Private Citizens should be armed in public

1. Introduction- a. There are lots of drops, and unwarranted refutations from Con. I will point them out through-out my refutations. b. I stand by the conduct argument for the Reductio ad Aburdum fallacy. Even if my opponent can justify abusive logic (which he hasn't) it is still an unacceptable tactic which violates educational discourse. 2. Refutations- a. People Kill people i. My opponent makes no mention of my status quo argument, on how concealed handguns are legal in every state but Illinois; accordingly I still win this point as I show the horrible impacts Con asserts could happen, can already happen in the status quo, but don't. ii. Read the article my opponent links, you'll see there are some crucial flaws with his logic here. By his own admission it is very difficult, if not impossible to own a gun in Japan; in the U.S. this isn't the case. If you compare Japan's death rate because of guns to America's then it would of course seem like his argument is true, and having access to gun makes people blood thirsty; but that's just not the case. Japan's society is very different from America's[10], Japan's #1 cause of death is stroke, but that doesn't mean American handles stroke better, it means Japan's problems are different. [10] bit.ly/R4skyW b. Guns are pretty scary i. Concealed handguns are legal in all but one state in the United States[5]. If the negative impacts my opponent proposes would happen with affirmation really would happen, then we would already see these impacts in the status quo; the fact that we don't makes this an appeal to fear, not an argument considering the consequences. ii. The gallup survey my opponent uses isn't good evidence as the survey is voluntary response[11]. It isn't an accurate representation of the American public as anyone who has taken an intro stats course will tell you[12]. iii. What this means is that there is not warrant here which asks you to consider the consequences, it's an argument which claims 'bad things may happen so let's play it safe'. [11] bit.ly/RDnjPq [12] bit.ly/J5dYL3 c. Slippery Slope of ownership i. I maintain that this is a logical fallacy. My opponent's deduction consisted entirely of claims which had no warrant to back them up. If the argument were simply a logical syllogism[13] that would be different as I could refute that, but none of my opponent's minor premises had any warrants to them which would posit them as a legitimate argument. [13] http://bit.ly... 3. Refutations a. Second Amendment rights i. My opponent's initial argument doesn't refute the importance of maintaining constitutional rights, instead he compares defending one's right to jumping into the Grand Canyon just-because-you-can. The fact is, whether or not my opponent places any merit in the US constitution or not, it's a right guaranteed to US citizens for protection and defense, jumping into the Grand Canyon is not. ii. Because we see there is a purpose behind the second amendment (unlike jumping into the Grand Canyon), simply comparing it to jumping off a cliff is Reductio ad Absurdum; this is an unacceptable tactic as I have to spend time explaining debate decorum instead of actually debating. b. Security i. Perceived security isn't a false security whatsoever; if it makes a family feel safe it's a benefit. ii. My opponent doesn't respond to the point of guns making the community safer by deterring crime. c. Legality i. There's still. No. Argument. Here. Simply saying my opponent doesn't get the link doesn't mean that the link isn't there; this is a drop two times over. ii. I've extended the fact that concealed handguns are legal in every state but Illinois I don't even know how many times now; that argument comes from this point and was meant to preempt any appeals to fear (such as my opponent's first two contentions). This is a huge impact and it's just been brushed off. Underview- a. The Conduct argument stands. b. My opponent has made a lot of drops.