There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms

My opponent invited me to debate and I am more than ready. So I will more than gladly lay down my case and ultimately prove the Con today through showing the need of regulation and limitation. Framework: I agree to the small arms definition, I agree to the controlling forces examples, and I will take on the inherent right to self defense. I reject that we can only reference adults for the reason that it is laws and regulations that deem only adults can purchase weapons. Finally Pro's point 2 claim is ridiculous. I would never debate this topic with the specification that we can't reference events where guns were used criminally. No person would oppose guns if they were only used for defense in morally justified scenarios at all times and never for committing crime.This would dwindle the Con argument to metaphysics or resource management. The Case. - my points are going to be short and simple with sources upon request. 1.security for citizens 2.dangers of gun use 3.dangers without regulation 4.human rights Contention 1 - security for citizens Pro attempts to argue that guns are needed for civilian safety but this proves largely untrue. An array of non lethal defenses such a tazers and mace are carried by millions of individuals. The argument may persist, what if that in not enough? The simple answer is that such an issue falls to the state or government. A state has a monopoly on violence and it is their job to provide law enforcement such as police officers and a military force. Also, under a society with no limitations on guns you assume citizenry would be safer but many are morally opposed to killing and furthermore you are assuming every man, and especially woman would want to get practice and training on accuracy and usage of guns. This is fairly implausible that most humans would be willing to do such. What we would see is a rise of vigilantes corrupting the rule of law as they try to provide street justice with their legal weapons. Contention 2 - dangers of gun use Gun use and ownership may be used for security in a minute number of cases but in the majority we see school shootings, mass killings,civil wars, revolutions, and other bloody conflicts. Within the past two decades a number of the worst school shootings have occurred including columbine and Virginia tech. In addition countless suicide were expedited by guns and thousands of children and youth have accidentally shot themselves of friends. Another point to look at is what could happen with gun limitation. My opponent argues government abuse but his point is null in a democracy. In scenarios with guns we either see rebellions slaughtered or the reigning power annihilated. Both are violent and terrible ends. Now let us look to gun free (or limited) scenarios such as ghandi, or mlk jr. , or the egyptian overthrow in which peaceful protest was able to create change. Contention 3 - dangers without regulation Without regulation on guns, society would begin to crumble as crime and drug syndicates amassed. Link this to my comments in my first argument, where we now see all criminals can aquire guns making the task near impossible for the police to manage. I suppose my opponents answer to this, is to place the entire justice system in the public's hands and allow them to use guns to manage it. This would surely end with disastrous results. Contention 4 - human rights The concept of self-defense as a right (inherent/universal) is false in nature. I would agree under a constitution we could acquire this right as part of a contractual agreement but outside of that it is nonexistent. the only way we achieve self defense as a inherent right is by twisting the value of life into the protection of my life. If we are to accept self defense then all people are justified in firing upon police officers that have guns drawn. That is a threat on your life. Now I know that pro will want to throw out any examples where someone has committed a crime but if we hold the principle as an inherent right the circumstance does not matter. Even the rapist is justified in counter defense if his/her victim utilizes their right to self defense. To make a final note, since self defense requires infringements and action against others I would argue it is inherent as it does protect the individual, but at the cost of the self defense of others. So essential every attack is leading to infringement on both persons right but we as society are then subjectively deciding the just by claiming the first attack was at fault. but what if the first attack was to prevent attack? Such a belief opens a can of worms, with endless uses and abuses of the idealized view. Good luck to my opponent. Con case is finished for now.