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

Since my opponent likes to ask me a lot of questions yet does not respond to any of the direct ones that I have asked him, all of which were simply to provide some form of evidence for his claims or to clarify his points, I will do the same. My opponent asks why the gun industry doesn't take responsibility for its business. I ask, why doesn't the automotive? If the industry is to be responsible for the actions of those who use their products improperly, then the automotive should be the ones paying every speeding ticket, every blown stop sign, lets not forget the joint responsibility of the alcohol industry and automotive in being responsible for all the drunk drivers. This is a common tactic that many people, like my opponent, try to use in spreading out the blame so that it seems like more people are responsible for something than actually are. When in reality, the person who purchases a product is accepting and implying that they are capable of handling that product safely and for its proper use.I'm also curious to know what kind of gun my opponent owns? I personally have an FN P-9. It's a great gun, I've used it for target shooting and as a security guard in the past. Since my opponent states he would be the first to turn his gun in, I'd like to know what he has? And if he does have one, how does he justify his entire argument? If he doesn't, then stop using false claims. No. I could look up the information on how much is spent but being as right now I am the only person in this debate that has offered up any factual data I will leave that up to my opponent. I am not here to do his work for him, if that is something relevant to his argument he can do that himself. I have asked for information from him ONLY in instances where it was to prove his own claim that lacked any proof so that I could consider them valid arguments. I will not spend my time looking up information to relate to my opponent's argument. That alone should be points off conduct for trying to be lazy and not work at this debate. The next paragraph my opponent clearly shows that he is not even reading my arguments. In the last round I stated that we can amend our definition to exclude "reckless drivers" and he still brings up their inability to drive. More loss of conduct on my opponent for not even paying attention and just ranting. To address the question of the NRA. In fact a large majority of NRA members do support tighter gun control measures. These restrictions include background checks, forbidding violent offenders from owning, mandatory training for concealed carry, and others. The reason they're not passed is not because they don't want them, it is because legislators often cannot compromise on the regulations in place and try to add things into the bills that the NRA or others do not want. They may, for example, write a bill that require background checks but also bans handguns. Those in favor say we'll sign it without the ban on handguns then the anti-gun lobby will say, no it stays as is or doesn't happen, and then it doesn't happen and they go out and propagandize that the NRA and pro-gun people don't support background checks, ignoring the rest of the bill or the process. It's just the same as the problems with taxes right now, we're hitting deadlines and they refuse to at least compromise to pass the basics that will help the people. Both sides in the gun debate support background checks, no guns to violent offenders, no guns to those on terrorist watch-lists, mandatory reporting of stolen guns, and training for concealed carrying. If both sides are in favor of that then something should have passed to at least provide that measure of safety to the people, but it doesn't because lawmakers won't compromise. All they have to say is, "Here, we'll do this for now then we can debate the other points." But they won't do that. So the problem is not the NRA or the gun industry, it's the lawmakers themselves. (http://thinkprogress.org...)People can go insane, people can also use many other things to kill. We can't legislate based upon the actions of an extremely small number of people. The point my opponent makes of "assassinate one to save one" is not what I was saying at all by guns save lives. To use my opponent's terminology but changed to what it actually means, "assassinate one to save many." As I showed in a previous round, which I'm guessing my opponent did not read as he has clearly shown that he doesn't read my arguments, shooting events, in which armed civilians intervened, saved 12.49 more people per incident than those incidents where they waited for police. And in those where they waited for police, the police used guns to prevent more deaths to happen. The point is, yes, guns do kill, but because we live in a world where guns exist, and as my opponent already clarified that criminals will find ways to acquire guns no matter what, the truth of the matter is in a situation with an active shooter, when there are armed civilians or police around guns are used to prevent further death, which I would logically assume means saving lives. And in situations where civilians were the armed ones, more lives were saved. My opponent again contradicts himself in his final statement. He argued in a previous round, and failed to show any rebuttal to my claim that he failed or show any statement that it was miswritten or anything like that, that criminals will acquire guns no matter what. Thus implying that the free market of guns is NOT the only way they get them. I agree with my opponent that I am confused, but not for reasons he implies, I am confused as to how he can justify saying the free market of guns to civilians is the only way criminals acquire guns when he has argued previously that there is a black market for them. Black market gun sales do not solely come from civilians and crooked dealers as he suggests. In fact few do come from that, and I ask him to show proof to the contrary as that is a claim he made earlier which I refuted by showing his source was not credible. Take operation Fast and Furious, the government provide guns to criminals. How about selling them to the mujahadeen or other groups around the world that are or became criminal. What about guns from other countries? There are far more ways that criminals get guns than just crooked dealers and stealing them. In fact, I will use my opponent's own claims, since he has failed to, nor seems to care about providing any valid proof to his arguments, to prove this point. My opponent used a site with shoddy numbers, yet on that site it claimed ATF found about 12K "missing guns" from crooked dealers. Now, by that site's estimate it will take 22 years to check all the stores. So, lets "assume" that the numbers are correct and are the same for all the other stores. That means 264K guns a year from crooked dealers, add that to the true numbers I provided of stolen guns, 232,400. That means 496,400 illegally acquired guns. Now, lets "assume" my opponent's numbers, which I asked for proof on but none was given, was accurate and in 5 years we went up 5 million more illegal guns. That means a million per year. If criminals only get guns from the ways my opponent claims, where are these 503,600 extras coming from? Now, these numbers are inflated as well as the site I was referring to had nearly double the amounts for everything, if not more, and their ATF stats were highly inflated, but even with these extreme false numbers, my opponent's argument has no merit. I ask the readers, consider these things when reading this. While you may agree with my opponent that guns are a horrible thing, he has yet to show one single piece of credible proof. Even when I have attempted to give him possible sites and information to use. He has clearly ignored my arguments and only provided opinions with no credibility. Consider these things readers.