All schools should be gun free zones.

In this last section I will first give a rebuttal for my opponents arguments and then reinforce my arguments with ethical theories and show how they apply in this particular argument. First going through his argument from round two then round one. I will then tie everything together in my conclusion. I would like to first applaud my opponent for his well thought out ideas and argument. It may have been well thought out but there are many logical flaws and misunderstood information that he uses to try to degrade my premises. Looking at round two your first paragraph has a large logical flaw in it, "I have gone to schools with no guns permitted, and those schools have never been attacked by " lunatics". Lunatics don't attack schools with no guns permitted specifically, they just attack schools in general. " This statement is what is known as a logical fallacy, specifically this is known as ravens paradox. For those that do not know a fallacy is something that is psychologically powerful but logically very week. Ravens paradox states that just because something has not been seen or is not happened before it is impossible for it to be so. This is logically incorrect an in reality is not possible because as long as we remain in the laws of science anything is possible. So in his statement he states that he has not gone to a school that has had a mass shooting and has had no gun ban. In this statement he assumes since it has not happened to him it is not possible, this however is untrue and not a good base for an argument. The second statement is not characterized as a fallacy however it is misleading. I will not argue with the stamen however looking at the data it seems to be incorrect. While it is possible for a mass shooting to occurred at a school without a gun ban it is yet to actually happen. In fact the only place that there was a mass shooting that did not have a gun ban was Ludy's Cafeteria and when getting into the specifics of that case it was one of the worst in recorded history, 23 people died. In this incident no one in the restaurant that was filled with over 140 people had a gun. The victim had to wait to the police arrived to finally be safe from one criminal with a gun. If someone in the restaurant had a gun on them the casualties would have been less because the innocent civilians would not have had to wait for the police to arrive. It doesn't matter the training of the individual with a gun. If you are a criminal and you are trying to kill as many people as possible and someone pulls a gun on you who are you going to try to kill first. The answer is obvious the one with the gun, that is if you are not taken out first. Your later idea that guns being taken away is also incorrect and contradicted by a later point you make. Guns being banned is not a solution for criminals who by nature don't obey the laws. Look at the black market and informal economy for proof here. Just because marijuana is illegal does not mean people are not going to get their hands on it. Also examine other countries, the United Kingdoms is a great example for the most part all guns are illegal, yet they still have mass shootings. What the argument does not understand is that happiness is a good bases for my argument. Society is roughly governed by it and society is based off it. What I mean by happiness is general happiness, killing or harming someone would take away from society allotted happiness so that is why it is morally wrong to take someone's life. When I say gun in school would create more happiness I mean it as individuals would be safer and their would be less lives lost which subtracts from societies happiness. To support this claim what why do you do something that you like? It is because it makes you happy, in the bigger picture why do you support a particular policy? Again it is because you will benefit and it will make you happy. Happiness can also be applied to safety, in that safety creates happiness so the Utilitarian philosophy fits as a perfect basis. No I will address the argument mainly made in the first round. It is clear that your understanding of the second amendment is elementary at best so I will educate you on what it means and how it was meant to be interpreted. To do this I will directly quote it in whole "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " There are two main parts to this the first is speaking on the military and the necessity of it to be regulated by the state which is check in of itself by the people. This by no means does it mean for guns to be regulated by the state in fact the opposite. The second half speaks of how the people have the right to bare arms and for them to not be taken away under any circumstances. What this means is for the people to be the regulating force for government. The amendment was put in place as a backup plan for if government became tyrannical like Britain did at the time. It gives the citizens the means to actually overthrow the government if it became to invasive and took away human rights, this is directly in the Declaration of Independence. So was the second amendment design only for hunting? No, and the argument that the founders never intended for that based on modern weaponry is equally foolish. The simple fact is during revolutionary time there were already prototypes for full automatic weapons that are as devastating as modern counter parts. In fact although they were expensive some founders come to own very early prototypes for what we call the gatling gun the gun was call the puckle gun. Five years after the constitution was written into law a private individual even ask to put cannons on his ships to ward of pirates, this was quickly approved because as the constitution says the right to bare arms is not to be infringed. So the idea that the second amendment was designed for mascots only is a very common misconception. Final I come to the argument that guns are fashion statements and that is there intended purpose when being carried. As any licensed owner know this is incorrect. A gun is device that can be used to kill people and is very dangerous no different than a kitchen knife. One does not carry to make a statement unless they are open carrying which you need much more training to attain a license for. When I say carry a gun I mean canceled carrying a gun, in this no one actually know that you have a gun other then yourself because it is hidden or concealed. When doing this it is soly for protection and not a fashion statement whatsoever. Some may still open carry and like you said in that case they are making a statement. However the statement that you see may be different then the one I see it is completely subjective unless you ask the one carrying why they are carrying. Yes children may see guns if they are in schools this is not a bad thing as you make it out to be. If anything it would teach them the importance of the second amendment and make them feel safer and teach them not to be so afraid of a gun. In the end a gun without a person controlling it cannot harm anyone it is only the person handling the gun that is the only risk. If that risk is a law abiding citizen, then I have no problem with them using there rights. To infringe on the right only based off of fear mongering and deceptive information is not reason to take away that right. In conclusion I would like to state that guns should be aloud in school because it would make it a safe place for the children in said school. The only benefit of taking away guns from schools is painting a target on the back of every kid at that school for the next psychopath who wants to go on a killing spree. In doing this it will only increase fear of guns, not deal with the true problem of mass shootings.