Guns are not necessary in society

But first let's talk about the resolution. The resolution itself is highly skewed in pro's favor. Not only is it set up as a negative wording (instead of affirming to do x action, the resolution is set up so that affirming means we don't do x action, which is a little bit of a turn around from convention), but it's so skewed toward pro's favor that I'd say that if we're even remotely close at all, you default to voting neg just because if we're even kinda close to tied, then I did the far better job at debating the resolution. Next, as the resolution is specific to gun use within society, we should probably know what society is. According to Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, it's "a voluntary association of individuals for common ends;especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession"(1). And, because the resolution is asking me about gun's use within society, not gun's use overall, all I have to do to prove that guns are necessary to society is to prove that a society needs guns. If I do that, you vote con. With both of those in mind, let's look to my opponent's first round, where they concede the following: "Gun legalization is not needed in the US for anything past very small calibre and in instances where someone's livelihood depends on owning a gun (hunters)" (emphasis my own). This right here is a concession of a society (i. e. hunters) that have need of guns. If my opponent wishes to take back this statement, which you shoulnd't let him because that's incredibly unfair to me, then I'm willing to defend how hunters need guns in order to sustain themselves. Other than that, my argument will be as follows: guns are necessary so that we don't all die a horrible, horrible death. My logic will be as follows:P1: Various terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda being one, have access to lots of guns. P2: Al Qaeda have motive to use those guns against us. P3: Guns pose dangers of injury and/or death. C1: We are in danger of injury and/or death. P4: Guns help us defend ourselves against this injury and/or death. P5: Other means are insufficient to fully defend ourselves against this injury and/or death. C2: Guns are necessary for our society to not die. I'm willing to defend any of these premises should they become under attack, but I'll offer a brief explanation of each one regardless. P1: Various terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda being one, have access to lots of guns. This one should be pretty self-explanatory. It's what they used in Iraq and Afghanistan to attack US troops. P2: Al Qaeda have motive to use those guns against us. Al Qaeda has declared a jihad, or holy war, against the US. We have essentially been marked for death by their radical beliefs. They will not stop until they are dead or we are dead. P3: Guns pose dangers of injury and/or death. Please don't tell me you're actually considering attacking this one. I may cry a little on the inside. C1: We are in danger of injury and/or death. The conclusison follows from the premises. If Al Qaeda have guns, have reason to use those guns against us, and those guns really hurt us, then we're in danger. P4: Guns help us defend ourselves against this injury and/or death. It's kinda hard for them to shoot us if we're shooting back at them. P5: Other means are insufficient to fully defend ourselves against this injury and/or death. I will defend against any alternative to defending ourselves that my opponent may bring up, but let's be real here: what else would we use? Rocks? Swords and shields? Hardly any kind of protection. C2: Guns are necessary for our society to not die. The conclusion follows from the rest of the premises. If we're in danger, and guns protect us better than anything else, then they are necessary for our society. I await my opponent's response. Sources:(1) - . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;