The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points

Gun Control at Home

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,836 times Debate No: 22509
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Many others hold the possession of guns in their households. Most of the reasons so they can protect themselves from harm or that they have a hobby of collecting different kinds. I find gun possession very harmful, whether they are trained to have one or not. There is nothing safe about a gun, all it those it kill lives good or bad.
The only exception of gun possession is for trained officers, detectives, and soldiers in combat. They all use guns for appropriate reasons., unlike many who have guns for their own amusement or the thought of being more safe. About 42% of citizens in the United States have guns in their households. This percentage has increased over time, and its becoming more dangerous.
Gun possession at home is more likely dangerous if there are children in the house. A child's mind is very curious, and if they come across a gun, they will most likely want to hold it and experiment with it. Not only are children in danger, but young teens as well. A student in my old high school was going through a depression. One day he went through his parents bedroom, found the gun, and shot himself to death.
Gun should not be in households. It would be most likely to have accidental deaths and dangerous consequences. I don't see how having a gun at home can make a house feel safe.


As the character limit is 3000, I will get right to it.

My opponent claims that the only people who are justified in holding guns are police and soldiers. So if she concedes to any other reason, it should be counted as a full concession, which merits a loss.

I claim that people who hunt for food have sufficient reason to own guns, provided they are safety conscious when using and storing them. Hunters use guns, such as rifles and shotguns, to hunt game for food and other supplies that can be scavenged from the carcass. Because they provide food not only for themselves, but often for others, such as stores and other families who may be in need, they have instrumental reason to have guns.

Secondly, I claim that proffessional shooters who compete in tournaments for a living have reason to own a gun. They need to practice at their trade, which in this case happens to be shooting, in order to be able to make a living for themselves and their families. Because a firearm is instrumentally necessary for professional shooters, they are justified in owning them, again assuming they are safety conscious in using and storing them.

To refute my opponent's arguments, she says that all guns do is kill. This isn't true. Guns protect people from intruders or agressors, can provide food for families, as well as provide a living for those who choose to shoot professionally.

My opponent provides one example of where someone got access to a gun and killed himself, but I'd like to point out that, as cruel as this will sound, it is only one occurance. Most families who own firearms practice good safety concerns when storing them (i.e. keep them in a locked, fireproof cabinet, keep the ammo in a seperate area from the actual firearm, never leave it loaded when not in use, etc.) While there will be some who do not follow this, there are also plenty of people who do, which negates this argument.

My opponent says that guns don't make people feel safe, but this is also false. Lets look at areas that are riddled with crime, and you are a lone female living by yourself. The chances of a break-in would be high, even if you were home, and you would need something to protect yourself. If you didn't have anything to protect yourself with, you'd be more afraid than if you had a gun to protect yourself with. Thus, guns do make people feel safe.

The resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 1


In my last argument, I stated that only officers and soldiers should be the only ones capable of using guns. What I meant by this, however, is that they are trained to protect us. Hunters, who are also trained to use guns, only use the weapon to kill in order for their own survival. IT does give them the right to own one, but besides hunters, many citizens still have guns in their homes. They may have the proper training to own one,but do they really know when they need it?
And there are so many people with guns with no training and just have these guns for amusement. If you are no authorized to use a gun, they should not have one.

The most case of someone owning a gun is for their own safety. Many believe that if someone invaded their home or attacked them, they can just grab the gun and kill that person. The actions of protection should be left in someone who's job it is to do so. What if that person who owns a gun attacks one of their family members by accident? Many believe that gun control can make them feel safe, but it just makes more violence and chaos. Guns do kill, whether it is for the good or the bad reasons. It does not fall in the category of "safe". It just makes others feel that they have the most uplifted power, and not in a good way. We do not need guns in households to feel "safe".


"What I meant by this, however, is that they are trained to protect us."

False, that isn't even close to what you said. What you said, verbatum, was "The only exception of gun possession is for trained officers, detectives, and soldiers in combat. They all use guns for appropriate reasons." As the word ONLY indicates that only the professions she listed ought to be allowed to own guns, the fact she concedes that farmers should own guns is a concession of the pro's argument, and thus can be the first place to vote pro.

Moreover, she entirely drops my argument about professional shooters, who are civilians who shoot firearms for a living. This is a necessity for them to be able to provide not only for themselves, but for their families as well. These are peoples who need to be able to own guns, which is the second reason to vote pro.

