Guns are not necessary in society

Well, my opponents response hardly had any actual points concerning the resolution and mostly consisted of calling my response "dumb", so I'll try to pick out what I can from the second response...*Clarification*) Concerning the abortion comments, I was merely inserting a personal comment that was blown way out of proportion by my opponent. "To start with, he's comparing gun legalisation to abortion, which a) has no relevance to the resolution, b) has no relevance to each other, c) has absolutely no substance behind the claim other than just his say-so, and d) is just a complete ad hom as well ("Oh, you think we should be legalizing guns? I bet you're pro-life too -insert sneer-").Then to the tail end of the statement where he's talking about how the want to not abort unborn children (i.e. being pro life), is in contradiction with wanting to legalize guns. It's just head-pounding-on-desk-until-your-skull-cracks-open dumb. There's no link between the two statements, no warrant to assume there's a link there, and just no logic behind the belief at all. It's just...bad. There's literally no other word for it other than bad. "-Wow, I wrote a line voicing a comment that has nothing to do with the resolution, its just a side point xDMy opponent says"A lot of people die in car wrecks every year, let's ban cars"...when I first read this words failed me because of the sheer stupidity of this statement. Comparing cars to guns is like comparing simple life necessities to the TV. Cars are absolutely vital to the way this country works. If in one day all cars were taken away, the huge majority of the country would not be able to go to work or go anywhere further away than a few miles from where they were...where as if guns were taken away, the vast majority of the country would not be effected.Me sitting next to a loaded gun doesn't make my life in danger of being shot.Next my opponent says"Even if this was in a civilian setting, the logic still holds. If terrorists are shooting at us, they have a lot harder time of actually hitting us if we're defending ourselves (i.e. shooting back)."Try to remember that he is talking about a CIVILIAN setting. That means at our houses, at the mall, in school. Clearly, my opponent has Al Qaeda is in his back yard. At the end of my opponents rant, he comments on my saying "If we're in danger, and guns protect us better than anything else", because the majority of the time it is guns that are putting us in danger in the first place..."by saying"Me sitting next to a loaded gun doesn't make** my life in danger of being shot." No, it does not make your life in danger of being shot, but it certainly puts YOU in danger of someone walking up to you and shooting you, or of a child walking up to you and shooting themselves...in fact, why did you need the gun anyway (Except to defend yourself from the gun toting Al Qaeda member hiding in the shed).**[put, endanger, 4th grade grammar...]In conclusion, my opponent hardly states any actual reasons against my initial post and instead makes up stories about how he needs to defend himself from terrorists, who clearly threaten his life on a regular basis to the point that he NEEDS a gun and endanger his life (note, its not making his life in danger, it endangering). Just in case my opponent wanted to hone his English speaking skills, I included some excellent links where he can improve upon them: http://www.education.com...https://www.teachervision.com...BTW: sorry for the last part, I actually do respect you, you seem like a very intelligent person. It was nice debating you.