Guns are not necessary in society

My opponent vastly misunderstands my arguments, and makes laughably fallacious arguments.Start at the top of his round two, very first paragraph. This is where he's misunderstanding what I'm saying. He's trying to say that hunters and soldiers and stuff are exceptions to his rule, therefore outside the scope of the resolution. But what I'm saying, via the dropped resolutional analysis point and the definiton of society that I provide, is that because they are exceptions to his rule, as he just conceded for a second time therefore don't let him go back on this, you instantly negate the resolution right there because I fulfill my burden of showing a society that needs guns. He's not even trying to fight it. This is literally game-over for pro, so don't let him go back on this one. Hold him to his position and concession.His responses to my first two premises rely on the concession above, so my first two premises stand.But let's talk about the response to my third premise, of guns being dangerous.1. I don't really understand what he's trying to refute here. My arguments is that guns are dangerous and he responds by saying...that guns can hurt people. If anything this is a concession to my point. 2. The internal logic behind his position is ridiculously dumb. His argument is that guns have been used to injure children, therefore remove the guns and the injuries stop. That's like saying "A lot of people die in car wrecks every year, let's ban cars". (And I do hope my opponent recognizes the ridiculousness in the analogy). It's also similar to the analogy "A lot of people are being beaten by steel pipes. Let's outlaw steel pipes."3. While this point has absolutely no relevance to the debate, I find myself obligated to point out one absolutely moronic statement and point out the laughable flaws within it: "This number (referring to child deaths from guns) is appalling, especially since many of the people who are pro gun legalization are pro life and say that they are trying to save the lives of children…" (italicized my own clarification). 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. As for point four, two things:1. No warrant for why this has to be a civilian issue. I'm cleary giving an example of how guns are needed within a military setting, which his outlawing would get rid of, Look to my definition of society that my opponent never responded to, which makes no distinction between military and civilian life.2. 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). I thought that the implications was pretty clear. As for point five:......come on man. The entire syllogism is about defending ourselves from terrorists. Who do you think we may have to defend ourselves from?Before I wrap up this round, let's talk about his last line really fast:"I find some irony in you conclusion when you say "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..."1. Please source where you are getting the information from about how a gun has independently harmed a human being. I would love to see this information.2. If you're not understanding what I mean by the first objection, then this second objection is probably true: guns are inherently neutral objects. Me sitting next to a loaded gun doesn't make my life in danger of being shot. The gun can't fire at me on it's own. It's needs someone to pull the trigger in order for it to fire at me. This has serious implications to your line of logic. If guns aren't harmful in and of themselves, but rather require a mean-spirited individual to make them cause harm, are guns the actual source of the problem here? I'll let you sit on that thought for a bit. In the meantime, I'll wrap this round up and explain why I'm winning:Conclusion:First: He's conceded to two different societies (hunters and soldiers) who require guns in order to function. That means you have two different ways to vote con, without even needing to read the rest of the debate.Second: His attacks against my syllogism haven't even been attacking my arguments...his point about guns killing kids only validates my point of guns having the potential to hurt people. As such my entire syllogism stands unrefuted, which is another reason to negate the resolution.Third: Even if you don't like the logic of my syllogism, my entire syllogism has invovled why people, mainly military members but it applies to civilians as well, need guns. He's already conceded that military needs guns. Therefore you have to buy the syllogism anyway. Fourth: Even if you think his attacks refute my arguments, I've already pointed out the vast number of internal inconsistencies with his arguments, as well as the logical fallacies they make.I await my opponent's response.