"The action of protection should be left in someone who's job it is to do so."

I agree. In terms of protection of the homestead, this role would fall upon the alpha male or female of the house? According to you, they don't deserve weapons to protect themselves based off the sole fact that they're civilians and guns kill people. As we both agree, people need to be able to protect themselves, but not giving guns to everyone isn't going to solve for this. Allowing people to own guns is exactly what we need to do.

"Guns do kill..."

False, for obvious reasons. If we just set a gun down on a pedistal and take a step back, it isn't going to fire and kill someone. Humans manipulating guns are what kill people, not the people themselves. Moreover, I would also posit that guns don't kill people for a different reason: bullets kill people, not guns. When you fire a gun, the gun isn't what flies out and kills your target, the bullet is what kills the target. So this statement is false.

My opponent also concedes the argument about how guns are instrumental to the protection of the homestead for most individuals. Since this is vital for the protection of families everywhere, this is another reason to affirm.

So in the end, the debate breaks down in a few easy ways:
1. Because my opponent says that ONLY police and soldiers can use firearms, anything else is outside of my opponent's advocacy. If I can prove one thing outside of my opponent's advocacy should be true, then you affirm.
2. She concedes farmers should own firearms. Since this is outside of the negative advocacy, you end up affirming right here.
3. She concedes my example of professional shooters needing firearms to provide for their families. Because of this, you can affirm here as well.
4. She concedes that guns are needed to protect, so long as the person using the gun has the responsibility of protecting those under them. This can still be found in families, so you can affirm here as well.

With three reasons to affirm and no reasons to negate, the vote is an obvious pro vote.
Debate Round No. 2


Yes, many of those who are armed have particular reasons into owning a gun have may be authorized to have one. When I explained in an earlier argument that only police, detectives, and soldiers can have the access to a gun, I meant that they are the ones that use it often in their field. Hunters, farmers ,etc may do so as well, however they are not using them the way the other category should. Police officers use guns to attack any one who is doing harm to others, same story with detectives and soldiers. They use guns as a object of protection. Farmers or hunters may use guns for the same reasons, but this is what I believe in.

My opponent has explained that guns do not only kill, but protect. This is very true, but the point of the matter is, is that guns overall do kill. There is not such thing as a gun that doesn't harm, except maybe a water gun for example, but it is not considered as a weapon. Guns are dangerous, in anyone's hands that does not know how to use one especially. Like I said in a previous argument, only the ones who are trained can own a gun. But keeping one at home can be highly dangerous for young family members or visitors.

A child is strongly likable to find a gun and experiment. There are many accidents that occur in homes that own guns, and those actions could have been highly avoided. Children do not understand the dangers of a gun at a very young age, they may think to themselves that the gun is a "toy" and would try to imitate with it for fun. They will most likely shoot a sibling or a parent, and most all, they may harm themselves.

If that person invites others over, their acquaintances may grab a hold on to that gun if it is not secured correctly. They may harm someone in the house, and themselves as well. Guns that are not secure can be easily be placed in the wrong hands, and yes others that own guns do keep them is safe hiding, but there are many who don't secure them enough, and a accident is bound to happen.

Having a gun in your home may make you feel safe. Those who live in dangerous places, who live by themselves, and /or have the right to have one is the only exception in my mind to have guns at home. Besides these reasons, I still believe that having a gun at home is dangerous. The rate of gun accidents involving children will go down, and people do not need guns in their households to feel safe.


This debate breaks down really easily.
The only source of offense, her restriction on who can own a gun, has been changed every round of the debate (before it was for appropriate reasons, then it was for protection, now it's how often it's used). Furthermore, she hasn't actually refuted any of my points, only reasserted her without adressing any of my points or refutations. So at this point, it's pretty much a deduction in conduct at the least, a loss at the most. But regardless, now to adress her (old) arguments (again).

"I mean that they are the ones that use it often in their field."

Hunters also use guns often to hunt for game. So they still meet your criteria of who can own a gun. Since your catagory of police or soldiers don't include hunters and farmers, then this is an auto-pro win.

Moreover, you completely drop my point about professional shooters, again. They also meet this criteria of using their gun often, and thus is another auto-pro vote.

"My opponent has explained that guns do not only kill, but protect. This is very true, but the point of the matter is, is that guns overall do kill."

