Politics: T/F? Guns don't kill people, people kill people?

people kill animals and eat them for survival, to kill other humans they must have a quench thirst of anger that they may drink

Both. There are two sides to the answer 

Both. But just because it is both doesn’t mean we don’t need the thing that stops people from getting the murder instrument.

Trick question. Both kill people. It takes a person to pull the trigger, but it takes a gun to fire the bullet. The wrong weapon in the hands of the wrong person can do great damage to society. While knives and swords can also kill, attackers armed with this are much more limited in the damage they can do. This is why restrictions are needed as to who can own firearms as well as the types of firearms that can be purchased. We also need greater support for mental health services as well as surveillance for those at risk.

True. We need to address mental illness and how it influences shootings. 

That is correct.  However, it doesn’t mean automatic weapons should be on the street and it also doesn’t mean that anyone who’s anyone should be allowed to have a gun.

I'm afraid that that question may qualify as a double barreled question. As stated it may not be possible to give a straight T/F response, which might have the unintended consequence of it becoming schrodinger's gun-control question. So, given the structure of the question we can assume that the answer is both true and false simultaneously.

It would be a rare individual that would opt to kill another human being with something other than a gun if a gun were readily available. I mean some highly-motivated individual might do so to increase the fear in their victim, or a professional killer might opt for a silent option, but by and large most of the rest of humanity would choose the stopping power of a gun. Let's examine what a gun does that most other weapons don't. All this talk of knives and baseball bats has one major drawback; you'd have to get up close and personal, like, to stab someone, you'd have to get all up in their personal space, putting yourself at considerable risk. (splash zone included, AIDS anyone?) I mean, what if the first stab hits a rib and the dude knows how to break a neck one handed? Or has a knife of his own? Or knows jujitsu? What a gun does is it allows one to kill REMOTELY. It's faster than poison, and less bulky than a crossbow, and you might be able to kill someone with an IED, but you have to be sure that they were going that way, etc. So, the main things a gun gives a person above and beyond heavy rocks/bricks, logs, a bow&arrow, even swords, is the ability to distance danger from ones person, do it in a systematic, regularized way with standardized parts, and to be relatively sure of its stopping power. The absence of guns is no guarantee peace either. Some of the worst most systematic genocides occurring around the planet today are being carried out by gangs of thugs that hack people apart with machetes. Sure, a lot of that is done to induce extra fear, but how do you think they got so good with a machete that it became their weapon of choice?

A gun lobby talking point like this is neither true nor false & surely isn't a true or false question.

I believe that to be true.

i think thats true