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

I do apologize for the confusion in this debate, as I have already apologized in my last response. This is my first debate, and I haven't quite learned the way things work. I will however take note, and be more careful on my next topic to make sure it gives a clear insight on what I am debating. Thank you for pointing that out for me (non sarcastic). Now, one of your main rebuttals is that I am not giving all the citations for my sources. So I will do my best to turn that around in this response. Once again I apologize for the change in the debate, and I would like to sincerely thank Con for changing his argument in order to go against mine. Now, as many people would agree with me, gun free zones are a very easy target for shooters to hit. For example: http://www.thenewamerican.com... http://www.usatoday.com... These people seem to agree that gun free zones are quite a target. Now, I'd like to show my citations for my "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011..." response. Here is an article stating that. http://www.nationalreview.com...# If you would like to skip to the part of the article, it is in the 13th paragraph (counting the short one sentence paragraphs in the beginning. Now, I would ask voters to read this article, as it has many great points. For instance, "Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools." This is right out of that article (10th paragraph). Pro tries to counter my "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011..." statement by saying "Public shootings in which 3 or more die are rare." Sure, they don't come around every day of the week, but they do happen fairly often. Columbine High School, Virginia Tech Shooting, Binghamton Massacre, Fort Hood Massacre, Aurora Theater Shooting, and the 2011 Tuscon Shooting. These are just to name a few mass shootings in the past couple of years alone. So to say "Public shootings in which 3 or more die are rare" is quite a long stretch. Also, take a look at these shootings, which ones didn't happen where guns aren't allowed? None. Each of these happened in a gun free zone. Schools are all gun free zones. Look how protected they are to outside sources. So although I do believe in changes, I do not believe in changes to our Second Amendment should be made. You make this comment on how easy it is to obtain RPG's. How many shootings or crimes have been committed with them? Not many. How many people have them? In order to get one, you need a Class 3 license (not easy to get nowadays), especially since it is a "destructive device, you're going to need a very high end permit. Each round you fire even has to have it's own permit. And, depending in what state or county you live in, you'll need a blasting permit. Con makes it sound like you can just walk to your nearest gun store, drop some cash, and throw a fresh RPG on the back of your truck, but I assure you, this is not the case. However, look at marijuana, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, and methamphetamine, those laws worked really well huh? Look at the assault rifle ban of 1994, that worked well too. And lastly (there are a ton more examples) look at the handgun ban in Washington DC in 1976. http://www.justfacts.com... Scroll down to the 9th gold tab, and you will see information about the handgun ban. Although in it's first couple years, it kept homicides from rising, after a while, homicides more than doubled! So tell me, what good did that do? People tend to think, "If we make guns illegal, then the problems will just go away." When that isn't the case. I'd like to go back to drugs to use them as an example. America has some tough anti-drug laws, but we still lead the world in illegal drug use. http://www.cbsnews.com... This will show you that even though these drugs are illegal, they are still being used. So tell me, what makes you think that outlawing guns will be any different? It has never worked in the past, so what makes everyone think it will go over smoothly now? In your video, titles "Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part Two" it merely states... Well, exactly what the title says. However in this article, http://www.buckeyefirearms.org... it talks about how concealed weapons save peoples lives. Now, you and this video are saying that concealed weapons are ineffective against crime. I disagree, as of last year, a man broke into my family's house. My father is an airline pilot, so he was gone. Luckily, he was on an international trip, so he left his Glock 19 at home. The man broke through our backdoor window, reached in, and unlocked the door to let himself in. It was about 11:30 am, and he was armed. We put my sisters in the upstairs bathroom, and had them lock the door. Called the police, and gave them the information needed. Now, this man did not realize we were home (we had one care at the time due to financial issues, and my father had that vehicle). I retrieved my lever action Winchester model 94A1 30-30 out of my room, as my mother got the trusty old Glock. The man was rummaging through our downstairs drawers and cabinets as we were upstairs in fear. We knew he was armed because we could see his shadow through our wide hallway. It appeared he had a pistol which was magazine fed, not a revolver. My mother stood up in out hallway upstairs and simply said "You are unwelcome in our home, and it is in your best interest to leave." She then proceeded to cock back the Glock, which gives quite in echo through the empty house. I was beside her and spoke, "I second that notion" as I cocked my lever action rifle. The man immediately rushed to the door in which he came in through, dropped our computer, and fled from our house. The police arrived about 15 minutes later. That day, our firearms saved my family's life. Say what you will with your statistics, but I know on a first hand basis how critical firearms are for protection. If we had not armed ourselves, we would have been defenseless against that man. There are many stories that are like this on the internet, and this is my personal story of how a firearm saved me and my whole family. I could not imagine what we would have done if we wouldn't have been able to intimidate the intruder into leaving our house. How long would it have been before he came upstairs to find my mom and I? Even my sister's shaking in the bathroom. What could he have done to them in the time it took for police to arrive? That very thought scares the daylights our of me, and is an answer I never hope to know. There are so many statistics, stories, and situations were firearms have been used properly to aid, and save innocent people's lives. Look here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Have you heard about this in the media? People are attacking the police, not the "assault rifles" they used. Come on, 137 rounds into a vehicle that is no longer a threat. That is just inhumane. Why not take away these rifles from the police? Because it is their job to protect us? Well it's my job to protect my family, and I'm going to use the same weapon that they can have. I'll take my Bill Of Rights, you can keep your change.