Citizens should be allowed to purchase and own firearms

To clarify the context of my arguments, look to my opponents framework. "The resolution applies generally across all human societies, not US specific, however since most raw data available is from the United States it's likely that the debate will center mostly around this country." I take the position that the lack of specificity means that the debate doesn't take place in the status quo, rather, it uses "should" which would imply that there is a universal standard for human society to meet. This universal standard, which I shall clarify, is inherently exclusive towards guns and thus, citizens should not be allowed to purchase and own firearms. Let's start with the neg case with only 1 Contention (it's short, I'mma go for a refutation of the pro) Contention 1: Idealism No ideal society would have or need firearms. The presence of a firearm is inherently dangerous. Children and teenagers who get a hold of their parents weapons can accidentally harm themselves and others sometimes ending in death. No ideal society can advocate for unsafe possessions such as guns. Move to Pro Case 1. Non-Aggression Principle "The ownership of firearms is not inherently aggressive and is therefore morally justifiable under the NAP." A gun is aggressive because its only purpose is to be aggressive. A gun isn't like other tools/weapons, it's not a kitchen knife that you use for your steaks, it's a weapon designed to serve one purpose, to kill. Citizens may not use their guns to be aggressive, but the reason for owning a gun is to be able to become an aggressor. The same is true for possession of things such as bombs. There is no other use for it than to destroy something or someone and is therefore a tool of destruction. 2. Tyranny Speaking of what should be in this debate brings me back to my 1 contention. My opponent applies the debate to all of human society and speaks of militant governments. Governments should not be militant, as is evident from my opponent's own argument. As his evidence states, "Disarming the population to be exterminated allows for governments to take them to their deaths with less resistance, which not only keeps the government from losing more soldiers and resources fighting them, but also allows for them to conduct their genocide in secret to the international community." Widespread gun ownership isn't a should because something else is wrong before firearm ownership is proposed as a solution, the people are being tyrannized. 3. Foreign invasion My opponent would wish that the citizens of a country actually become combatants. An ideal society doesn't get into war. An ideal society is pacifistic and non-aggressive. A citizen should not own firearms because there should be no need for them. Any society that should be is a society that doesn't engage in harmful international diplomacy that could cause another society to attack and invade them. 4. Self Defense and Crime My opponent uses a false syllogism here to justify the possession of firearms in the event that a criminal appears. 1. Most criminals fear death. (okay) 2. Firearms can cause death (sure thing) 3. Therefore, the possession of firearms will deter criminals (you've opened up a broad syllogism with this one) Stairs can cause deaths, but that doesn't mean they deter crime. Further, my opponent gives the example of burglars that would refuse to enter a house with a firearm. This brings into question the validity of make-my-day and stand-your-ground laws. Burglars, in this example, haven't committed an offense worthy of the death penalty, yet my opponent would have them killed for home invasion. Because it's not safe to assume that citizens using guns to deter crime are morally justified, it's not safe to affirm that citizens should own guns.