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

"Now, one of your main rebuttals is that I am not giving all the citations for my sources." It is not a rebuttal but more so a complaint. "These people seem to agree that gun free zones are quite a target." The type of people that decided it would be a good day to shoot up a crowd are not thinking rationally. I was wondering of these shooters could Pro provide examples of them actually noting that the location they picked, they picked because it was gun free? Add to this the recent trend in gunmen wearing body armor and it is clear some of these gunmen are expecting guns. Columbine High School, Virginia Tech Shooting, Fort Hood Massacre, What do these 3 have in common? They all had armed personnel on site. The fact that your stat labels these as "gun free" is just plain sad. "So tell me, what makes you think that outlawing guns will be any different?" It is not my view, nor have I suggested that an outright ban is what we need. Reading about your home invasion incident leaves me thinking if only there was a way to make it harder for that invader to get a gun. I am told laws requiring mandatory background checks in every type of gun sale and cracking down on straw purchases would make it harder for criminals to get guns. "Say what you will with your statistics, but I know on a first hand basis how critical firearms are for protection." I understand what you are saying... "What could he have done to them in the time it took for police to arrive?" ... any number of things, most likely run away. I cant even be sure this guy had a gun. I present a video to show an extreme case where the shadow does not look like the object. http://www.youtube.com... Did pro fear for his life? I am sure. Was Pro's life in actual mortal danger? I do not know. "I'll take my Bill Of Rights, you can keep your change." Pro has already conceded this point at the start of R2 where Pro adopted my stance and agreed there are/can be reasonable limits to the 2nd amendment right to bear arms " 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." This is by far Pro's biggest error. I have not changed my argument. It has been centered around the simple idea that the bill of rights list rights which are not absolute, that are in fact subject to reasonable limitations. I have spoke about 2 suggested policy changes in this round. I would like Pro to explain why changing the law in these 2 examples is the wrong thing to do. I also suggest Pro consider their stated position once more. "Like I said before, I'm arguing that no future laws should be added to restrict gun ownership" I found this round to be lacking in direct affirmation of Pro's view. Being pro's first debate I hope the voters go easy on him. To Pro I give you words of encouragement in the from of the 2nd video. http://www.youtube.com... I would like to note Pro did not address the University study that shows gun ownership increase one's likelihood of being shot. I also question the creditability of buckeye firearms. It would seem that they are a biased. They also don't site any non-biased 3rd party research. I leave Pro with a quote that has been checked and found to be factual by Politifact "You know, Judy, the reality is -- and it's a terrible reality -- since Robert Kennedy died in the Ambassador Hotel on June 4, 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than died in " all the wars of this country's history, from the Revolutionary through the Civil War, World War I, World War II, in those 43 years. ... I mean, guns are a problem. And I think they still have to be confronted." ~Mark Shields