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

I'll refute my opponents case this round. 1. Smaller is better My opponent crafts a false dichotomy by characterizing all guns other than pistols as "assault weapons". This is just unbelievably false--assault weapons are generally defined as military grade weapons with a few changes to make them legal for civilian ownership. All long guns are not "assault weapons" indeed very few are. It's just absurd that Pro wants to ban weapons that collectively account for about 1/7th of the homicides pistols did. Moreover, Pistols are not always the best self defense weapon. They're practical for carrying, but they also have smaller calibers and magazine sizes. Since they fire slugs and not pellets, a missed shot can potentially go through walls and harm neighbors during a home invasion. For this reason shotguns, which my opponent would absurdly characterize as "assault weapons" are often superior home defense weapons than handguns. I don't really know what else to say here--this point is just ridiculously false and has literally zero impact. My case is vastly superior. My opponents case would also completely eliminate hunting in the United States as the shotguns and rifles used in the sport would be banned under my opponents case.2. Soldiers and police My opponent concedes that the police often cannot arrive in time to save civilians from danger. You can vote Con here--if my opponent is arguing that the police are useless at protection, there's no reason to affirm the resolution because civilians need firepower. Pro argues that in a civil war you "can count on the law to protect you" except the literal definition of a civil war is two or more groups violently competing for the power to make the law (government), no you can't count on the law. You should look to my case for a historical treatment of the effects an armed population has on the relationship between man and state. This argument fails to affirm the resolution as well. 3. Easier for criminalsPros argument here fails for two reasons: First, he has no warrant on criminals failing to get weapons should they be banned--keep in mind that Columbine occurred when the United States had an assault weapons ban. Secondly, my opponent oncde again crafts a false dichotomy. There are more kinds of guns than just Pistols and "Assault weapons". My opponent argues that we should take crimesof passion committed in a rage into account and then argues that we should afford civilians the types of weapons that are easiest to conceal and surprise someone with, the kinds of weapons that account for roughly half of all homicides in the United States. My opponent demonstrates his ignorance about firearms when he states that a civilian with just a handgun would not be at a distinct disadvantage against someone with a larger firearm. My opponent has not made his case at all---indeed he hasn't even talked about the vast majority of the guns this resolution addresses. Why do we want to ban, say, old fashioned muskets and double barroled shotguns?4. Easier to solve This is an absurd point. My opponent has literally zero evidence or warrants for it being easier to capture a criminal using a pistol than any other weapon. The reason criminals generally don't use sniper rifles is because few are interested in simply murdering someone and because these weapons are extremely expensive and take training to use. For the most part, criminals use weapons for intimidation not for actual usage anyway. Until my opponent provides some evidence here you can just ignore it.Finally Pro argues that I have to argue in favor of "civilians defending theirselves OR be in favor of all types of guns to be allowed. " but I'm not sure what he means here, so you can ignore that too.Just looking over each case it's clear who has the greater impacts. Vote neg.