Private Citizens should be armed in public

Here's some quick reasons why I won each point. People kill peopleI did attack the status quo point, in every round. People are killing people, and pro agreed. He can write it off as sensationalist, but it's still something to rationally fear, because nobody in this debate likes death. Pro claims my chart is skewed because the Gallup polls surveyed non-Americans - this is a lie. The Gallup poll is of American adults. Furthermore, you'll note that there's not just the Gallup poll, but two GSS polls that my opponent could not respond to. He never responded to my point about a skewed sample only being invalid externally and not internally either. Guns are pretty scaryI would rather have a huge person attempt to rape me without a gun than with one, and it's not only for fear of my safety. It's for the fear of the gun. My safety will be compromised either way in that situation - if the rapist saw I had a gun, they'd shoot me first so there'd be no evidence - although if this is indeed a public place where I'm being raped, then the police will catch the gun-wielding rapist for having a gun before their rape. I'm appealing not to fear but to the bad outcomes of it, and pro never told you why those outcomes won't happen. Slippery slope of ownershipThe major premise is an assumption - that's inherent in the definition of "premise" - but I justified it in round one with another argument my opponent never responded to. The minor premise is not irrelevant as the debate is about not what people should be allowed to do, but what is a good idea for them to do. I'm not advocating banning guns in public in this debate. The conclusion is happening, as I've said often enough before. It's not fallacious as the outcome is certain, but even if it was uncertain that doesn't mean it's fallacious. It's the same reason why people buy guns despite the fact they may never be attacked. Second Amendment RightsI said right at the start that not everything that is a right is a good idea. My examples may have been a bit extreme, but they serve to illustrate that what the law says you are allowed to do isn't necessarily always what you should do. My opponent never told you why this refutation wasn't true, which he had to do because the causal link was missing from his case. My opponent made the claim that "Maintaining the constitutional right to bear arms is important", so he needs to prove it, not me - furthermore, I explained why this maintenance is a bad idea even if it was important. SecurityMy opponent still fails to respond to my argument that gun safety classes are irrelevant. While the study he uses does say gun ownership deters crime etc, if you buy the article and read beyond the first page you'll find that it's quite explicitly talking about private arms, not arms in public. Pro makes no further responses to my false sense of security point. LegalityApparently my opponent is now claiming this argument is entirely pre-emptive - thus, it is a rebuttal point and not an argument. Pro never managed to distinguish or even properly define what made this argument unique. ConductEven if it were true my argument were really bad, that does not qualify it as abusive. My opponent never showed you how this was relevant to the debate. We're here to debate - come up with stronger arguments, not stronger insults. It does nothing to undermine any of my arguments or bolster my opponents - were this not ad hominum, it would be a strawman. On a serious noteI want to end by expressing my heartfelt condolences to all the families and friends of the victims of the tragic shootings we've been discussing. It pains me to think about this debate in all but the most abstract of terms, but the outcomes here have unspeakably dire (and tragic) consequences. Regardless of who wins this debate, I hope I have been able to spur some discussion on the issue. Now is the time to look at our views honestly, because something is wrong here. Let's change that.