Resolved: That guns are unnecessary in modern society.

As promised we define unneeded and unnecessary as one and the same - "absolutely essential". I will now move to the points my opponent brought up in his 2nd constructive. @Definition of society: My opponent claimed that I merely criticized his definition without providing another. To quote my 2nd constructive. "It completely ignores the running of the society and inter-personal relations." We agreed that the four criteria laid out in the 1st constructive for "society" were valid, in combination with these other two criteria: Inter-societal and inter-citizen relations. So his claim that I merely criticized falls. @Burden: My opponent is attempting to set an abusive burden. To quote him "I as the con must only prove that guns are necessary in one instance in modern society. If I can do that, then I win. On the flip side, the pro debater must prove they are unnecessary in all aspects of modern society. The resolution does not give him the liberty of excluding some, as the wording implies all." For some reason, my opponent seems to feel (again, without any warrant) that _he does_ have "the liberty of excluding some, [despite that] the wording implies all." Despite the fact that we warranted our secondary observation (burden) in Pro 1st constructive, we will modify that burden to be an judging on balance. Therefore, we ask your reason for decision to be "When viewed in context of all society from the Middle Ages to now, are guns more absolutely necessary, or less absolutely necessary to the existence of society?" We feel this concession will get rid of the semantics debate that is going on, and allow us to progress to real issues, and that we have still shown that on balance (all 6 criteria have been proven Pro) guns are not necessary to modern society. The only other alternative judging method which has been warranted for the round is the warranted one we provide in Observation 2. No such warrant exists in any other burden. The Pro fulfills the criteria for both methodologies. My opponent then moves on to mention the UN declaration of human rights, available here www.un.org/Overview/rights.html citing "Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." as a warrant. I still ask my opponent, how does this prove that society as a whole could stop existing without guns? Where is the link? Just because they have a _right_ to not be forced to do/undergo something does not prove in any way that this will actually lead to societal downfall, at all. We provide this example, also from the UN Declaration. "People have a right not to be enslaved" however people in many countries are compelled to serve masters against their will [8]. Their right was violated, yet society still exists. In fact, nearly every one of the rights listed by the UN Declaration is violated by one nation or another. Yet society still exists. We're not debating the moral merits of guns, nor whether or not they can help society. As per my first observation, the resolution specifically asks, are guns absolutely, indelibly necessary. My opponent provides no proof, nor a link between the downfall of society and his claims, and so we can see that they fall. My opponent then goes on to cite a source on England. What he does not realize, however, is that the problems of having legalized guns (the increased suicide rate, the increased homicide rate, and the increase in gun escalation) actually outweighs his statistic. Also, he does not refute my statistic on how minute the number of justified self-defense slayings are. So when we see that, and when we view these problems with legalized guns, we must wonder - on what methodology were the studies in England conducted? Did they take into account all of the possible criteria? Proper and adequate enforcement by officials? Administrative incentives to do so? Multilateral buy-in by the populace? My opponent provides a very narrow analysis, which is "a mile wide and an inch deep." as the old saying goes. When we realize that so many problems come from legalized guns - which have not been disputed, nor are they disputable, as they are sourced to some of the most reliable sources in existence, and confirmed by multiple independent organizations - we must realize that there _must_ have been other mitigating factors in the situation in England, which make this argument fall. My opponent finally addresses my Iraq and Iran point - barely. He does not refute anything I say, but rather claims that I have "not done a decent enough job of proving this one." As there is no refutation, my arguments still stand - which proves that guns are not absolutely necessary to societal existence; we dealt with Iran in one of our most successful Mid-East interactions _ever_ in a way not requiring guns. However, to hammer this point home, I will list a number of occasions in which diplomacy, rather than "guns", prevailed. Cuban Missile Crisis; after "the two sides [USSR, US] exchanged many letters and other communications" the countries came to the conclusion that the missiles should be removed from Cuba. [9] Chinese and Indonesian conflicts: The two have come together diplomatically to work together for mutual benefit [10] End of Cold War: The Cold War ended not at the point of a gun, but on diplomatic relations. [11] Judge, its pretty clear to see that every single country that has existed since the 1500s has not relied upon guns to do its foreign affairs. These are memorable matters, but we cannot ignore the small matters, in which nations cooperate every day diplomatically. My opponents own source, the United Nations, is the personification of this. They are a group of nations committed to diplomatic relations with each other. They prove that guns are not necessary to intersocietal relations. Next, my opponent talks about Protection. However, his only counter is that they have a "right" - which I have already proven is not inherently connected (and no other warrant is provided) to the continuance of society. When we view the logic I presented in my 2nd Constructive, we see that Protection is still a Pro point. Following, my opponent talks about Continuity. Before any of my analysis enters, he admits to his contradiction of the resolution - only sometimes are guns necessary. This proves the resolution true. But lets put that aside. In my 2nd constructive, I refuted his remaining examples as well. This was never disputed, and so stands. Security: His refutation of my criticisms is the "right" to own a gun - yet this flawed premise still does not take away from the undisputed negative effects on society which guns clearly have. He then misses the point of my analogy on gun escalation - that because gun escalation occurs to such a severe degree, it causes societal harm. Identity: My opponent restates my point, but makes a critical concession. By saying that if anyone identifies with something, it is a part of our identity, he ironically "shoots himself in the foot." If every single group in the existence of all modern society is to be considered a part of national identity, then it is ludicrous to say that any one factor is _absolutely necessary_ to the continuation of national identity as a whole. Let's put it in perspective. For the Con to be true, without the NRA (and such organizations) all forms of national identity in all modern societies would have to completely collapse. This is a ludicrous premise, and falls. Judge, Pro provides logic and warrants for all claims and refutation, on each point. Con varies between assumptions, ad hom attacks, and flawed analysis. The voting issues in the round are the 6 criteria. I have shown how each of them support Pro over Con, and ask you to do the same. Thank you. Sources posted in comments for space restrictions.