Tournament Debate: Gun Rights

First, my opponent proposes that along with conventional gun control, we ban 3d printers. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a classic example of extreme authoritarianism. 3D Printing is a developing technology that is sure to be used widely by civilians in the future, for countless purposes other than guns. I mean, what my opponent proposes is basically equivalent to banning typewriters in the late 19th or early 20th century, or banning fax machines when they first came out, or the internet in the mid 90s. It's ludicrous and tyrannical. Besides, there's still the possibility that somebody could simply make their own 3D Printer, considering that blueprints for the technology is probably available by now on the internet. Of course, gun control would definitely reduce the number of guns available to civilians. But then you'd have repeats of the 2011 Utoya Massacre, where 67 people were killed by gunfire. That's what one wolf let loose among a flock of sheep can accomplish; the shepherd is not constantly present. Imagine a large indoor event where there's no armed security, everyone's disarmed, a shooter enters, and he's prevented the doors from opening. Everyone there would be at the mercy of the shooter, and he could kill everyone there. Simply put, a few criminals with guns would have their destructive capabilities vastly increased, with no chance of a civilian stopping them. In fact, considering that the number of illegal guns out there would be sky high, the number of deaths prevented would probably be offset by the number of deaths caused. Next, the purpose of guns. My opponent claims that the original purpose of civilian handguns is for killing. Absolutely; that's why it clearly reads "Go shoot your neighbor" on the box one's gun comes in. Even in the good ole' days (that is, centuries in modern American history prior to 1900), the primary purposes for guns would've been to hunt animals (seeing as how wild animals were a legitimate food source back then) and protecting one's self and one's family from hostiles, be it outlaws or attacking Indians. There are different kinds of guns, used for different purposes. Currently available civilian guns are not intended for killing human beings, though they certainly have the power to accomplish this. Also, if original intent was what mattered, then pacifists everywhere should shun the internet as a tool of the military-industrial complex. Finally, my opponent addresses Government corruption. The reason that it is such a matter of concern is that it's permanent. Seeing as how the vast majority of Americans believe in Evolution, I'll use Evolution as my analogy. According to the theory of Evolution, Species A, which is extremely primitive but able to reproduce, appears. There have been countless "attempts" by nature before this to create lasting life, but this one "sticks" for billions of years because it meets the requirements needed to survive indefinitely (that is, this life form's descendants). Only a global extinction event that could make Earth like Mars could end life after it "sticks". In this same manner, a Government that is able to assert total control over its populace will "stick" (that is, remain in power) indefinitely, for billions of years and possibly until the end of time itself. It would be, in every sense of the word, permanent; only some significant external factor could end it. That's why Authoritarianism in a technologically advanced era is exceptionally dangerous. That is why it must be prevented at all costs. The best way to accomplish this is to ensure that there is not a power imbalance between the capabilities of the populace and the Government. My opponent has stated that it (the Government's sufficiently detract corruption) won't happen; maybe in the short term it won't. But over the course of millennia, eventually it will. And when it does, you can be sure that it will "stick" forever if there's a major power imbalance when this occurs. Before I end this, I'd like to note one more thing. A sufficiently moral populace will mean a "good" majority that will be able to keep the bad apple members of the populace in check. An armed populace enforces justice; a good majority will be protected by its power which it has through weaponry. A bad majority will destroy itself, and rightfully so. Done.