Private Citizens should be armed in public

People kill peopleWhen you allow private citizens to be armed in public, you allow both people who may want to kill others to walk around town with guns, as well as those who may not. The problem is that if those people who want to kill others shoot somebody, the person being shot does not have time to react. Even if they could, the fact that they don't want to kill others makes the gun really pointless. In the hands of somebody nice, guns are not really all that problematic, while in the hands of somebody bad they have the power to inflict a lot of terrible damage really quickly. So why would you be carrying a gun if you didn't intend to kill people, in public? Presumably to scare attackers off. But why would attackers be scared if they know you couldn't react and probably wouldn't use it even if you could? It so happens that there is a much better way of scaring attackers off, and that's making guns illegal in public. That way if somebody is carrying a gun in public, you know they're either an attacker or a police officer. When the fact that all the responsible law-abiding people aren't carrying guns, the bad guys are easy to spot. Guns are pretty scaryThere's nothing more freaky than having a gun pointed at you. You know in that instant your life is hanging on a trigger, even if it really isn't and you have nothing to worry about. My point is that average citizens of America should have the right to go to town and not feel unsafe or unsettled by the fact that everyone else has the ability to kill them in an instant. Let's talk about the outcomes here. People have to live in fear - they don't have the choice, as everyone has to go into a public space sometimes. Worse still, the alternative is that people become desensitized to guns and ignore the threat until it is too late. It's good that guns are scary, because they can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. Since guns have this power to make people feel unsafe, then that's good grounds to ban them unless there is some real advantage to their prevalence. Slippery slope of ownershipIf everyone else has a gun except for you, the best psychological defense you have is to buy yourself a gun. This is because guns are the object that are causing your emotional distress - if you feel you have a weapon too, then you feel that you can control the outcome a lot more if things do go bad. Of course, this isn't really the case. Holding a gun is incredibly unlikely to stop a bullet if one is fired at you. So the harm is that you create this big cycle where everyone feels they need a gun - even people who might normally not feel inclined to have a gun, or who might personally feel (perhaps because they know they are prone to getting a little violent) that they should not own a gun. And thus, simply making it legal to carry guns in public increases gun ownership rates.2nd AmendmentJust because it states in your constitution that you're allowed to bear arms does not mean it's a good idea. If your constitution were to explicitly state "All Americans have the right to jump to their deaths in the Grand Canyon", it wouldn't make that a good idea either. If it did say that my opponent would make the same arguments - "jumping to your death in the Grand Canyon loses inherency and power when nobody's doing it! " - "we must not be limited by our fear of dying and exercise this right! "SecurityThis debate is not about whether you should have guns in private (which would include your house or wherever your family lives) but rather in public, making this study irrelevant. My opponent also notes many people know how to operate guns safely. Knowing how to operate them safely and actually using them safely are, however, two different things. Current LegalityI have absolutely no idea how this extends my opponent's 2nd Amendment argument. It's exactly the same, because the other laws are all based on the 2nd amendment.