Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

I laughed, that was my starting argument all along.Yes and I've agreed with all along... No offense but you can'thonestly think, I'm arguing whether or not objects have a mind of their own. What, at least, I think we have been arguing, is whether or not one can say objects are dangerous, not whether or not objects are dangerous on their own.  I remain that a thing that can't act on it's own isn't dangerous. if it can't influence without being influenced, i also remain that it's instead the influence itself that is dangerous, no the object that was influenced. Which is where I move back up to my starting argument of objects not being dangerous on their own.The dabate is "are guns dangerous?" And I am arguing there is nothing illogical to say that they are, even if it is dangerous in the sense that they make others dangerous, I haven't heard a logic against that. The debate like I said before isn't "are guns dangerous on their own?" maybe taken out of context but it seems like you say that everything is dangerous, I say nothing is dangerous it's the way things are used that makes them dangerous, this is because the so called dangerous things, which could be anything as we both agree, isn't doing harm on it's own. The person using them to, or the force making them is.Dangerousis subjective meaning that you can argue anything is dangerous, just like you can argue anything is cool or lame. The difference between dangerous and cool/lame is that one can be more critical about what is dangerous logically, where as cool/lame not as much, or at least somethings are more dangerous than others. That comes back to the gray area, but yes I do. that is why i soundly believe in no object, I will count people as an object for the purpose of drawing a line, no object as dangerous. Just the actions these objects take, though not every action is dangerous the dangerous ones used to harm are.Why? Why only people and acts? That's what I've been waiting to hear. You make the argument that nothing on It's own can be dangerous, I make the argument back that things can be dangerous in the sense they make others dangerous. This has where it ended as far as I seen. My logic of how objects are dangerous refutes your logic to how they are not, yet I have yet to see a refutation of my refutation. This has how it is gone to me:"Are guns dangerous?"Me: yes, of course.You: no, because they aren't dangerous on their own, people who use them to cause harm are dangerous.Me: making guns dangerous in the sense they make others dangerousYou: guns aren't dangerous on their own, people who use them to harm others are dangerousMe: making guns dangerous in the sense they make others dangerousEtc etc etc... It just keeps repeating...Is their a miscommunication or what is going on here?I am trying to argue they are dangerous even if it is indirectly dangerous. I think that is a false statement, there's enough martial arts on the planet to qualify people as dangerous based on your principles of what is dangerous, but would you personally say martial arts is dangerous? I wouldn't, I'd say that using it is.Indirectly, yes... Especially if MMA is often used to harm people, if it isn't then I say no because it isn't dangerous enough for me to personally consider it dangerous. EVERYTHING is dangerous, but what we all call personally dangerous often depends on how dangerous any sort of particular thing. EVERYTHING is addictive but some things are MORE addictive than other things soda is addictive but not in the sense meth is. It gets down to a point where eventually I'd be saying people aren't dangerous, the body isn't dangerous the mind isn't dangerous it's the act of having the thought to harm that's dangerous, and sure it's tedious but I like to put specifics on things like that. A gun isn't a dangerous thing since it won't pull it's own trigger, the person isn't the dangerous one. it all comes back to actions that is the only one i can firmly believe can be dangerous because it's the only one actually doing anything.And I'm being specific that things can be indirectly dangerous, or directly dangerous. It seems to you that things are only dangerous or not dangerous, there is no indirect.