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

The problem I see throughout my opponent's entire argument is that it is completely off the topic, should we or should we not erradicate guns from society. While he mentions many times that we shouldn't have guns, or posing hypotheticals about if guns never exsted (which I will address), all of his arguments are about gun control and claimed problems that arise not from gun ownership but by lack of government oversight. Very few of these would be solved by eradication of guns. 1. The "gun show loophole," as it is often called, does not affect legal ownership that is being contested here. My opponent claims criminals can purchase firearms at these gun shows, and that is a problem. Alright, solved, eliminate on the spot sales at gun shows and require background checks. Next question. 2. I never said Mexico is a country in which guns are illegal. I never made any claims to the legality of guns in that country at all or provided any statistics regarding it whatsoever. I stated common knowledge to disprove the purpose of my opponent's analogy. Please do not say I said things that I didn't. 3. In that same paragraph, I see no connection of my opponent's statements about gun trafficking in Mexico. Even if it did hold relevance, the US and Mexican governments DO control what goes across the borders, or at least legally they do. Whether they enforce it or not is a different question, but this is not the debate at hand.4. My opponent defeats himself in this next paragraph by stating "but since there is a gun market out there, they will always find ways to acquire firearms." This statement refutes anything my opponent can say on the matter because by this logic that my opponent provided, eliminating legal guns from the civilian population will not stop them as they will find a way to get them. He conflicts his own argument here, because if criminals will "always find ways to acquire firearms." then by my opponent's own logic no measures put in place will stop criminal trade of guns. 5. I will use one of the sources my opponent provided and I elaborated on by actually posting the link to the specific article, (http://gunvictimsaction.org...). According to this page, ATF has 1800 agents to monitor 77,000 gun dealers. That's 42 a piece, or 84 if they work in pairs. Now, they claim it would take them 22 years to inspect all these dealers. Individually that would require each agent taking 191 days to complete a single inspection. I know the government is slow, but I don't think it's that inefficient. Even if each agent took a week to inspect their 42 locations, that's 294 days total. Less than a year. I'm pretty sure they're capable of accomplishing this task if they spent the time to do it. So cracking down is realistic. If they opened up a few more jobs, they could easily do two inspections a year if they wanted. 6. As for waiting til "crooked dealers disappear" well according to my opponent's logic in my point #4, eliminating the crooked dealers will not stop the shootings anyway so I see no reason for him to be complaining about how long it takes. In addition, I'd like to see his data on the crooked dealers providing a majority of these crime committing weapons, as well as data on the gun shows. And please from a site that's not falsifying numbers as the Gun Victims Action site was shown to be doing in my last round. 7. The gun industry is enhusiastic about new weaponry...to sell to the US government and military nd other national militaries. Sure, we can buy dumb-down versions of them, semi-autos that are no different from a hunting rifle and in many cases are used as hunting rifles due to their superior accuracy and reliability, but guns like the AA12, M16A2, HK416, or others in their fully automatic forms are not available to the public. 8. Yes, HK, Benelli, and other companies that are international sell to the US. And again, to the government. While they do have civilian models that they sell as well, they also compete for contracts with the US and other international armed forces. I don't see how international trade, however, is relevant. 9. Having something stolen is not a matter of you being a law-abiding citizen. If someone steals your wallet and goes and buys kiddie porn with it are you responsible? If someone smashes your car window and hotwires it and takes off drunk and kills someone are you responsible for the vehicular manslaughter? No. And again, I ask my opponent to show me statistics on people "losing" guns. 10. In 2007 there were 612 accidental deaths due to firearms. That is 68 times less than the number of deaths to motor vehicle accidents and less than a single percentage of the total number of accidental deaths in the US. )http://webappa.cdc.gov...) So with that in mind, sure, there are accidents but there's accidents with anything and if we take something away due to accidents we have nothing. It's tragic, but it happens. How many parents leave a child unparented due to crashing a car? Should we strip the US of cars? Or what about kids accidentally getting ahold of a knife in the kitchen, there are 110 accidental deaths from cutting or piercing, it's lower but if we're playing the low numbers game then it's still relevant and we should ban knives. 11. If my opponent wants, lets cut down the list of law-abiding citizens to eliminate those with drug possession of any amount (so even if you got busted as a kid for smoking a joint at school but grew up and learned your lesson you now are a former criminal) and people that get reckless driving charges. There's still plenty of law abiding citizens left out there completely capable. I'll leave it up to my opponent to come up with what he wanted to argue there. 12. We are not debating hypotheticals about if guns never existed or not. Even if they didn't there was still murder pre-firearms. And, my argument was based in fact which my opponent didn't even address. More lives were saved in shootings with civilians that were armed than did when waiting for police intervention. Also, guns do save lives, saying they don't is illogical. If my opponent wants to say civilians with guns don't save lives, which I have proven false already, then ok, but if guns don't save lives at all then why do even police carry them? Yes, they do take lives, but in the hands of police and law abiding citizens more lives are saved than if only the bad guys had them. Oh, and in regards to my opponent's "best case scenarios" (http://www.justfacts.com...) 498,000 times a year burglars are frightened away by a gun, no one shot. 13. Actually, to get a concealed carry license in most states training is required, and in addition, that is something many gun owners, including the NRA think should be more regulated. 14. Losing something does not warrant punishment. Refer to point #9/1015. First of all, pulling former debates is not acceptable. You cannot verify if I was debating seriously, or if I was purposely throwing a debate or anything else. Take for example (http://www.debate.org...) using this debate against the Pro in another debate would be wrong as he did it for show. Give me some reliable sources instead. In conclusion of the round, I state, by my opponent's own statements, we do live in a wild west type system if criminals will get firearms no matter what. I also will state something my opponent stated earlier in this debate, "I do not blame anyone for carrying a gun." Leading to the assumption that my opponent agrees that guns do provide safety when there are other guns around in the hands of criminals. This counters his entire argument. 1. Guns provide safety when criminals have guns.2. Criminals will obtain guns no matter what.Therefore, civilians having guns leads to greater safety.