Again, guns don't harm, people or bullets do. She never responded to this point. But overall, guns protect more than they kill. For example, if I shoot an intruder and kill him as he tries to enter my home illegally, I kill one person, but protect three or four, as I protected myself and my family. So guns protect more than they kill.
But even if it's just a one for one trade-off, the life protected would be more valuable than the life lost, as an innocent life is will always be of higher worth than the life of a criminal. While the criminal's life still has inherent value, the value of an innocent person's life is much higher, and would deserve protection.

"A child is strongly likable to find a gun and experiment."

Not if the gun owner is responsible and follows the safety guidelines explained a few rounds ago. Already responded to this argument.

"Those who live in dangerous places, who live by themselves, and/or have the right to have one is the only exception..."

Let's look at your police example. A police officer generally does not live alone, do not generally live in dangerous areas, and do not have the right to possess one more than a general citizen when off duty. So your own example of people who are justified to have one does not meet these new criteria. Your own arguments are contradictory.

So the round ends very easily from here:

1. Hunters and farmers meet outside of her proposed criteria. Auto-affirm here.
2. Professional shooters meet outside of her proposed criteria. Auto-affirm here.
3. Her new argument contradicts her old argument. Auto-affirm here.
4. She still hasn't refuted any of my arguments. Auto-affirm here.

Four reasons to affirm, no reasons to negate. I think this about solves it.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent keeps stating that guns do not arm others. But the bullets IN the gun do? Of course bullets harm others that it the only way guns are affective! If I threw a gun at someone in particular, without any bullets in them, of course it would not kill them. The action of the gun and what it is capable of doing can harm or kill someone. IT is unheard of that deadly guns can not harm or kill.

Let me just make this clear, do not expect police officers and soldiers to keep guns around the house 24/7, and I hope that they too don't keep guns around the house, because, most of them do have families. I believe they use guns to protect us from the dangers of society, but even they should leave guns away from homes. Professional hunters, however, may use their ability to protect us as well, but it it still a scary thought to keep a gone at home I'm sure many of them have families as well.

If families do carry guns in the house, it is their responsibility to make sure the guns are in safe keeping. If they are not, it is most likely that a child would find it. Obviously if the gun is safe in harms way, a child will not be near it. But what if it wasn't? This goes for criminals as well. They make break into someone's home (if not secured correctly) and can make those living in the house victims, instead of the other way around.

Those who use guns in their fields should not keep them at home if there are loved ones in the house. If they are willing enough, they should keep their guns somewhere else rather than in the house .I really do believe that without guns in the house ,it would most likely be less accidents and deaths. Anyone can be trained into working with a gun, but that doesn't mean you have to keep one near those who don't even know what gun are capable of doing.


I'm not in the best mood right now, so if I make an ad hom attack on my opponent during the course of this round, a) I appologize, and b) feel free to deduct conduct if you find it necessary. With that out of the way, let's get going.

"My opponent keeps stating that guns do not arm (I'm assuming this is supposed to mean harm?) others. But the bullets IN the gun do?"

Yes, this is exactly what I said. Thank you for being able to read. Your argument is that guns are deadly and thus we should not have them in our homes. But I'm saying that no, guns are not deadly, that a) people misusing guns are deadly, and thus all we have to do is use guns correctly, or that b) the guns aren't deadly themselves, but instead the bullets are deadly. If we keep the two stored in seperate areas, then this solves all the problems you've listed with people getting guns and accidently shooting themselves in the face. Thank you for conceding to this. Since she concedes that the guns themselves aren't deadly, we can still solve all of the harms that the con lists for people grabbing guns and shooting each other up by accident by simply keeping the guns and the ammunition seperate until you intend to use both. This takes out a good portion of her case. Actually, pretty much all of it.

"I belieive they use guns to protect us from the dangers of society, but even they should leave guns away from homes."

1. You keep changing your criteria for who can have a gun and who can't. In the first round it was protection, then you changed it to amount of use, now it's back to protection. I ask you choose a single advocacy and stick with it, as it's highly unfair for me to have to change my arguments to respond to your changing base.
2. Hunters and professional shooters still meet this. Hunters protect their families from hunger and starvation. Professional shooters protect their families from going broke and not having any money to support themselves. As both are outside your proposed jobs who are allowed to have guns (cops and soldiers), these are two reasons to vote for pro.
3. If we're keeping the guns away from the homes, how are we supposed to use them to PROTECT the homes? In order to protect the homes, we have to have the guns there to do so. Sure, this brings a certain level of risk with it, but the risks are outweighed by the harms prevented with the weapon in the home.

