Guns are not necessary in society

My insults to you would've given you a free point to pretty much any voter, but then you went and ad hom'd my grammar. Niiiiiiice. There's really not a lot to respond to in this round. I'll just go over the key things in the round and how he still really hasn't refuted a single argument I've made. To start with, look back to my point about the resolution only mandating that I prove that a society needs guns in order to win this round. Then go back to how my opponent has conceded that both hunters and soldiers need guns. That's two separate ways to vote con in this debate before you even read anything else. Then, onto my syllogism argument. There's no actual refutation to the logic behind my syllogism. If anything he just nit-picks at the civilian aspect of my syllogism, but a) never refutes the first two premises which show that Al Qaeda have weapons and intentions to use them against us. This means that a terrorist attack is possible and b) never responds to the fact that the intial point of this syllogism was to be military-based. I said the logic holds for civilian life as well, but that was not my initial reasoning for making the syllogism. And, on the analogies:The car one first. He says that cars are essential for the country and guns are not but a) that's not true, the country ran fine before cars were invented, at best it's a luxury, b) he doesn't respond to the other analogy I make along the same lines (i. e. "People are being beaten with steel pipes, let's ban steel pipes. "), and c) he doesn't respond to the internal logic of the analogy. He's saying that because people have died from gunshot wounds that we should ban guns, which is an illogical thing to say. People dying in car wrecks isn't a reason to ban cars, rather just be more cautious when driving. Likewise, people dying from guns isn't a reason to ban guns, rather practice more gun safety. But let's take a look at his logic a little closer. If guns hurt people, therefore we should ban guns, let's take that one step further. Guns don't inherently hurt people, rather the bullets fired from guns are what hurt people. Let's ban bullets! Wait no that's not right, because firing pins are what cause the bullets to actually fire. Let's ban firing pins! Wait screw all of that. Let's go to the true source: people make guns. Let's ban people! No, that's not it solved either. God made people. Let's ban God! You can see how the logic gets really, really dumb really, really fast. So the debate is pretty simple:1. He's conceded to two different societies that need guns (hunters and soldiers). That's two ways to vote for me right off the bat.2. My syllogism for why society needs guns to protect us from terrorists stands still. That's a third reason to vote for me.3. My opponent actually hasn't made a single argument this debate. He's spent his entire time trying to refute my arguments that he's yet to post one of his own. So even if you don't like my arguments, I'm the only one actually trying to win this round and prove their side, so you vote for me because there's nowhere you can vote for him. That's four ways to vote for me. There's no argument that he's winning that shows why there isn't a society out there that needs guns.