An armed security guard should be required in gun free zones.

My opponent still hasn't refuted my original arguments. For the final round, I will simply refute his previous arguments again. First, I would like to make it clear that the government wouldn't be "forcing" people to hire security guards. If the property owner cannot afford to make his gun free zone safe for everyone, he can simply allow guns instead. Thus, requiring gun free zones to have security guards is justified. And once again, the fact that they can simply choose not to enter is irrelevant. The chances of getting killed are so low that almost no one will be afraid. But gun crimes do happen, and the hiring of a security guard would still reduce the number of people killed each year in gun free zones. And as I said above, the property owner can simply allow guns, choosing to reduce crime by conceal carriers instead of security guards. Airliners are not a good example, as they do put armed guards (called Federal Air Marshals [1][2]) on planes, disguised as normal civilians. This argument is self-refuting, because in this situation they do exactly what I am proposing. In your next argument, I will once again state that the government isn't forcing anyone to pay for something, because if you don't want to hire a security guard, you can just allow guns. Thus, none of these "property infringements" require money to be paid. Does it cost someone money NOT to make his property a gun free zone? No. My opponent still hasn't provided any proof that the government cannot hire security guards, and although I am still not arguing for this, I will give my opponent the benefit of doubt for the moment: Assuming I was actually arguing this, what proof have you given that security guards couldn't be hired? None. You have given no sources confirming this; only a source saying some jobs have been lost, and a source of someone claiming it would cost 9 billion. These claims by themselves do not prove that the government cannot hire security guards. And even if the government really couldn't, they could potentially cut other government programs to afford it. All of this aside, it is clear that teachers still exist. There are also crossing guards, and many other school employees, all of which get paid a very good salary. If the government can afford all of this, I see no reason why they can't fit in a security guard. Furthermore, there are other solutions - most notably, the government could simply stop making schools gun free zones. But none of that is relevant, because I am not debating this; that subject could fill an entire debate of its own. My opponent claims that I am debating this, and makes up his own resolution, which is NOT the resolution I put at the beginning of this debate. Please read the resolution one more time: QUOTE (round 1): If a property owner (such as the owner of a restaurant or office building) wants to make their property a gun free zone, they should be required to hire one or more armed security guards. "Property owner" clearly does not refer to the government; it refers to an individual, an owner of private property where he (most likely) plans to set up a business, as implied by my examples of "the owner of a restaurant or office building." My opponent emphasizes on the word "all." I would like to note that nowhere in the resolution (be it the complete one, or the summarized one I put as the title) did I say the word "all." Nowhere in the resolution does it say that the government would be included in such a rule, and this simply isn't what we are debating about. In summary: -My opponent is mainly against the resolution because he believes people will be forced to hire security guards. This isn't true, as the property owner can simply allow guns instead. -Con reasons that you can simply choose not to enter a gun free zone. This is irrelevant to the fact that the hiring of security guards would save innocent lives. People that enter gun free zones regardless of potential danger are still innocent. -Con's argument concerning the citizen's risk when boarding an airplane is self-refuting, because airlines do have Federal Air Marshals (which are akin to security guards) -Con believes I am arguing for security guards in schools. Based on this assumption, he claims that the government cannot afford to hire security guards. I am not arguing that security guards in schools should be required. Even if I was, Con has provided no proof, and I provided several points proving the argument irrelevant. All of my opponent's arguments have been thoroughly refuted. Please vote Pro. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.federalnewsradio.com...