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

Secondly I'd like to clear up the talk about RPG's and nuclear weapons. The topic of the debate might have confused you, and that is my fault as I didn't specify what I meant. What I mean by "There should not be any laws prohibiting or infringing on our rights to bear arms. " is that there should not be any new laws to restrict the use of firearms to healthy, mentally stable American citizens. Of course I do not agree with the selling of RPG's, nuclear weapons, and firearms of that power. Now, about your argument on the 32,163[2] people that died in 2011 from firearms. You ask me what freedom or safety they had? They still have their freedoms. But they chose not to exercise it. Like this man did, . http://pjmedia.com... And this man, . http://fishgame.com...My point is, the answer to, "What freedom or saftety" is simply this: they have the same freedom as every single law abiding citizen, and there saftey is invaded when a man with a gun confronts them because they don't have a weapon to fight back with. If they would exercise their right to bear arms, how many people do you think would be cut out of your statistic? Sure, not all of them, but a huge chunk would. With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U. S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns. This is obviously a red flag and doesn't need any explanation. Now, about the mentally ill owning guns. This once again is my fault for not making the debate topic clear. Of course I do not agree in the mentally ill owning firearms. Like I said before, I'm arguing that no future laws should be added to restrict gun ownership. In 1965, homicides climbed up to be the 15th cause of death in America. Then, in the early 1990's it placed 10th. But in 2010, it dropped back to 16th. Now in 2011, it went back up to 15. Now these are just homicides, they aren't all done with firearms, but if in 2011, homicides are the 15th cause of death, the same as 1965, how has it increases so much? Look at Utah, it has some of the loosest gun laws. But somehow in 2001, it only had 1.9 homicides for every 100,000 people. That is one of the lowest out of all 50 states. But yet stricter gun laws will prevent murders? I just can't see the logic in that when all the statistics say otherwise. Lastly, I'd like to address the freedom and security. What I mean by that, is that people don't want to protect themselves. They want to live in a world where they can call the police to come protect them. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and the everage response time for police is 10 minutes. In those ten minutes, what can a sick, crazed man do to your and your family? My point is, is that people want to feel secure, right? And people in America have freedom, right? Well, as you stated in your statistic that the 32,163 people that were murdered, felt like they were not secure, why didn't the cops show up in time to save them? Because as much as we want to believe it, our government cannot protect us from everything. We have to stand up to protect our family. Gun laws aren't going to stop criminals, murderers, and rapists from having guns, it's only going to take them away from law abiding citizens. It's not the guns that are killing. It's the people that are holding the smoking barrel. And I feel as if people tend to forget that. Although I do believe there are ways to stop gun violence, I do not believe taking firearms away from law abiding citizens is a solution. I'd like to apologize in advance for any spelling or grammar in this argument. I had to use my phone to write it all, and things got rough to type.