I myself think it's the person holding the gun. Other people think otherwise though. Discuss.

Obviously it's the gun. That's why we send guns to jail for murder. The person holding the gun is just a hapless bystander.

Both. Many people who kill with guns wouldn't have the balls or strength to do it any other way.

.

The bullet.

person. but gun still need to be banned.

Obviously the person The gun can't fire unless triggered

Also, people are responsible for creating guns, so either way, it's the person that kills.

This is a stupid, one sided question. how can it be the gun?

Both tbh, some guns don't need to be legal. What reason do people seriously need a semi automatic rifles?

I think what you mean by the "gun" is the fact that laws concerning them aren't really that strict or anything. So I'd say, the people putting guns in our hands and making it seem like killing somebody with a bullet is "normal" nowadays are the real killers.

Ugh, it's both! Obviously

"It's the loneliness that's the killer"


But in this case I'd say it's the person holding the gun IF there is intention behind it. If the gun accidentally went off then you can't really blame it on anyone (unless you wanna reach for it and blame whoever caused the malfunction, e.g., the worker who assembled the gun improperly, the person who did or approved the shoddy design, the company producing the gun without testing it rigorously enough, etc.)

The person or company that made the gun.

I can't at y'all sarcastic asses and the people being so technical .

This is a legit question, and instead of y'all quickly deciding and even interpreting it as a one-sided question, you should actually think about it. This is meant to be discussed. There is no RIGHT answer.

I mean, if the gun was the killer, it'd make sense. Because, as many are proposing, once guns are banned, the number of deaths in a certain amount of time should DECREASE. It doesn't necessarily mean that the less stupid people there are, the less murders. The gun is used to kill a person, and the gun literally KILLS the person, while the person makes NO CONTACT at all.

And that's taking it literal. I think it's the person holding the gun, but y'all acting like it's a stupid question It's not, and it's actually very deep.

I'm guessing this is a loaded question based on the gun control debate. The conservatives' favorite argument is "it's not the guns who kill people, people kill people... So let them have access to any semi-automatic assault weapons they want, with lenient/non existent background checks" or something to that effect.

Of course it's the person holding the gun.

However is this a thread a thinly veiled defense of full "2nd amendment rights"? If so OP, are you in favor of semi-automatic weapons being given away to people as tools of "self defense"?

Get a hand gun for self defense, not AK-47's.

I don't get why some of you are coming for me this is a question I got from school and I was just curious because I thought the answer was clear but a select number of people don't agree that the person is the killer. I don't even own a gun, and I AM against the right to bear arm. It's stupid.

Oh, I'm sorry then.

It's just a heated topic, obviously. If you ask "who's the killer" when the answer is crystal clear already, then people will be tempted to think you're defending the right to bear any and all arms because they'll think you want them to say "duh, the person is the killer ofc" as a set up for you to respond "HAHIHEHOHU, so weapons should be legal for everyone".

I thought this might be a trick question, because as you said yourself, the answer is so obvious. There are people at your school who say the weapon is to blame? What? It's a lifeless object.

Y'all need to understand that guns make killing a lot easier than using other weapons. Many people wouldn't have it in them to slit someones throat or choke the life out of them. Guns end it with one bullet and a few seconds of time, and you don't even have to touch or look at the person.

Guns may not be entirely to blame, but if they were banned, there would be a lot less killing.