Resolved: That guns are unnecessary in modern society.

First for the definitions. I do not accept anything about necessary or unnecessary. If you look to the actual resolution provided on facebook, you will see it says "unneeded." My reason for saying this will be proven now. Unneeded will then be not needed, for logical reasons. And needed according to the American Heritage Dictionary is defined as: 1: A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted 2: Something required or wanted According to Mirriam-Webster: 1: To be in want According to thefreedictionary.com: 1: A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted 2: To be in need or want And lastly according to Princeton: 1: want: have need of All of these definitions, including the one my opponent used, contains the word "want." My opponent leaves this word out. This cannot be since the resolution clearly says "unneeded." For the other definitions, modern is fine. I would here like to define the word "society." Society, according to dictionary.com, is defined as "a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members." Since my opponent failed to address or define this word, then you should allow this, as my opponent already had the chance to define it and chose not to. This means that I must show how guns are needed in each of the four categories provided, and my opponent must show how they aren't needd in the four categories. Now for my opponent's arguments. His first and second arguments can be summed up by saying that guns aren't necessary to every aspect of society. I would first like to point out that the resolution uses the word "in" which does not in fact mean ALL aspects, it just means some aspects. So as the negative, I need to show that guns aren't needed in some aspects of society, and my opponent must show they are needed in some aspects of society. If we both do that, then you as the judge should vote for whoever proves their point in the MOST aspects of society. With my definition of society, I will show you how they are in fact needed for every aspect. 1. Protetion - If there is someone threatening your life, then you as a human being have the right to protect your life because it is an inalienable right gien to all human beings. Guns are extemely wanted in that aspect. They have the ability to scare someone away who is threatening your life. They are able to be effective at long range which gives you more of a chance to protect yourself, and sooner. They are loud, which can be used to alert others of a threatening situation. For example, if a burglar is in your house and you fire a shot, the neighbors might hear and call the cops. The noise also might scare the intruder. Guns can do enough damage to an individual threatening your protection that they are no longer a threat. This in fact is the biggest benefit guns have. These above reasons show that guns are in fact needed for protection. 2. Continuity - Sometimes there arises a situation in which a gun can help you in a situation that is threatening your very survival. God forbid this ever happen, but if it does then guns will help you stay alive. If you are lost in the wilderness for a long period of time, then a gun will help you hunt for food. If you did not have a gun, then it will be very hard to catch food. Yes you may scavange for food, but a gun can help you catch food that is much better for your body, and will provide nourishment for longer. Guns also provide continuity for the above mentioned reasons with protection. These examples again prove how guns are needed in continuity. 3. Security - This one is very closely related to protection. Use the same examples that I used there to apply here as well. Not only that, but guns can give fathers peace of mind. As Bill Engvall once said, he found a way to ensure that his daughters will always be brought home by a date on time. Show their date his gun collection. This is security of mind. There have been many fathers who worry about their daughters dating. If the date sees that his date's father has a large enough gun collection, then this might scare him into obeying that father's rules. This is one way security adds to security of mind. Another way it does this, is it allows home-owners security of mind by knowing they will be prepared for an intruder. Even if the situation never arises, the home-owner will know that they are prepared if it ever does. These examples once again prove how guns are needed in modern society. 4. Identity - Guns are crucial to the identity of some individuals. With the NRA being the largest non-governmental association, we see that people like to have their guns. I live in Wyoming, and there are a bunch of people who love to go out shooting prairie dogs for fun. I am one of those people. It is always fun to get a new gun to shoot. I find myself envying people's gun collections. If they have guns that I don't have, then it gives us something to talk about. Not only that, but people identify with people that have common interests. If our common interests are guns, then we find some of our identity in guns. Guns are also used to identify people who like to hunt. Wyoming is known for our game and wildlife areas. People who hunt, use rifles most of the time. If I see a friend of mine owns a rifle, then I assume he hunts. Granted, I may be wrong sometime, but usually not in the given circumstance. Hunting is another way to identify ourselves. These reasons once again prove how guns are needed in modern society. The four ways I just showed how guns are needed in modern society is definitely enough if not more than enough to prove how my opponents first two arguments are completely false. My opponents third argument says that all I have to do is disprove the examples brought up by himself/herself. I have easily done so. But then says I need to prove how guns are needed in ALL aspects of society. I have already said how I don't need to do that, but if you still think I do, then my opponent must show how guns are not needed in ALL aspects of society, which he has not done. I must now bring up the burdens argument. If my opponent does not affirm the resolution in all aspects, then he/she loses. As the negative, I only have to prove one. If I can do that, then the pro loses because he/she has not completely affirmed the resolution. My opponents fourth argument is disproved by my definition of what society is. Society in fact does NOT include interactions between societies. The resolution says society, not societies. I believe that he intended to mean our society, which is what both my opponent and I have argued. So I don't have to show the interactions between societies. This moves on to his/her first contention saying that guns are not needed in international cooperaion. I have already proven that it does not have to. As that is his only contention, you must look to how guns are in fact needed in modern society. I have shown you that at the beginning of this debate. My opponent also says that in order for the con to win, that I must prove both pillars he provides me to be false. Once again. This most certainly isn't true. Not only have I already shown you how the pillars aren't what society is defined as, but if you were to accept it, then I don't have to disprove both of them. Rather, I only have to disprove one of them. Use my four points under how guns are needed in society and apply them to his second pillar. If the affirmative does not affirm the entire resolution then he/she loses this debate. My opponent has failed to even show you how guns are unneeded in his second pillar. All he/she talks about is how guns are unneeded in the first pillar. This means that I am winning the second pillar and my opponent cannot win. TY