[ WP ] Are you pro or anti magic ? What is your argument on why citizens should or should not deserve a right to magic ?

`` Now, hear me out on this, but I'm pro magic.'' 
 
 
 Silence falls over everybody assembled. I was n't expecting that much of a reaction. Well, guess there's no avoiding it now. 
 
 
 `` Ever since the year 2072, when mankind uncovered the secrets of the arcane, magic use has spread to the four corners of the Earth. And since that day, when magic was revealed to the world, the question has been: Should citizens have the right to cast magic?'' 
 
 
 I take the opportunity to clear my throat a bit and drink some water. 
 
 
 `` The fact of the matter is that magic can be shaped into offensive spells. Spells that have little purpose aside from hurting others. We hear stories yearly of forest fires starting because idiots forced out a spark of magic from a random stick they brought off the black market while in the middle of a forest. We all know about the Witman Churchill murders, where Mr. Churchill got a hold of a drunk policewizards wand and displayed immense magical talent... before proceeding to use said talent to murder 14 people with spells such as fireball and meteor rain. Then it took 6 policewizards working together to disarm and capture him. 3 of whom died. But need I remind you all that Witman Churchill could have just as easily killed those people with a gun? In fact, unlike a gun a person requires an affinity for offensive spells to cast them with any strength. It was unfortunate that Mr.Churchill had such an affinity, but only 10 % of the population has the affinity to cast offensive magic. A significantly higher 80 % of the population have an affinity for defensive spells such as shields and wards. For the sake of clarity, healing and charm affinities are still higher than offensive magic, at 30 % and 70 % respectively. If civilians had access to magic, it's more likely that they'd be gifted with magic they could use to keep themselves and others safe than magic that they could use to hurt others. Not only that, but we have ways to test what affinity a person has, which allows us to properly register who can cast offensive magic. I'm not saying that they should be treated any differently that another magic caster, only that the standard issue wand should heavily dampen offensive magic, and they're not allowed to use another wand before they receive a proper license to cast. Functionally speaking, there'd be no difference between them and another caster.'' 
 
 
 I prepare to continue my argument before a voice emerges from the crowd. 
 
 
 `` But what do we do about people who have an affinity for multiple magic types? Our tests only show one affinity, and they might take advantage of that to get a non-dampened wand.'' 
 
 
 Ugh, this guy was behind on the times. Well, time to correct him. 
 
 
 `` That was certainly a concern for me, and part of the reason I did n't become pro magic until this year. As it turns out, five years ago some students at the University of Georgia developed a new method of magic testing which is both significantly more accurate and can detect multiple affinities. Just this year, they've released the finished product, and people around the world have been buying them. Which makes your argument a moot point. In any case, how valuable would it be if 30 % of the population could heal wounds with the wave of a wand? It'd save many lives, for sure. Look, I'm just saying that with proper control, magic in the hands of civilians will not be the end of our civilization. Thank you.'' 
 

