Private Citizens should be armed in public

In this round pro has done little more than intensify his personal attacks on me, rather than improve his argument. In fact this debate is really very simple.People Kill peopleThree times in his case, pro falls back on his argument of "well if all your flawless logic is true, how come I'm not seeing it in the status quo?" Let me deal with it once and for all now. These things ARE happening under the status quo. I provided a chart last round to show people fear guns more. BTW, even a biased sample can prove a trend if the sample size is significant because sampling bias does not affect internal validity, only external. Pro also agreeds guns are lethal. The evidence is there.Aside from this pro does nothing to refute around three paragraphs of analysis. In particular, he does not refute my claim that it's better to catch killers before they shoot their victims,. He does refute my Japan analogy in detail. The point is that if there are fewer guns in public spaces, there is less gun violence in public spaces, legitimising fear of guns. Not only is this empirically true, it's also not culturally dependant because there's no subjective factor - either attackers have guns or they don't.Guns are pretty scaryWhat pro doesn't get is that it's actually a matter of 'bad things may happen, so let's be prepared in case they do (see previous point), and let's save people from having the confront the risk, or worse still, failing to confront it (this point)'. Even so, I fail to see the harm in "playing it safe". This is tantamount to an admission by pro that private citizens would be safer in public under my model.Slippery slope of ownershipHere's the argument as a logical syllogism: 1- All people generally react to seeing psychological distresses by seeking to control them (ie buy their own gun)2- Some people should not own guns3- Therefore, some people who should not own guns will seek to control them if guns are seen (ie in public)Perhaps pro will finally rebut it.LegalityPro had the clear burden of proof in this debate. He raised two arguments, and then restated his first one and called it a third point. Apparently he thinks it's my burden to show how this point is different from his first one - in fact, my claim has always been that it isn't different, and if pro wants to tell you otherwise, then HE needs to tell you how. Not only that, but he also needs to rebut my analysis for why it isn't different from round two. He has failed to do so - it is him that has dropped this argument, not me.2nd AmendmentPro's argument is this: if there is a right, and a purpose behind that right, it's always a good idea to exercise that right. Naturally this depends on the purpose. If the purpose of the hypothetical Grand Canyon law is mass suicide, that wouldn't make it a good idea. If pro could prove that the 2nd Amendment is a good idea, then perhaps the reason why it is a good idea might be a strong reason to be armed in public - but in and of themselves, rights and good ideas are different things. Having a right to an abortion does not mean everyone should have one, for example.SecurityHe's dropped his sub-point about people knowing how to operate guns after I proved it was a strawman. His entire point now rests on a single study that did not, contrary to pro's misrepresentation, show any link between being armed in public and reduced crime rates, as the whole study was concerned with private gun ownership. He can't keep claiming I didn't respond when I've been trying to get across to him that his premise does not hold since round two. The other aspect of this argument based on the study - that families feel more secure if they have guns (also not relevant to public spaces by the way) - pro claims to be emotionally beneficial. He has not given any reasons why it isn't a false sense of security, and thus his entire case is a mere assertion. I've also already shown in my points why this is a harm, not a benefit.The resolution is negated.