College campuses should allow students to carry guns for protection.

Alrighty then. Responding to his responses first. 1) I agree with his study, I'm pretty sure that a lot of college students use drugs. However as I said earlier, this doesn't really prove anything. If all the people are only using rubber bullets and a lot of people have them, then if some druggie wants to use his, then he'll be subdued by the people around him. 2) Notice how he didn't provide a humongous list. If the problem is really bad as he says it is and druggies are shooting people, I'd imagine the list to be a lot longer. There is an 8,000 character limit and he has not used all of it, therefore I will assume he has either chosen not to include any more or no more exist. Either result leads to "there is no reason to believe there are more". Quoting Sandlas himself, "no substantial proof". 3) Yes I am saying that there are already bringing guns to college. If this is true then that means all your impacts are incorrect, because people that do illegal things like using drugs at school have a higher tendency to do other illegal things such as BRINGING GUNS to school, and that hasn't resulted in the amount of shootings that you've claimed but have not given evidence for. 4) Funny how you make this argument, because rubber bullets don't have a consequence. They merely slow down the perp. I will explain this in my voters. Besides, there isn't one skill where practice makes the person ready for the real situation. Paintball is as realistic as it gets before you actually get shot with real guns. 5) I completely agree that if ten college kids were just standing there firing at an armed man, they would eventually have to reload and in the process, they would get shot. However, this is not 18th century warfare and I believe that college kids are smart enough to charge the armed guy while he's being pummelled with the rubber bullets and attemt to disarm the perpetrator. 6) I don't need to insinuate that my opponent is insolent, dumb, retarded, moronic, or uninformed to win this debate. VOTING ISSUES Just as a point of my personal opinion: You shouldn't be voting for someone that has no sort of courtesy for his opponent. Last I checked, we were supposed to keep a civilized debate, and in my mind that means none of the sarcastic comments he made to me that are supposed to bring my confidence level down. To understand my 3 voters, people must first understand that there are three parts to an argument - A claim, a warrant, and an impact. A point, a reason, and why it matters. The way SandlasJuagas goes about his points is why he loses this debate. A1) For the rubber bullet argument, the only argument he makes is against the impact. he says that it just won't be effective, and that means he assumes this argument to be correct. A2) My argument against this is that it would be effective, as students with rubber bullets will be able to distract/tire/fatigue/etc the armed man for a while, and other people will step up to disarm the perpetrator. I'd like to believe college students are smart enough to do that and not just sit there in fear BUT SINCE he never responded to my warrant, that means my warrant is true. Since I have responded to his impact argument, I win this argument. A3) Regardless though, he loses it. He's just provided you with a list of shootings at colleges. >>>He's just given you proof that campus police doesn't work. <<< However, I give you the intuitive argument that if college students were armed with rubber bullets, that would already be more efficient than campus security police because they're already on-scene. Because it's non-lethal and it's powerful at the same time, it will be able to slow the perpetrator down. I don't need to say any more on this because he's already agreed to the warrant of this argument, he's only arguing that the impact is different. A4) His only argument left then, is the paintball point. But I don't see any sort of real warrant behind his argument, he just says that theres no consequences when you shoot someone with a paintball and there is when you shoot someone. .. .. with a rubber bullet. I don't see much of a difference. I think he forgot I'm advocating a rubber-bullet-handguns-should-be-allowed world, not real-bullet-handgun colleges. B) I am not the status quo, he is. Therefore he is advocating the status quo and I am advocating what I've said I'm going to advocate - A system where colleges allow rubber bullets in handguns on campus. The status quo is horrific. As he stated earlier, he says that campus police are enough. However, he also provides a list of shootings. That just goes to show that campus police aren't enough. C) His drugs argument has can be disregarded because of two reasons. C1) He advocates drugs and agrees to "people already bringing guns to college". I see no situations where that has happened and he has not provided me with any. He holds me to the standard that I have to provide evidence, which means he must also apply the standard to himself. Because of this and he hasn't provided and drug-gun correlation events, there is no reason to believe that is true. C2) Even if that is true though, my advocacy is of rubber bullets. Again, because he concedes to the warrant that people already bring guns to school, and since even more people will bring guns to school if its allowed (empirically proven everywhere: If it's legal, more of it will happen) AND because only rubber bullets will be used, then that means many people will have rubber bullet guns and therefore if some random guy pulls out his and starts threatening others, he can be put down rather quickly. SUMMARY: His three standing arguments (and my responses against) at the end of this debate are: - Kids with rubber bullets are not trained well enough to fight back against the intruder, and even if they did, it would not be enough. -- Nothing will ever train a person well enough for the real situation in ANY skill. What I'm saying is if college students are armed with rubber bullets, they can at least distract the armed person long enough so that others will disarm him, and prevent a lot more murders. It IS enough, since he has conceded that rubber bullets do have effect, and he has not responded to my argument that people will step up to the job, his argument is false. - Campus security is good enough. -- His list speaks for me. - Drugs make everything go bad. -- Since there are already guns on campus and nothing's going wrong right now, it won't be going wrong in the future.