Resolved: That guns are unnecessary in modern society.

I'm going to begin with refuting my opponent's claims and his refutation, as it appears in the flow, then if space permits, I'll move to new contentions. @Resolution Phrasing: In speaking with tournament director Luke Cumbee, I asked if the wording could be changed from "unneeded" to "unnecessary" in light of the overwhelming one-sidedness of the topic at hand. He said that I could, and so the resolution stands as it was posted. In light of the resolution as it stands, my opponent's entire section on "need" and "want" and all that it warrants falls, as it is not resolutional. @All Aspects of Society: Despite my opponent's arguing semantics to an absurd degree, his "in" argument is wrong. "modern society" has no other limiting adjective other than "in", and therefore refers to society and all of its respective components. My opponent provided no warrant for why any intent other than the clear one should be used, so the observation of all aspects of society remains. @Definition of society: My opponent's definition of society is narrow minded – it only looks at what society does. It completely ignores the running of the society and inter-personal relations. I ask my opponent to name one functional society that exists without its citizens having any interaction at all. Since none exist, the burden of inter-citizen relations still stands, as does inter-societal relations, based on that they are critical to a majority of societies in the scope of "modern". Therefore, to win Con must show a majority of modern societies to whom guns are absolutely necessary to inter- citizen and societal relations. We accept his other criteria as the remaining aspects of society to be held for the round. 1) Protection; we contend that guns actually do not protect the citizens of a society because they actually lead to more violence than they prevent in both suicide and homicide. A study published [12 April 2007] in the Journal of Trauma found that across 50 States, home gun ownership was linked to an increase in the risk of gun-related suicide. The Violence Policy Center in 2002 concluded that "homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns." As for self-defense, the Department of Justice concluded that in 2005 there were "only 143 real justifiable uses of self defense." They state that other statistics on self-defense "are greatly exaggerated, and do not take into account the context of the situation to determine if the situation was actually justified." It provided this example, "Of course, some people seek the protection of a gun because they may be disproportionately likely to lead risky lives or associate with violent people." My opponent poses a number of scenarios in which guns _could_ be helpful, but never ties it into the resolution to say why they were "absolutely necessary" to the continued existence of society. Further, when we see that multiple viable alternatives exist to using guns (police, running) we can see this point actually affirms the resolution. Finally, guns actually contribute to societal harm by being unjustifiably used on criminals. In his first contention, he talks about shooting a criminal. What about _his_ protection? Other viable means exist to remedy a burglary yet a choice which is the ultimate violation of protection – physical harm – is made. This not only nullifies gun benefits, but can be taken further – guns are not necessary to the scenario, which therefore turns this point to Pro. Finally, the process of gun escalation actually brings more harm than protection. Gun escalation is where criminals continually compete to one-up police on weaponry to garner an advantage. For example, police and criminals both have pistols. Police look to gain the advantage in fighting, and so they upgrade their guns – but so do the criminals. This eventually leads to what we have now – AK47s being used regularly in the hands of street criminals. I'd also point out how my opponent claims inter-citizen relations are not relevant, but then _only_ warrants all 4 of his arguments with inter-citizen analysis. Since his entire case is based off conflicting premises, it does not logically function as a whole to prove Con, and should be dropped in entirety. His second contention also becomes a Pro point. He begins with "sometimes" – a clear indicator that in "other times" the gun is not necessary. My opponent further recognizes this when he says "yes, you may scavenge for food." Judge, this becomes a Pro point the instant my opponent conceded that other viable alternatives exist. Despite this, his other examples are also flawed. American's with guns are not necessarily trained in the subtle art of hunting – nor does my opponent warrant this – so in fact, the "loud noise" that my opponent boasts of would actually scare more animals away than kill. Because of my opponent's lack of warrant and logic weigh this point as Pro in your RFD. In his third contention, my opponent asked you to refer to his refuted examples in ‘protection'. I ask you to refer to my counter to that – gun escalation. I would ask, would you be more comfortable knowing that the person robbing you has a knife, or an automatic AK47 with hollow-point armor piercing shells? However, despite my refutation of all of this, there is no link in any of my opponent's 3rd contention to his ‘warrants'. His entire contention centers around Jeff Foxworthy and a "father's sense of security." Yet how does this link to facilitating the continuance of society? It simply doesn't. When we look to my analysis on how guns are not necessary to continued societal existence, we see this point actually affirms the resolution. On to his fourth contention on national identity. Again my opponent refutes himself. "Guns are crucial to the identity of _some_ people" and "Hunting is another way to identify ourselves." He shows, repeatedly and on his own how guns are only one aspect of the national identity. On that alone, this becomes a Pro contention. Despite this, my opponent takes a deliberately narrow view of what "national identity" is. National identity is how people view themselves as a whole – as a societal group. Guns clearly do not define that - national identity (especially in the recent years of America) has focused on a multitude of factors, including race, age, birthplace, political view, democraticness and amount of patriotism. Guns do not provide for any of these. While some Americans may identify themselves with guns, it is not a ‘national identity'. We would not consider the American Pie Throwers Association to be a part of the American national identity either. These other factors prove how guns are not absolutely necessary to society – therefore, this point affirms the resolution. In this debate, I not only refuted all of his examples, but proved my case valid, and turned his points to support my position. My examples of Iraq and Iran, and all of the statistics therein, were hardly addressed, and by no stretch of the mind refuted. In your decision, I ask you to weigh that on an international level (Iraq and Iran), guns are not necessary to society. On Protection, guns cause more harm than they solve. On the continuance of society, my opponent provides no link to necessity, while I prove they are not necessary. On Security, gun escalation and lack of warrant turn this point into Pro as well. As for identity, it is narrow minded and false to claim that America identifies itself by guns, or that its identity critically relies on guns. Please affirm. 1www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/19/7760/ 2www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/19/7760/ www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml 3www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64509-2002Sep10?language=printer 4www.icasualties.org/oif www.iraqbodycount.org