The Right to Own , Keep, and Bear Arms

Let's address the rebuttals without further adeu. The order will be Refutations then Extensions. Refutations1) Links- My opponents only argument was that the founding fathers saw benefits to this. Tie this argument in with the Status Quo, of which my opponent does not understand. According to my opponent, in today's society people wish to do harm by other means. This is a fact, however, by eliminating the possibility of guns, we are in fact minimizing harms. Secondly, A concealed weapon would tie under the tensions and hostilities arguments at the end of my point 2 of the status quo, in which all arguments escalated into deadly violence due to gun use and possession. His arguments 2) and 3 can be tied together, both are about moral agency. Judges very quickly, I ask that you please re-read my Point 3 of Moral Agents, and cross apply that entire Point to his arguments two and three. My opponent does not understand my moral agency argument. In fact he basically restates it by saying quote "Weapons in themselves do not cause harms,it is people who cause harm. " End quote. This is precisely what point 3 was explaining, that people are irrational, that they have different morals, different ideals, and any simple argument can escalate into violence when given the right tool, such as a gun. Finally Let's go to my Cycle of violence argument. My opponent is escalating a cycle of violence that we seek to transcend. This occurs through fear, through power, through one man or woman having all the power. This is strengthened by his own argument against my point, about Criminals being afraid of citizens. What about citizens of other citizens? What if an accidental discharge were to occur? Or an argument were to escalate to a level of violence that may lead on dead? So i stated my opponent gave no credible sources. Let me clarify exactly what i mean judge. He hasn't given impacts for any of his arguments or any sources to back them up, he simply throws out facts and books and assumes that they will be his entire argument. In Round 3, he brought up 2 books, neither of which he explained, gave impacts for, or even argumentation. He asked you to read them instead. In my Round 3 i brought this up once again, i asked him to make it clearer for you the judge and for me the opponent, he still hasn't completely addressed his books in their entirety. Also, even if you as the judge do not like wikipedia (I completely understand, i apologize for citing it) You will still look at the other 9 credble resources used and give sources to con. Now for Extensions,to keep matters clean, i ask that all extensions be given the same impact from round 3 as they still have the exact same ground and no refutations (Round 3 impacts in bold)Links- My opponent never clearly gave the benefits of this right until his last speech. Technically, Rebuttals require no new argumentation or evidence, but even then, you can see my opponent fails to apply to the links argumentation. Status Quo- My opponent unfortunately, until the very end kept looking towards the past, 224 years ago. Only now (in the final round) is my opponent addressing the Status Quo. He still has not addressed any of the evidence that amounted in that paragraph, nor the impacts. Thus you extend the Status Quo. Moral agents- An extension can occur if the argument was not attacked correctly. My refutation of his arguments just brought up in this round against this point were that my opponent essentially restated this argument in saying that quote " weapons in themselves do not cause harm, it is people who cause harm. " End Quote. He never proves these people who wield the guns will use them correctly, that common citizens can be trusted with guns. Even if you don't buy this argument, you still have to buy the impact and extend that, because it was untouched. Self Defense- Untouched, plain and simple. Through all these arguments your going to give con sources. I urge a con ballot from the 4 arguments by con against pro, which pro never refuted, con has successfully fulfilled his BOP and Pro has not. All impacts still apply from round 3, and pro fails to truly acknowledge the Status Quo.