Resolved: That guns are unnecessary in modern society.

We affirm "Resolved: That guns are unnecessary in modern society." We offer these definitions: Unnecessary: Not Necessary from Princeton Necessary: Absolutely essential from Princeton Therefore, we can view unnecessary as being not "absolutely essential", the equivalent of not "necessary". Modern - of or pertaining to the historical period following the Middle Ages. from Dictionary.com and Princeton Wordnet. Because we believe that this definition may prove controversial, we warrant our definition with multiple sources, and that the etymological origin of this word is modernus, which entered into the English language in the years spanning 1490 to describe the period of time that the people living in that time had entered - namely, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment and all times following such. Therefore, any time after the period of the Middle Ages may be considered "modern." We provide the following observations: 1) The resolution provides that the Pro must merely advocate that guns are not absolutely necessary to society - that is, that society can continue to exist without guns. As the Pro, we are not advocating that guns are/or are not helpful to society - that is not the topic of this debate, nor are we defending it. 2) As such, the Pro must show a single instance within the limit of "modern society" in which guns were not "absolutely necessary" to the continued existence of the society to prove the statement "uns are unnecessary in society" true. We find warrant for this in the absolute nature of wording of the topic, which mandates that there must be no conceivable societal situation in which guns could be deemed "not absolutely essential" to the continuance of the society. 3) Therefore, the Con must not only refute all examples brought up by the Pro to win, but must also provide reasons why all society would collapse without the usage of guns. 4) Society as a whole is comprised of interactions between societies (ie, sovereign countries) and as well between individual citizens of countries. Therefore, to win the round, the Con must prove both of these pillars true - that inter-societal relations would collapse without guns and that citizens within individual societies could not exist without having guns. We now move to our contentions. Contention 1 - Guns are not necessary for international cooperation and existence. Diplomatic relations between countries are multifaceted and broad. As the affirmative we hold that to say that diplomatic relations between countries rely in whole upon guns is false, and ignores the multi-dimensional aspect of these relations. Subpoint A - Guns are the equivalent of mob mentality. They are not quiet, or pensive, and once they are used, can never be taken back. They are swift, indiscriminate, and merciless in usage. They do not promote the mentality that is key to diplomatic relations - that of a chess master. Planned moves, calculation, and view of the situation as a whole are key to inter-societal exchange. We offer the examples of Iraq and Iran. In an article entitled "Why Did the U.S. Invade Iraq?" by Jim Lobe, published on March 19, 2008 [1] "The official reasons — the threat posed to the U.S. and its allies by Saddam Hussein's alleged programmes of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the possibility that he would pass along those arms to al Qaeda — have long since been discarded by the overwhelming weight of the evidence, or, more precisely, the lack of evidence that such a threat ever existed." This was furthered in the article, "Democrats unconvinced on Iraq War" by Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin "Congressional Democrats said yesterday that classified briefings by President Bush's top advisers have failed to make a compelling case for quick military action against Iraq, and several leaders said Congress should wait until after the November elections before voting to authorize a strike against Saddam Hussein's regime. "I know of no information that the threat is so imminent from Iraq" that Congress cannot wait until January to vote on a resolution, said Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee." After attending a classified briefing, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said: "It would be a severe mistake for us to vote on Iraq with as little information as we have. This would be a rash and hasty decision" [3] Despite this, the United States of America chose to take rash military action against Iraq. They utilized 'guns' in multiple senses. Literally, in the means that they used them in warfare against the country as a whole. Metaphorically, in that guns represent a rash, unforgiving mentality which does not take into account all factors that could and should play into a decision. [2] This means that when our society relied largely on the gun, literally and metaphorically, rather than diplomatic relations, we ended up with: 4012 Soldiers dead [4] 85,000 Iraqi deaths [5] $507 Billion debt [6] However, our society doesn't always take this approach. In dealing with Iran, one of our most successful relations in the Middle East, we came to a peaceful, successful resolution through diplomatic relations - no violence (or guns) were necessary. The United States and United Nations both viewed a nuclear Iran as a critical problem in the Middle East, one that may possibly be the spark of World War III. They quickly chose to take the route of diplomatic relations. In the September 5, 2006 America.gov article entitled "United States Committed to Diplomacy in Iran Nuclear Dispute" the United States and United Nations affirmed the mentality of diplomacy. "We are committed to diplomacy ourselves, but we're not going to negotiate … about negotiations," he said. The July 31 resolution asked Iran to suspend all enrichment-related activities in its nuclear program, including research and development, and to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its nuclear facilities. "If the regime in Tehran meets those conditions, which are quite clear, straightforward, then there can be negotiations," McCormack told journalists September 5. The five permanent members of the Security Council -- China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States -- offered a package of incentives to Iran if it accepted the conditions, and threatened economic sanctions if it did not." Over the next year, the National Intelligence Estimate - a report created from the collaboration of all 16 U.S. spy agencies - was developed. The unanimous conclusion that it came to was that Iran had stopped its nuclear weaponry program and - in accordance with the guidelines set down by the U.N. - had only pursued a peaceful nuclear development program. [7] What this means is that Iran responded positively to the diplomatic relations of the United States and the United Nations. Without any military action taken by any group, without any guns, inter-societal exchange occurred. And this change occurred positively, even more so than when violence and force was used. This situation lines up with the common human condition - people do not like being forced to do anything. In fact, actions that they may have been previously amenable to become hostile and impossible when they perceive being forced to do ssomething. Guns are just that - they are negative, where we require positive means. The truth is that in light of the evidence that we have provided, the negative process of force, and the usage and existence of guns are not necessary to the existence of modern society. Due to length restrictions, sources will be posted next post.