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

Since he is Pro, and desires a change in policy which goes against the status quo, the full burden falls on him to show that "we must remove paramilitary tactics/weapons from U. S. police forces". All I must do is negate his arguments and in doing so I hope to show the audience why this resolution should stand negated. I. Paramilitary tactics outdatedMy opponent claims that paramilitary tactics "were created under President Reagan to deal with drug crimes". This is false. SWAT, short for 'Special Weapons and Tactics', was actually started long before President Reagan. The first SWAT team is rumored to have been created by the Philadelphia Police Department in 1964. [1] What we do know is that the LAPD was one of the first to have a fully established SWAT team. In fact, according to lapdonline. com, the teams were formed in the late 1960's to combat several sniping incidents that were occurring around the country. [2][1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.lapdonline.org...I will quote directly from source 2: ". .. the leadership of the LAPD realized that an effective response to these dangerous situations was virtually non-existent. Officer John Nelson presented the special weapons and tactics concept to a young inspector by the name of Darryl F. Gates. Inspector Gates concurred and approved the concept of a small group of highly disciplined officers utilizing special weapons and tactics to cope with these unusual and difficult attacks. "I would like the audience to take note of the purpose for SWAT, "to cope with unusual and difficult attacks". Nothing is mentioned of Ronald Reagan or the drug war in regards to its inception. Pro either purposely shared false information, or simply misunderstood the true purpose and origins of SWAT. Furthermore, they are not "outdated". Many SWAT teams receive bi-monthly training, and it is safe to assume that during such training they are updated on the latest tactics which produce the most effective means to end a life-threatening scenario. II. 50 deaths a year from raidsMy opponent claims that "non-violent crimes should = a non-violent punishment". Yet, he fails to show how any of those 50 deaths are from non-violent crimes. Pro needs to prove that each of those deaths stemmed from non-violent crimes, or else neither I or the audience have any reason to accept this claim as valid. Since my opponent shared false info in his last argument, I demand proof to validate this claim. Furthermore, even if he can prove that each of these 50 deaths are from non-violent crimes, he will still need to justify the potential loss of life that would occur should such SWAT teams truly be dismantled. We must remember, they respond to unique situations including bank robberies and kidnapping. Without them, are common police forces would not have the specialized equipment or training to deal with such scenarios. Pro presents no contingency plan. III. Free equipment so no hesitation to useSuch equipment is usually leftovers or unneeded for war efforts. Considering that we, the taxpayer, pay the fees for the manufacturing of such equipment, do you really find it justified to just throw it all in the trash once it becomes outdated on the battlefield? I don't. I'd like to see something I paid for used fully before scrapping it - otherwise, it's just a waste of our money. Even though it's outdated for the battlefield, we must remember that civilian life still poses threats in which this equipment can be utilized effectively. Sure, it's weird that a small town has such a thing, but if a scenario ever arises where it would actually be useful, it'd be better to have it rather than not having it. The difference could be countless lives saved when it's needed the most. The common saying, "Better to be safe than sorry" comes to mind. In actuality, that little town is now effectively equipped for a major disaster. The whole point about disasters is that we never know when one will happen, thus I find it very comforting to know that a little town now has the means to combat extreme forces be it man or nature, whereas before they might have had to wait until a larger city could send men or equipment there. IV. Not trained to use equipmentFalse, again, and this time there isn't even an argument supporting this, much less any evidence. I touched on this slightly in rebuttal I. Most SWAT team members join that unit after already having careers as police officers or sheriff deputies. So, not only are they already trained by the police academy, but then new SWAT recruits are given an additional 15-30 weeks of specialized training. [3] [4] [3] . http://www.innerbody.com...[4] . http://people.howstuffworks.com...V. Unnecessary equipment ready to use for unnecessary situationsI feel my rebuttal for part III. can also be applied here. It's not so much a question of "DO they need it", but more so of "How can we effectively get the full-life out of unneeded military equipment". In regards to campuses, we've seen several campus shootings already this year. My opponent thinks parties, rape, or fights are all that happens. He is clearly misinformed of college shootings that occur. In 2013, there were 27 college shootings that occurred throughout America. [5] This also includes the deaths of 18 people, and countless other injuries. As I said previously, we can never be too safe since, in reality, we never know when the next Columbine or Sandy Hook will occur. I would personally feel safer knowing that my University police were trained in SWAT tactics and had access to that equipment. Even if it improves response time by only one minute, the potential to save more lives is apparent. [5] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...VI. Small towns not asking for equipment for the right reasonsWhy shouldn't they keep up with the big cities? My opponent assumes that just because they want to keep up that they are somehow evil or doing it for the wrong reasons. Obviously the bigger cities have an understanding of the best way to take down criminals that require special tactics, and thus the small towns merely want to also have the best available means to tackle any potential disaster or criminal activity that demands it. Since such criminal elements exist in cities, they are always up-to-date on the most effective means to respond. I'd find it worse if the small towns DIDN'T want to keep up. By them wanting to, it shows the citizens that they are being protected by a force which is up-to-date and capable of tackling even the worst-case scenarios. It only takes a second for a disaster to strike, and it takes the most effective and up-to-date equipment to allow for the best and most effective response. VII. SWAT teams in the US violently smash into homesPro claims that SWAT teams smash into homes roughly 100-150 times a day. Once again, he has utilized nothing in terms of sources to validate this claim. Since his first claim was obviously false, I'm not confident that this one is valid in any way, shape or form. I demand proof for this claim, otherwise, neither myself nor the audience have any reason to accept this as anything more than a misguided opinion. Both this and the violent crimes reference call for proof, otherwise it holds no validity and therefore fails to affirm your position. In closing,My opponent has shared false information, made claims with absolutely no proof or justification, and has had every argument rebutted. Keep in mind, he must overcome each of my rebuttals, otherwise there is no grounds for him to win this debate.