Resolved: We must remove paramilitary tatics/military weapons from U.S. police forces

I will attack what my opponent said. My opponent says that paramilitary tatics were out before reagon. I admit i got source mixed up my bad it was Bush who made new role for the tactics. What matters is that when Bush was in office he set a role for paramilitary tatics to pretty much just focus on drug crimes which is why they are used on drug crimes 100-150 times a day as I cited earlier. I don't see the simlieraty between "swat tatics" and "paramilitary tactics" I think there is a difference and that is the tactic used itself. So who made/created doesn't matter. Here is even more proof of what tatics are used for 1. Over time, the use of these units went from the rare hostage or mass shooter events to their regular deployment to execute no knock" warrants on suspected drug dealers, with flash grenades and battering rams. Washington's war on drugshttp://www.wbai.org... ." This proves that paramilitary tactics are now primarily for drugs and again this evidence as well Currently SWAT teams in the US violently smash into homes an average of 100-150 times each day to enforce laws against predominantly non-violent crimes this is from a UIL bill we have in Texas for congress in highschool debate right now so credible info. http://txfa.weebly.com... 2. futher proof that the tactics aren't needed for war on drugs ACLU survey looks at the SWAT team activities in 260 law enforcement agencies located in 26 states and the District of Columbia. What the civil liberties group found was that 61 percent of the people caught up in these paramilitary raids were people of color. Seventy-nine percent of the SWAT team deployments were not for the mass shooter or hostage event type of scenario they were originally created to deal with but for executing search warrants related to the war on drugs. In the majority of deployments they surveyed "the police did not face genuine threats to their safety and security," the ACLU concluded. http://www.wbai.org... My opponents last argument is to create a healthy scenario but about 50 people die a year from misuses of these tactics. His next argument is that my deaths per year argument is false: Here is proof and source: Americans have long maintained that a man"s home is his castle and that he has the right to defend it from unlawful intruders. Unfortunately, that right may be disappearing. Over the last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units (most commonly called Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine police work. The most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home. Raids on drugs causing deaths These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they"re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects. http://www.cato.org... Proof that equipment is misused daily: EARLY one morning a team of heavily armed police officers burst into the home of Eugene Mallory, an 80-year-old retired engineer in Los Angeles county. What happened next is unclear. The officer who shot Mr Mallory six times with a submachine gun says he was acting in self-defense Mr. Mallory also had a gun, though he was in bed and never fired it. Armed raids can be confusing: according to an investigation, the policeman initially believed that he had ordered Mr Mallory to "Drop the gun" before opening fire. However, an audio recording revealed that he said these words immediately after shooting him. Mr Mallory died. His family are suing the police.These teams, whose members wear body armour and are equipped with military-style weapons, were originally intended to tackle only the most dangerous criminals, such as murderers or hostage-takers. Now they are most commonly used to serve search warrants in drug-related cases. The police raided Mr Mallory"s home, for example, because they thought they would find a methamphetamine factory there. Instead they found two marijuana plants, belonging to a stepson who had a California medical-marijuana licence. Such tragedies are too common in America. One reason is that the police have become more militarised. Raids by Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) units used to be rare: according to Peter Kraska of Eastern Kentucky University there were only about 3,000 a year in the early 1980s. Now they are routine: perhaps 50,000 a year http://www.economist.com... I will not attack his argument he made on me about free equipment: He is saying that it is justifiable that police have military grade equipment because it isn't needed anymore. What he is pretty much saying that if lets say certain tanks aren't needed anymore as well in the military should hand straight over to the cops. Any weapon the military doesn't need anymore should go to cops?? That's not true I agree the equipment shouldn't be thrown away obviously there are other options besides handing it over to cops. We could keep just incase of a weapon shortage or recycle and use to make new weapons or just store them in case of emergencies in the U.S. that qualify for its use. His next argument is about college shootings So he claims equipment needed in schools but he only showed 23 cases and out of those 23 there were a total of 18 deaths. So basically probably about 1 death per shooting and some injured.... which is where regular police tactics apply they can deal with this kind of thing they deal with killings in this genre everyday. Also my opponent doesn't show what guns were used by attacker on shooting so again no proof they were big enough for paramilitary tactics and something regular police tactics couldn't handle. He doesn't show that m-16s and heavy vehicles were needed in these shootings. I will attack his next argument which is Small towns need equipment: Again this equipment is mostly abused for non-needed situations and used for drug crimes and again I provided evidence showing that the small towns don't even get it to protect to citizens they just get it to keep up and say they have it so they can get higher ratings on security. American cities, Mr Kraska writes that the rise in small-town SWAT teams was driven not by need, but by fear of being left behind. Police departments in towns like his often invest in military-style kit because they "want to keep up" with larger forces.Some of these areas are not very violent at all and just want this equipment because its free and advanced. And again equipment is mostly used for non-violent drug crimes not emergencies. Conclusion: I will attack his conclusion with this conclusion. He claims all of my arguments in case before this rebuttal had no evidence but I put sources and even provided more sources on this one. Only thing that was misunderstood was I looked it up and Bush just enforces it more on drug crimes you were right I messed up on info. they just changed use of tactics not created it. he claims I misunderstood the main purpose of swat but there