There should not be any laws prohibiting or infringing on our rights to bear arms.

I hope voters realize that Pro is trying to change the subject of the debate. Also I ask the voters should I be annoyed with the comment by Pro "The topic of the debate might have confused you". What did I confuse exactly? The proposition is clear. In no way is the proposition equivalent with the idea "there should not be any new laws to restrict the use of firearms to healthy, mentally stable American citizens". So rather than suggest I was confused, I ask Pro to take responsibility and admit they did not carefully consider the wording they used.In this new proposition Pro wants to replace the title proposition with is one that he adopts a view in line with my argument that the right to bear arms can be limited for rational reasons. Rather than coincide, Pro wants to debate on a different subject.I advise Pro in the future to take their time responding to think about what they are saying, and what they mean to say. We each have 3 days to reply and you can't un-ring a bell. So one must be sure its the right one. I ask voters to vote Con since Pro has given up defending the original proposition and has agreed with Con's view. Now that my objection is clearly noted, I will argue against Pro's new debate, as there are 2 rounds still to go and I would hate to disappoint the voters."You ask me what freedom or safety they had? They still have their freedoms. But they chose not to exercise it. Like this man did," Most people find blaming the victim to be a deplorable thing to do, but further more you ignore the deaths of individuals shot with their own gun, like this unfortunate person http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com... The question remains. What freedom or safety did they have? What about the 851[2] people who unintentionally died at the hand of a gun in 2011. What freedom or safety did they have? This question is still unresolved."If they would exercise their right to bear arms, how many people do you think would be cut out of your statistic? Sure, not all of them, but a huge chunk would." This is the fallacy known as begging the question. You have not provided evidence to show that carrying a gun would take a "huge chunk" out of gun deaths. Furthermore the 2 part video along with the University of Pennsylvania study talked about later[3] are counter evidence to your naked claim. The majority of conceal carry holders lack the proper training and continual practice to be effective in a hostile situation.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com..."With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011..."Pro's asserted fact but sites no source, creditable or otherwise and is couched in so many qualifiers that it is meaningless. Plus the shooter in Tucson was not taken down with a gun. The fact that guns were allowed is meaningless because the existence of firearms in the crowd has no implication on how the event played out. Pro's "fact" establishes no base line. Public shootings in which 3 or more die are rare. For Pro's "fact" to mean anything we need to compare it to the total of public shootings."This is obviously a red flag and doesn't need any explanation." I think it does Pro have seemingly implied that a correlation proves a causation, yet another logical fallacy. Now perhaps one may have noticed how I used fact in quotations. There was a shooting where 15 people died the location had armed guards (in other words citizens were allowed to carry if they were a guard) Columbine. Now sure my example is on the fringe. It is my opinion that semantically it does fit Pro's definition. But maybe you the voter don't buy my semantics. That's fine because if Pro's "fact" excludes public shootings where armed guards were on site then what meaning can it hold?"Of course I do not agree in the mentally ill owning firearms. Like I said before, I'm arguing that no future laws should be added to restrict gun ownership"These 2 ideas are at odd. Most if not all state have no psychological examination requirements. As a result only people with previous mental illness as declared by the courts are excluded from gun ownership. It is way too easy for an actual mentally ill person to obtain guns. Pro wants to prevent those with mental illness from obtaining guns, a feat easily accomplished under current law. The Tucson shooting proves this. So is Pro reasonable here? While wanting certain people to not have guns, Pro is also unwilling to pass laws to fix these issues. "That is one of the lowest out of all 50 states. But yet stricter gun laws will prevent murders?"Given only one data point one can not make any valid claims. Pro suggests it is Utah's loose gun laws that lead to the low gun death rates, but as far as I could know Utah may be an outlier. There are any number of factors that play into the low gun crime rates. Pro has suggested that Utah's loose laws, which do not prevent a mentally ill person (which has not been ruled as such by a court of law) from obtaining guns, has caused the low gun crime rate. But Pro is not arguing for repeal of any laws where gun laws are tougher. If Utah is the shining star example, then why is Pro arguing for the status quo and not a universal adoption of Utah's laws?"I just can't see the logic in that when all the statistics say otherwise."If Pro would site their sources perhaps we too could follow or discredit the statistics."Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and the everage response time for police is 10 minutes. In those ten minutes, what can a sick, crazed man do to your and your family?"In a University of Pennsylvania study, it was shown that carrying put you at a higher risk to being shot than some one who is unarmed.[3] (They also honestly admit they don't know why this is(causation).)"It's not the guns that are killing. It's the people that are holding the smoking barrel. And I feel as if people tend to forget that."Some gun laws are aimed at restricting types of arms. Others are aimed at restricting the type of people. While Pro may think what they may think, the laws show we recognize that is the combination of right arm/s right person that leads to so much needless death."Gun laws aren't going to stop criminals, murderers, and rapists from having guns, it's only going to take them away from law abiding citizens."Remember the RPG from R1? A citizen can buy one, given that they pass the relevant background check and pay all the fees including a tax of $200 each for a launcher or a round. When is the last time you have heard of anyone using an RPG to commit a crime? This idea that gun laws wont/can't prevent gun crimes what actual evidence do we have for this? It would seem to have worked for RPGs."Although I do believe there are ways to stop gun violence, I do not believe taking firearms away from law abiding citizens is a solution."Any assault weapon ban will, like the last ban, grandfather in all assault weapons in current possession. But really this sentence of Pro is not well thought out. If all fire arms were banned with no grandfathering in, gun owners would not be law abiding and thus taking guns would not be against Pro's noted comment.To sum up my main objection, Pro has no rational ground to argue from since the status quo is a patch work of gun laws. Pro is arguing that a state should not decided to make its laws mirror a stricter state while arguing at that the stricter state need not change its laws.[3] http://www.newscientist.com...