Any gun other than pistols should not be sold to citizens.

=Neg case=I. Ban pistolsPro makes no powerful response to this argument. All he says is that if we ban pistols robbers would switch to long guns and civilians would have no weapons at all...even though there's literally nothing stopping civilians from purchasing long guns too. Pistols are clearly the go to weapon for murderers and crime, so if we are to actually believe gun control works we should go with banning them. But it doesn't, and we should negate the resolution on that. However the resolution is beyond absurd--before voting on this debate, I ask all voters to think about the fact that my opponent is *literally* advocating banning muskets and bolt action rifles while wanting to keep the weapon that is used for about half of all murders in the United States. We have to have a compelling reason to ban something, not just because Pro wants a "clear" law. Remember that as the negative, I can disprove the resolution in any way. Pro on the other hand, is obligated to provide a clear advocacy. Before considering voting Pro, keep in mind that Pro is arguing that weapons are good for self defense and bans on weapons don't work, and then wants to ban other kinds of weapons. His position is not coherent and you can't base policy on these kinds of arguments. Pro lumps together several arguments under this point, so I'll respond to them here. He argues that carrying long guns in public is unethical (?) but this isn't the reason people don't do it, it's because it's inconvienent. I agree that pistols are useful for self defense but it's questionable if that outweighs their usage in homicide. Pro makes no valid response to his concession of the debate under the hunting argument. Lisencing is not the same as an outright ban, allowing civilians to purchase any long gun in any circumstance negates the resolution. Pro talks about assault weapons, but nothing in the resolution says assault weapons. Pro prefers that the population flees en masse in the event of an invasion, as if millions of displaced citizens doesn't present it's own dangers. It's the deterrence advantage that really matters--Pro agrees my examples are "fine". He argues that in the modern world a country can just murder all of the civilians by using nuclear weapons, but it's dubious that this would accomplish any military objective and would likely set off a nuclear war and lead to human extinction. Conventional invasions are deterred by civilian weapon ownership and this lets the United States pursue it's military objectives free of the danger of a homeland invasion. II. Second amendment Once again, Pro utterly ignores my point on legitimacy. Affirming the resolution would literally destroy the Federal Government as we know it. Pro agrees that democide happens about twenty times more than homicides from ordinary civilians--thus even if he wins that homicides are increased by negating the resolution, the loss is acceptable to offset the risk of a democidal government. Pro claims that I argued to ban handguns, but like I said I can negate the resolution in several ways. Basically I'm asking the judges to ask themselves if this question at the end of the debate:"Does gun control work?"A. Yes --> Then vote neg because gun control groups should use their political capital to ban handguns.B. No --> Then vote neg because there's no reason to ban weapons from civilians if it won't keep them out of the hands of criminals. Pro argues that civilians should be allowed pistols because they can then defend themselves against government at all times, but democide doesn't work like that. It's almost always the gradual deprivation of rights to a group until their extermination, if these people were armed they could resist encroachment on their rights or at least have a chance. III. Guns and crime Pro claims that he "cannot" argue about statisitcs. Even if you don't buy any of my arguments then you can still negate because Pro absolutely *refuses* to use *any* statistics. How can we know if his policy is needed or would be effective *at all* if we have no evidence to look at? My opponent also says that it's "clear that gun control does not work". Vote Neg. He qualifies this with the debate being about an "ideal world" but this is a cop out--this is a policy debate. If Pro refuses to argue the most fundamental question of policy--"does it work?"-- than you can't vote for him. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to ban snything because everyone would act peacefully to each other. To want to debate an "ideal world" is to not want a debate at all. We need to look to which plan best mitigates mankinds more violent instincts, allowing the innocent to arm themselves or the one that disarms them to the benefit of the criminal.Pro once again accuses me of "manipulation" because my statistics lump together long guns and handguns, but this is ridiculous. If he concedes that civilians having handguns deters crime, it obviously follows that long guns will have a similar effect. A dead criminal is a dead criminal, regardless of whether the lead he was pumped with game from a shotgun, rifle, or pistol. =Aff case=False dichotomy Pro concedes the debate again here by arguing that people who have "musket fetishes" can still buy them with a license. It doesn't matter if Pro wanted to argue stricter gun regulations in general, if he wanted that he should've crafted a better resolution. Vote based on who upholds their end of the resolution better, and given that Pro is rejecting his position of banning all long guns from being sold, he loses the debate. Easier for criminalsPro argues that criminals follow laws and keeping guns from being sold at stores would keep them from buying them....except only 8.3% of criminals bought their guns from stores[1]. Pro argues further that shopkeepers shouldn't be allowed to have long weapons because handguns are "enough of a defence". Human Events wrote a great article[2] about Korean storeowners defending themselves from the mob during the 1992 LA riots using Assault Weapons, Rifles, and Shotguns. Moreover the argument that storeowners hardly ever take out robbers is empirically denied--a simple google search will reveal dozens of such stories. Pro drops my response about most guns owned by civilians being long guns, thus his psychological impact goes to me because he would strip more homes of firearms and deter less crime than I do. Pro estimates that the probability of a long gun being used to gun down hundreds of people to be " one in twenty million". I think this is as good an independent argument to negate the resoution as any.Easier to solvePro once again refuses to give statistics. Literally his only example is from 50 years ago, and it doesn't even support his position as the JFK assassin was *caught*. He argues that the amount of people who own long guns does not matter, because we're arguing about a hypothetical world with none of them, but this is absurd. The resolution isn't "Long guns are good for society" it's whether or not we should ban them. If the policy has a negative impact, we shouldn't implement it. Vote neg. Sources:1. http://dailycaller.com...2. http://www.humanevents.com...