Private Citizens should be armed in public

1. At the end of the debate, the vote should go to the debater whose arguments are comparatively better than their opponent's. 2. Definitions- a. A "Private Citizen" will refer to any American above the age of 17, who has not been convicted of a felony charge. b. "Should" will mean 'a good idea'. c. "Armed" will refer to possession of a registered firearm. d. "Public" will refer to the any area which is open to any person to attend and inhabit. 3. Framework- a. Votes should be based solely on the things expressed in the debate section, no-where else. This includes prior debates and the comments section. b. Since there is an infinite amount of ground that could be covered on this subject, only things explicitly written in the round are grounds of debate. c. The scope of this debate is the United States 4. Second Amendment Rights- a. The right to bear arms is a fundamental liberty given in the second amendment of the U. S. Constitution[1]. therefore, arguments of legality are not legitimate. Instead this debate is one of whether or not it is a good idea for private citizens to be armed when entering public spheres. b. When citizens fail to practice their rights, they weaken its inherency and it loses power. We see that this is the case with the right to vote[2], and a similar link must be made with the right to bear arms. when we fail to uphold this right, we lose sight of its importance. c. We cannot limit our rights based on fear. We see a call for stronger gun control in the public opinion due to the shootings which have received so much media attention as of late, but let us not forget that those are sensational stories and far from the norm[3]. that's the reason they"ve received so much media attention in the first place, because this doesn"t happen every day; to assume as such and limit rights will only take use to the place that implementing the TSA after 9-11 did; a culture of fear which violates rights. [1] bit. ly/WlcqTM [2] cbsn. ws/GA5vcC [3] bit. ly/12k6NFO 5. Security- a. Homes with guns are safer than those without guns. Or at least they have a greater sense of community and make residents feel safer as Dr. Hemenway argued[4]. Hemenway"s study showed that more than half of gun owners cite protection as a reason for owning a fire-arm in the first place. Furthermore, that impact extends beyond their home and into the community. Families who own guns increase community safety by deterring criminals from committing crimes. b. Attendance of gun-safety classes is on the rise, and has only picked up steam since the recent shooting in Colorado and Wisconsin [5]. Referring to the prior argument of sensationalism, Patrick Egan, assistant professor of politics at New York University made a point to say that gun violence has been at an all-time time low for the past 40 years. Aside for those latching onto the sensationalism, most analysts agree that the solution is not to limit the rights of gun owners, but to increase education on gun safety. [4] bit. ly/XCNanr [5] usat. ly/U99JCq 6. Legality in the status quo- a. Despite the school shootings in Wisconsin, they became the 49th state to legalize owning a concealed handgun in November, making Illinois the only state to forbid the practice[5]. This argument can even be seen as an extension of my second amendment argument on how not practicing rights leads to a weakening of their legitimacy. Carrying a weapon is a right for American citizens, and must not be retracted based on principles of fear. 7. Underview- a. I look forward to a good debate, and hope all voters enjoy reading it. b. As it stands the Pro has fulfilled their burden, I remind voters to make their decision based on this debate"s content and not on personal opinions.