are - People who stole weapons from people who legally possessed them (This would be eliminated), people who stole the weapon from their parents (this would be eliminated), or people who purchased the weapon legally (this would be eliminated). Rarely do you hear of a weapon being involved in a murder that is illegal, and there is a reason for that.