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

A big thanks to my opponent for making a stronger case than I expected! As I said, I am not aware of America's sources on this so I cannot possibly refute your arguments with my own sources. Con should receive sourcing points in voting. I will therefore not be able to fulfill my BoP based on sources, but only on immediate facts everyone would agree with. 1. Why need a bigger gun, if the smaller is by far better to defend yourself? The small pistol can legally be carried around providing defense at all times. Assault rifles on the other hand, stay at home only providing defense against house raids. But the fact that people inside the house have a gun, no matter what size, is the true psychological barrier. For them, it does not matter what weapon the civilian has: they will have to be more carefully and on their guard. So, my first 2 points are: A: pistols already have the means to defend yourself at all times B: pistols already provide the psychological effect on house raiders. 2. Soldiers and policemen will defend you against any threat bigger than the individual cases. Policemen or soldiers would not arrive fast enough should there be a hold-up. But, should there be an invasion, a civil war, etc., you can count on the law to protect you. Keep in mind that what we want is people to stay alive, and fleeing improves your chances of survival by far. Having an assault rifle and defending your house, would most likely result in your death. Having such a well-armed force that will risk their lives instead of the civilians doing so, is a splendid system. Especially because most soldiers would not follow orders if ordered to act against their own people. 3. Making them available to the public, just makes them more available to the criminals as well. Imagine if Elliot Rodger had chosen not to buy a small pistol, but an assault rifle, and if he had chosen to go to a large square and spray his rifle empty there. Mad men should be taken into account. Same goes for Sandy Hook, and all those other sensitive points in the past. Everyone could lose it, for example a family man seeing his wife cheat. The fact that they would then only have limited means to out their rage, is beneficial. Saying that the criminals would still get them, even if the guns were banned, is ofcourse irrelevant to the point. If you have a pistol, you'll have the means to defend yourself against someone with a bigger gun. No reason to bring guns of equal size to the table: a bullet is a bullet, and engaging in a gunfight will result in casualties. Besides, in your own house, you should be able to have strategic advantages even if you just have a pistol. 4. It makes homicide cases harder to solve People are not dumb. They know that if they buy a sniper rifle, it will be harder for them to get caught when killing someone. Pistols force you into close combat, which makes it more likely for someone to be seen/filmed/leaving evidence on the crime scene. It also leaves the unaware civilian with no chances to defend himself, basically just leaving a hard-to-solve case behind. Note to opponent: make a choice on what points you want to defend, because you have to argue either in favor of civilians defending theirselves OR be in favor of all types of guns to be allowed. You are well-aware that assault rifles are not mobile so will not give you a chance to protect yourself at all times. You can use the next round to refute my arguments, I will attempt the same to yours.