Login/Sign Up




should everyone be untitled to a handgun for there family safty
Weapons

gwrocks9
Dec 31, 2010
13 votes
18 debaters
3
2
2
1
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

5
YES


gwrocks9
Dec 31, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
we so should because the amont of deaths of young children dying by murder is high. if they ha a handgun they could shot them in the leg and womb then and then ring the police, something like that but then children will be a lot safer if there parents had a gun to protect them.

 
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: eeee Show

I think like driving a car, you should be have to pass a test!-the librarian

 
mbauer
Jan 03, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Depending where you live, you are within your rights to own a firearm. Why have firearms? To protect yourself, your family and your property. A world where only the ones making and enforcing the rules have the guns is not a place for me. Citizens having guns keeps the government in check. It's in the US Constitution for a reason.

 
mbauer
Jan 04, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: stof Show

It's not people that I'm the most worried of defending against. It's government gaining too much power and taking away my rights....like the right to own a gun for example. Either way, what I do with my legally owned firearms has nothing to do with what some other idiot does.

 
mbauer
Jan 06, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: stof Show

You are incorrect in stating that having a gun is a privilege. We, as US citizens, have a constitutional right to own a firearm. There are certain restrictions to gun ownership, thus eliminating the idiots from "legal" gun ownership. If stick to a purely logical argument, we can assume that criminals do not acquire guns legally in many cases. Therefore, those of use who would like to remain protected from said criminals should retain the legal right to own a firearm.

The flaw in your logic is the assumption that a person who is not an idiot will realize they do not need a gun. If you can explain this, perhaps I can try to understand your logic.

 
epicsauce
Apr 04, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
honestly it all depends. each family should register for it, pay for it, and a safe comes with it. the registees should also have to take a test for psychiatric disorder, in case. the safe will keep children from gaining the weapon. but like i said before, it depends.


 
fjayne
Jun 19, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If you were to ask me this question on the street I have always supported it 100%.

It's seeing people like this who haven't made it past grade 2 that make me worried...

All the same, I think if I were a creep out there on the street looking to break into somebody's house, I would think twice if i knew that the owner would be within his rights to blow my tiny lil' brains out for stepping into his residence.

Here in Alberta, Canada if a burglar breaks into your home and injures himself by tripping over your coffee table, he can sue you for damages. Ahhh justice...


hould everyone be untitled to a handgun for there family safty

 
Sylvia Droz
Jul 21, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Having a gun at home for protection is something that goes with everyones inner survival instinct, to protect yourself, to protect you family. Think, if someone came in to your home, with a gun with the intent to rob you and if you get in the way, have no problem killing you and your family... wouldn't you want to have a gun in your hand? Were talking about protecting children's, spouses, family members. Having a gun in your house doesn't mean that you automatically don't mind being a killer, theres always a leg, or arm. If there were no guns, the violence wouldn't stop. People can attack with knives, baseball bats, machetes if they wanted. No matter what the world will be violent, and there will be evil, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with having a gun in your home to protect your family. The violence won't end, banning guns won't stop it. But this way, there will be peace of mind at night, and a back up plan under the bed.

 
+ Add Argument

8
NO


eeee
Dec 31, 2010
2 convinced
Rebuttal
I don't think allowing every family to have a gun is a reasonable decision. If our goal is to reduce the amount of violence around us, then increasing the amount of owned guns will simply add to the available mediums for violence, and it could ultimately work against us. Of course, it can be used to potentially protect you in case someone was trying to harm you or your family, but when you consider all the possible harm so many guns can cause by accidents and intentional usage, it simply doesn't make sense. Furthermore, there are far better solutions out there for decreasing the rate of violence, such as better education programs, more available jobs, and the list goes on and on. If our government focuses on increasing the number of guns, then we could end up ignoring the more peaceful solutions to our safety.

 
russelluke
Jan 02, 2011
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gwrocks9 Show

While you're at it why don't you get the ultimate protection and put a lion in your back yard.

 
teachme
Jan 01, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gwrocks9 Show

I agree wholeheartedly with eeee and tigerlover...and would like to add that there have been many accidental deaths, as eeee had mentioned, right in the home. Oftentimes gun owners are irresponsible, and children themselves get a hold of guns and accidentally shoot each other and/or adults.

Honestly, I think the whole world could do without guns...but not sure that would anihilate the violent nature of so many human beings...and no matter how much money you paid them, the real criminals would not turn in their guns.

 
muzzerfooka
Jan 02, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gwrocks9 Show

firstly, it's entitled, not untitled, and it's safety, not safty.(for some weird reason, I had to assume you made this debate)

secondly, I don't think we should allow people to own handguns because if ownership of handguns for family protection was vibrant, it only goes to show that social units such as law enforcers among many others, are obsolete, and aren't really doing their job. thus, it is necessary for families to take over. and if so, it would empower law enforcers to operate in the context of mediocrity because they know that people can "protect" themselves anyway.

on the other hand, ownership of guns is a gateway towards the ownership of other potentially harmful devices. as guns have the potential to protect, at an equal playing field, it also has the potential to harm

 
stof
Jan 03, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gwrocks9 Show

If you think that the amount of deaths by murder among youth is way too high then maybe the number of guns in our streets should be null, this way no one is killed at all or even hurt, I don’t see the logic in your argument.

 
stof
Jan 03, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: mbauer Show

You know there is a fine line between defending itself and harassing others, those dreams about the wild west when gents can solve their problems by a firearm duel can not exist today, because there are too much cowards that prefer to shoot you in the back, you can’t simply give guns to people and expect them to behave, they won’t.
I don’t see how having a defence gun is the best solution, how about not having an assaulting gun at first place? How about defending itself with bare hands like a man and not hiding behind a gun? Hell how about not having an assault at all?
Having more guns was and will be never a good solution, remember the cold war?

