Citizens should be allowed to purchase and own firearms

Thanks Con. ==Idealism==Cons position is invalid because he hasn't defended any theoretical ideal. There are literally dozens of political ideologies conservatives, liberals, communists, socialists, anarchists, objectivists, libertarians, anarchists, ect. that all have a competing vision of what an "ideal society" is. Apparently my opponent thinks that we can just accept his incredibly vague assertions about an ideal society at face value, as if enitre ideologies can be rejected as simply as that. His argument is abusive anyway, we can only talk about ideals compatible with human nature and society, an analysis lacking in his argument. You can compare his case to arguing against the death penalty by saying "well in an ideal world we would have no crime and therefore no penalties." We have to look to the status quo and recorded history to judge the merits of policy, since no future can be properly forseen. Compare this position to the one outlined in my case, where gun ownership is a natural right as well as an intrisnic good. Strangely, my opponent argues that "The presence of a firearm is inherently dangerous.", while dropping direct evidence that I gave to the contrary not only does his failure to dispute my conclusion affirm my case, but it also circumvents any negative ground he managed to outline. He ignorantly posits that the only reason to own a firearm is to be aggressive, and yet there are a comparative handful of aggressive firearm cases, and over 21.8 million hunters over the past five years[1]. The incidence of murder with a firearm compared with a firearm used for hunting (assuming that each hunter uses only one firearm...which is innacurate) is .0034%. So for every thousand incidences of hunting, there are less than four human slayings...and yet my opponent still wants you to believe that firearms are inherently aggressive. Don't buy this without serious justification that he hasn't offered. Oddly, my opponent argues against my syllogism that "Stairs can cause deaths.." and yet his advocacy does not expand to ban stairs since in his world anything that can cause death is an inherently aggressive item. ==My Case==I. NAPMy opponent drops all of my stats and analysis, extend them all. He argues that a firearm is a tool used only for destruction. To reveal the weaknesses of his position, I'll accept this for a moment. What he is forgetting is that even if a firearm is a tool to destroy, it's quite likely that firearms often destroy those who deserve to be destroyed, such as criminals or unjust governments, both of whom will have numerous weapons to destroy the innocent. Of course, he's dropped my entire argument anyway so firearms are not inherently aggressive tools. I already win the debat since firearm ownership counts as a right under a self affirming moral principle (which he did not dispute). II. TyrannyHe drops this entire argument, invoking his mythological "ideal society" as having no governments that are militant. Unfortunately for my opponent, mankind does not, and likely never will live in a society that is his ideal. Instead we live in a world in which firearms are needed for defense. I guess he concedes that lack of gun ownership caused 89.9 million deaths, and that an armed population can overwhelm an unjust government. Vote neg for tryanny and genocide.TURN: My opponent argues: "An ideal society is pacifistic and non-aggressive." this means that citizens HAVE TO own firearms to defend against criminals, who will always exist since the government is pacifistic and will not fight to defend its citizens. His only argument is essentially a drop, because he misunderstands the point. He argues that in order for citizens to justifiably have firearms, tyranny needs to occur. No....the firearms are a defense AGAINST tyranny.III. Foreign invasion He again drops all evidence and analysis. He argues that a good society: " doesn't engage in harmful international diplomacy that could cause another society to attack and invade them." First, not all wars are provoked. Sometimes (especially against a "pacifistic and non-aggressive" society) a stronger society sees an easy overrun and a large pay off in resources and so attacks. Secondly, the lack of engagement in international diplomacy could still cause a nation to be aggressive towards it. For example, let's assume in a hypothetical world that the US is ideal society. Since the US is pacifistic and doesnt defend itself, other nations use its fishing grounds because they can. One day, Germany and France get in a war, so a French warship comes along and starts destroying German fishingboats, which is obviously against the rules of war since it's the intentional slaughter of innocent civilians. Germany asks the US government to take a position on the massacre, but since they are pscifistic and want to avoid anything to do with the war entirely, they remain silent. Germany is now mad at the US, continue ad infinitum. As long as there remain non "ideal" states, my opponents argument fails. Recall also that his analysis doesn't apply in the status quo or recorded history...which is what we have to look to. IV. Self defense He drops everything except one syllogism. So you can extend the statistic showing that crime increased in Great Britian after a gun ban, the survey saying that robbers are less likely to invade a home with firearms, the stat that firearms are used in self defense every 13 seconds, and the syllogism showing why gun control wouldn't work. His response to the crime deterence syllogism isn't very accurate. He tries to argue that stairs also cause death but don't deter criminals. The reason is that stairs can only be used as a weapon if you push someone down them, which the criminals would likely notice before it was attempted (and if someone had a reputation for popping out of nowhere and pushing robbers down stairs its unlikely that criminals would invade that persons home). Firearms conversly can be pointed and aimed everywhere, quickly, and without the criminals knowledge. So it's really a non sequitur to compare stairs to firearms. Further note that he didnt invoke his "ideal society" on this one. Even if you buy his ridiculous argument, you still affirm because he concedes that criminals will still exist and guns deter crime. Legitimacy of self defenseFirst, the VAST majority of cases where firearms are used DO NOT involve death or even injury, refer to the Kleck card that he conceded to. My opponent tries to argue that a citizen shooting a robber in his own home may not be justified. The fact of the matter is that citizens dont know what a criminal wants when they break into their home. It is an act of proprtional self defense because when someone breaks their door down at 4 AM wearing a black mask, there's really no way to tell if they're robbing you, or there to kill and/or rape you. They are a threat to be neutralized. The citizen has every right to kill or maim an aggressor who, if left alone, will steal their property. Individuals who feel entitled to take by force what other people have earned should be shot when they invade the property. If they dont like that, they shouldn't rob a house. Resolution affirmed. 1. http://www.nssfblog.com...