Private Citizens should be armed in public

That's an attack on me and not my argument. I'd prefer if we stuck to the issues of the debate, which as it so happens was explicitly a part of my opponent's own framework. People kill peopleI will broadly agree (even though there are good studies showing the contrary) that just because people have guns they do not become more or less violent. That's not my point though. My point is that people with guns are more lethal, their victims less able to run away or fight back. The refutation that people will still attack each other either way, however, ignores my previous analysis that it's much easier (and safer) to catch attackers before they commit their crimes by preventing them from carrying a gun in public. They might still want to kill people, but then they'll be stopped by a police officer or even just random citizens because they'd be carrying a gun in public to do so. I'm the only side in this debate with a tenable model for stopping this gun violence, and that makes this a unique argument. I'll deal with "appealing to fear" in my next point, even though the death of people is more than just an emotional harm. Not everything pro may be afraid of is an appeal to fear either. When people die, the society and community loses a valued member, with all the benefits that this member provides - that's empirically bad. My opponent himself admitted that there are people out there who want to kill people when he said that such people are the exception not the norm, presupposing that such people must exist. This is why so few people die in countries like Japan from gun violence (. http://goo.gl...)Guns are pretty scaryIf I had said "I hate guns WAA WAA WAA! " that would be an emotional argument fallacy. But when fear creates real, tangible harms to society - when it acts as a mechanism and not an outcome - then that's different. What my opponent doesn't get about the appeal to fear fallacy is that you actually need to be appealing to fear - I'm appealing to serious harms that so happen to be caused by fear. Harms like ignoring threats and wasted investment into public spaces because everyone is scared of going there. Just because something is emotional doesn't necessarily mean it's illogical. This fear does exist in the status quo, which is what I've been logically proving throughout this round and the last. The reason why this debate is even an issue is that US citizens fear guns so much they're owning them less and less (. http://goo.gl...).Slippery slope of ownershipMy opponent claims I provided no warrant. Hello! ? Psychological defenses? Really big harm of pressuring would-be criminals into buying guns? I'll bet my opponent took one look at my label and thought "logical fallacy! " without even reading my point.2nd AmendmentAside from the fact my opponent's own source notes a reductio argument isn't necessarily fallacious, he still hasn't proven why putting something into the second amendment or any other law of your country as a right makes it a good idea. The point of my awesome analogy was to illustrate the missing causal link. So yes, I accept the right loses inherency and power (for example) but no, I don't accept this is a bad thing if it means lives can be saved in the process. SecurityThe only difference in security found in the article my opponent links is perceived difference, not a real difference - people gain a false sense of security. I agree, as I proved this logically as part of my slippery slope of ownership point. I'm not sure that this makes it a good idea, and in fact I think it makes it a bad one. But moreover, even if I accept that "public spaces are safer if there are more weapons in private spaces" it does not follow that "public spaces are safer if there are more weapons in public spaces". LegalityPro still does not prove how this is different from his 2nd Amendment point. The resolution is negated.