Should guns be illegal to own for anyone that is not police or military in the US

Even though my opponent shows a great deal of intelligence, he has failed to prove how society benefits from gun ownership and its implications (illegal gun owners, black market for firearms, corrupted dealers, accidental shootings, negligent shootings, stolen guns, lost guns). One of my points is that convicted criminals can go to a gun show and buy a gun regardless of the legality of the transaction. Yes, it is illegal as my opponent affirms, but my point is that it is possible, achievable. This happens because no background checks are conducted at that moment. Does my opponent expect that these criminals will provide on their own free will their rap-sheets to the dealers? My opponent illustrates the crime rate in Mexico alleging that guns are illegal in that country, but fails to say that there are as many "illegal" guns in Mexico as in the U.S. due to the gun trafficking heading into that country from the U.S. Even Mexicans can come to the U.S. and buy guns in gun shows and move them south into their country. Remember that the Mexican government does not control what get into their country through the U.S./Mexico border. "Criminals are not allowed to own guns," as my opponent claims, but since there is a gun market out there, they will always find ways to acquire firearms. If this market had not been in place, criminals would no have access to weapons. My opponent also proposes that the solution could be to have the government crack down on crooked gun dealers. In the meantime, our society will have to endure more sporadic mass killings until crooked dealers disappear, which is very unrealistic. They have been around for centuries and will continue as long as there is a demand for weapons. Adding to these problems, we find the enthusiasm in the gun industry in manufacturing more advanced rifles that can even compete with military weaponry. Thanks god to regulations, because if it had been for gun manufacturers, we would have seen tanks, mortars, and missile launchers parked in our neighbors' driveways. Thanks to regulations we have been able to contain that belligerent mentality. The NRA would oppose any kind of restriction on gun manufacturers. There are even other countries profiting from this market. Germany, for example, sells its firearms in the U.S. market. Selling them to its own citizens is not its objective, but to Americans. If certain citizens were "law abiding citizens," they would not lose their guns, to begin with. Because of their failure to follow proper protocol for safeguarding their weapons, they lose control and lose them . Have you not heard about children accidentally shooting and killing their parents? This happens because even parents fail to properly secure their weapons even though there are children around. My opponent acknowledges that someone who has been convicted of possession of illegal drugs still qualifies as a "law abiding citizen" therefore can buy firearms. The same goes with reckless driving. Reckless driving produces many accidents where people die. It is just irresponsible to allow these individuals to carry firearms. And the NRA will not lobby against it. Guns do not save lives, as my opponent states. And in the best case scenario, someone survives a shooting while someone else get killed. If guns had not existed, no one would have to shoot someone else in order to stay alive. With allowing civilians to carry firearms, we are granting them with the mean to end someone else's life. These "law abiding citizens" do not go through any kind of training as to the use of force and its different levels they could adopt when engaging individuals in certain situations. Why do other citizens have to trust gun owner's judgment? How can we prevent this "law abiding citizens" from selling their firearms in the black market while reporting them as lost? Despite the fact that it is not a very common practice, it does happen. Presently, there are no consequences for losing one's gun; people just go and purchase another one. In his previous debate about guns, my opponent claims that the reason for recent mass shootings experienced in our country has been the deteriorated psychological condition of the shooters. So, if my opponent understands that there are problematic personalities in our society, why does he still advocate for more weapons among our citizenry? It is obvious that those shooters either had mental problems or were just shameless people. They did not have to be necessarily sick. Then my opponent assumes that with more access to health care facilities this problem of mass shootings can be eradicated. Naturally, more health services to these individuals will help. On the other hand, the fact that there are always going to be individuals, sick or healthy, with bad intentions is undeniable. Regardless of how much treatment is available, sick and shameless people will always exist. Ultimately, I conclude that only law enforcement personnel, the military, security forces, some government officials, and some public employees should be allowed to carry firearms. We are not living in the wild west anymore, but in a technological era where what our students and teachers need are computers, books, printers, peace and harmony to prepared themselves to compete in this globalized economy. They do not need firearms, nor our students should be concerned about future mass shootings. After the Connecticut massacre, it is time to put aside our ego and narcissism and start thinking about providing our children with a suitable and learning environment free from gun violence.