The Instigator
timtex4
Pro (for)
The Contender
chloebits
Con (against)

Having gun in your house is dangerous.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
chloebits has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 448 times Debate No: 98979
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

timtex4

Pro

Before accepting this debate think two or more times. Can you argue 3 rounds. Do you have evidence.

And of course good luck.
chloebits

Con

Gun's are not dangerous. Even though this is a matter of opinion most people would agree with me. Guns are not dangerous unless used in the wrong way. It is not guns that are killing people. The people are killing people. Statistics show that half the people that say guns are dangerous haven't shot, used, or even touched a gun in their whole lives. Whether it be in a store, at a bank, in your house, or anywhere else there could potentially be a gun. If guns are so dangerous then why do people go hunting with them, why don't we just use a spear like old times. I'll tell you why guns are more efficient. You can use guns to protect you. You use guns to go hunting and get meat. Why do people have guns if they are so dangerous? Why do I let my eleven-year-old daughter use and have her own twenty-gauge if it is so dangerous? Answer my questions then we will talk.
Debate Round No. 1
timtex4

Pro

First things firs. Answering questions. I'm going to count sentences with word why as questions.1 "Why do people go hunting with them". For fun, to show their skill, to have free dear. Probably because of those reasons. I had never tried to go hunt. And my statement was "Having gun IN YOUR HOUSE is dangerous". Next question "why don't we just use a spear like old times". You answered this one for me. "Why do people have guns if they are so dangerous". Well I don't know I'm just trying to aware them that they (firearms) are dangerous. And the last question "Why do I let my eleven-year-old daughter use and have her own twenty-gauge if it is so dangerous". That is your deal what gun are you going to buy to your FUTURE daughter. In your profile it said that you are 18 ears old 18-11=7. You could not have kids at that age.

Now let me show you that you were wrong in some places. "Gun's are not dangerous". The definition of danger is: liability or exposure to harm or injury. So you are basically saying that firearm can not bring any one harm or injury, here is an small secret: they are made for that. And you said "Statistics show that half the people that say guns are dangerous haven't shot, used, or even touched a gun in their whole lives". Which statistic, were did you took it from, were are your sources?

What are firearms made for carnage, homicide, massacre. All those words mean "killing". And that is the only reason why have firearms being made for.

Sources:

http://www.dictionary.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
This is an example of a Presidential State of the Union between basic Principle and Precedent.
Yes, guns are dangerous. A basis point is that guns where not invented for the purpose of killing people. They had been invented to protect us from other animals which included people in the animal world and food chain. The problem is that some people have a false presumption of danger, within the world and within the food chain, and not a realistic view form the threat people who can infringe like animals on territory.
In a substantially high number witnessed, people who oppose private fire-arm ownership, also have supported or favored tax funding being spent outside the Non-biased an impartial section of the Judicial Separation. This too is also a great threat to safety equal if not grater in terms of Danger! For any spending purpose which do not support an impartial system of democracy or justice in decision making process publicly.
The explanation of the use of the word Presidential is in defense and protection of the United States Constitution. As a man who sits before all men and declares. Without the recourse of Impartial Separation and Non-biased judicial Separation for all, all people are far more likely to justify their won action in vengeance. It is not a socialized economy any Nations needs to thrive in the world. It is a socialized well governed system of judicial non-based impartial separation. It is this task and this task alone that has proved over time to be daunting to humanity.
It is not ever been Religion which is to blame for any War. It has always been the lack of impartial non-biased Judicial Separation.
Fire-arms are a shortcut to roadway to a common defense. It is time to fight by building a path with a better scenic value. As this follows the reasoning behind why embrace religion after both prison and War.
Posted by usawinseverytime 1 year ago
usawinseverytime
Kind of a stupid topic. Is having a gun in my OWN house dangerous? Is the fact that my next door neighbor has a gun a danger to me? Is having a gun in an abandoned house dangerous? Is having a gun in a house where only one man lives dangerous? Is having a gun in a house locked in a safe where only one person in the household knows the combination dangerous? Obviously in the various scenarios the answer isn't always yes or no. So, no, having a gun in a house is not necessarily dangerous.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
What's a hove?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.