 
stof
Jan 06, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: mbauer Show

Ok let me demonstrate point by point.
1- The same government that granted the right to own a gun can not control weapon trafficking that is a fact, I don’t think you’d argue with that. If you are going to allow people the “right” to own a gun then you should make sure they will own it “rightfully”, I guess you know the reality better than I do, and since the government is unable to do that, they should prohibit the possession of weapons, the good citizens will apply criminals will be jailed before they commit a crime.
2- Regardless of the trafficking issue, let’s say that the us government is able to control that, this doesn’t mean that the problem is solved, many crimes are committed with legally purchased weapons, whether but the owner who just cracks and start shooting people someday, or the gun is stolen then sold in the black market to criminals, they can’t easily erase the serial number and then it’s simply the same as a smuggled gun. That’s why I said people that are not idiot wouldn’t buy guns at the first place, to minimize the chances of making this gun a lethal criminalizing gun.


 
james67
Jun 10, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gwrocks9 Show

the amont of young deaths of young children dying ?

 
tigerlover2011
Dec 31, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Theres a point right there, yea it would be "safer" for smaller kids but giving a gun to the wrong family would be chaos! and people would be no longer afraid of other people and problably shoot them, and with the conditions in america giving everyone a gun would probably lead to war here. Now giving people with family's only would be different but still being the same, people would probably lie just to get one...not a good idea

 
carm
Jan 03, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
What if accidents happen? Not much of a "good thing" anymore now is it? I do understand that there must be some family protection, but perhaps something less powerful. We cannot stop anything from happening, that's why we take steps to prevent it, such as installing a home alarm, or locking all doors.

 
stof
Jan 04, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: mbauer Show

That’s a contradiction, if you are saying it’s a right then, then any “idiot” have the same right because it’s in that level we’re all equal, but it’s not, having a gun is a privilege not a right and the only people who can have that privilege are people that are not “idiots”, and these people that are not “idiots” will eventually realize that they don’t need a gun, because they are not “idiots”.

 
james67
Jan 04, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
It is allowing people to have guns which causes the potential for gun crime . . .
And it's spelt saftey not safty. Don't let anyone have guns then people can't shoot one anothe, seems pretty obvious.

 
rubenm
Jan 05, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gwrocks9 Show

THIS ARGUMENT IS OBVIOUS. Handguns should NOT be handed out to everyone who wants it.

gwrocks9, you're saying that it is better for children to have handguns so they could shoot "bad" people in the leg. This depends on what the children considers "bad".
Children, not having the same decision making and temper controlling skills as adults, may murder someone because of something very small, such as getting on his nerves, or calling him something bad.
This not only applies to children, but some adults as well. Unfortunately, not all adults understand what is morally right and wrong, so they may hurt/ kill people that didn't do anything wrong.

The most logical solution to this problem is for the government to give tests to its citizens to test their morals and their decision making skills. Those who pass get the priviledge of owning a handgun, and the other people don't get this right because they can prove to be a dangerous person to society.

 
lyagami
Jun 10, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gwrocks9 Show

I think everyone should be entitled to a handgun for language continuity enforcement.

First as per the discussion title I agree we shouldn't be titled for owning a gun that would lead to discrimination but why only provide for the people living in the town of "family safty" (Sorry I take all things literally so the discussion title of this topic is worded painfully bad).

And qwrocks9 how can you justify shooting someone in the leg and womb?(shooting a woman for shame). I think the leg would be sufficient enough. Well, at least I know who started the thread the spelling errors are a dead giveaway (A word of advice don't get into the ransom biz the police would notice the similarities in spelling and grammar almost instantly and be onto you before the end of the day).

Finally, addressing the topic, your ideology on this topic can be satirized in simile as "every country in the world should be entitled to the atomic bomb for their safety". In this case we are counting on the fact that every country knows that everyone else has the power to destroy them and so their weapons are less effective since it would mean a greater assurance of mutual destruction. The only problem being is that as far as the general public is concerned you have forgotten about those Kim Jon Ill's of the world (individuals that are bats@#t insane and won't hesitate for a moment to maim a rival even if it means certain doom). So yeah give everyone a gun and see how far mutually assured destruction gets you in a conflict, especially with the stand your ground law, your basically egging people on to commit murder under the guise of self defense for trivial and petty rivalries or minor conflicts. Congratulations YAFM.

 
veghead11
Jun 10, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If everyone was entitled to a handgun and they didn't have to have a FAC (Fire Arms Licence), they could easily go around just committing murders and shooting whoever the hell they want (Which would obviously not be a good idea)! If you really felt that you needed a gun in your house to feel safe, then go get an FAC so you can obtain a gun. Therefore, you have a licence to prove that you'll be responsible for your gun in your house and so you DON'T go around shooting random people (cause you never know with some people)!

 
Sylvia Droz
Jul 21, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: fjayne Show

omg it's like that here in Glasgow!! the violence never stops! guns are banned here and yet everyone is still killing each other with knives. I'm a 17 yr old girl living by myself, i have no family in glasgow, if something happens to me then what am i suppose to do. Im 5'4 120 lbs, how can i fight back if the person is stronger than me? A gun is needed in situations like this! i asked a cop what to do if someone comes in with a weapon to try and harm me. He say, call the police and run. How can i run? ill have to run past the guy! il be dead! Its a terrifying world out there!

 
Dhruv Gupta
May 13, 2015
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Nope, proper training can't be given to all and also guns can be use for offensives. You may be giving a terrorist a handgun who didn't had any weapons, so then?

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

Afghanistan America army Crime Frankie Guns Iran Iraq Military Nuclear Obama War Weapons