"If families do carry guns in the house, it is their responsibility to make sure the guns are in safe keeping."

So why can't we do this? Oh wait! We can? So why can't we have guns in the house, so long as we keep things safe? Can we just vote pro and get this over with?

The debate breaks down really easily.
1. You can still affirm off of hunters meeting her justifications.
2. You can still affirm off of professional shooters meeting her justifications.
3. The pro world solves the same harms as the con world.

There really isn't a reason to vote con, so vote pro.
Debate Round No. 4


I may have confused most of you in whether we use guns inside homes or not. I personally do not think that it is a good idea. My reason being is that it will cause more accidents, especially with young lives. There are many cases where a child has found a gun and has accidentally took their own lives or a life of another. It also encourages violence. A child or a young teen may want to use the gun for horrible circumstance, like school shootings for example.

Why would anyone be alright with having guns in the house? You might choose pro, because with the usage of guns in the house, those may be required into having one and / or need it in their field. Also, because it is the idea of "protection" and that one feels safe in having one. This is where my topic of police officers come in, because it is their job to protect us, and I stated that they should be the ones to have guns because they are the ones who track down criminals and such, it is their job to do so. It is not a victims responsibility into trying to save the day all on their own.

Many who are not required to owning a gun should not even have a gun near them. This is the main issue I have been trying to address. Of course those who are required have the right to own a gun, but what about those who just have guns for fun?

Overall, here are my final thoughts for not having guns at home

1. The only function of a gun is to kill. The more instruments of death and injury can be removed from our society, the safer our society will be.

2. Guns that are in someone's hand legally can end up stolen and in the hands of criminals who are highly dangerous. Guns also end up in the hands of children, leading to tragic accidents and terrible disasters, such as school shootings.

3. If you are being burglarized, it is not a smart idea to take out your gun for self defense and killing them. You will most likely be the one getting into serious trouble. Leave the protection to those who are trained to protect you

4. The suicide rate is highly growing in the U.S. Having a gun at home will make it easier for them to escape their worries.


At the end of the day, you have to look to the pro side because a) I'm the only one proving why guns are a good thing under my case AND under the justifications my opponent gives for who can use guns in her case, b) her arguments are incoherent and often contradict each other from round to round, and c) I'm the only one giving a consistent argument and refuting my opponent's claims. All she has done this entire debate round is repeat the same claims over and over again without actually refuting any of the arguments I've placed against them. I'm the only one actually creating clash in this debate, i.e. I'm the only one actually trying to make this a debate, so I can win off of this.

Moreover, she continually drops the analysis coming off the fact that under her justifications, hunters and professional shooters are justified in owning guns. Yet her case excludes them from having guns (as she says ONLY cops and soldiers can have them). Because I'm proving these two examples outside of her case, this is sufficient reason for us to allow access to guns, and a reason to affirm the resolution.

To respond to the four points she gives at the bottom of her last round:

1: The only function of a gun is to kill.

False. Guns also provide others with wealth, provisions for life, and entertainment in the form of competitive shooting.

2: Guns can be stolen and get into the hands of criminals.

This would happen regardless of whether or not we had them at our home, because they can simply be stolen from police or from stores, so this isn't even unique.

3: If you're being robbed, defending yourself with a gun isn't smart.

1. How is this not smart? If you're defending yourself, all you have to do is shoot them in the leg and get them to run away. You don't have to kill them.
2. If you do kill them, it would be self-defense, as they are attempting to violate your zone of privacy illegally, and under the law you would have the right to defend your property.

4: Suicide is growing, so this only makes things worse.

People find ways to kill themselves outside of shooting themselves, so this won't do anything to prevent it from growing. They'll just find a different way to kill themselves.

So at the end of the day, the debate breaks down really simply for you as a voter:

1. I'm the only one creating clash.
2. I'm proving justifications for owning weapons from my opponent's own case.
3. Her case is incoherent.
4. She never really refutes my arguments, only re-explains hers.
5. I've refuted all of her arguments and defended my own from the attacks, or lack thereof.

So it's pretty easy to vote pro.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con contradicted herself then tried to change the point(uncool) S&G- Tie Arguments: Pro because well, he proved there were many instaces where guns were useful in the home. Sources: Pro