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

=Neg case=I. Ban pistolsMy opponent makes literally no response to the argument about handguns being the most detrimental to society. His only response is that if we ban handguns bigger guns will be used except this ignores the inherent viability of handguns in homicide. They are easy to conceal meaning that a potential victim cannot see them until it's too late and, since they are carried for defense and intimidation many times more than any long guns, handguns are the go to weapon in a heat of the moment crime of passion. Pro argues that long guns are "more lethal" and yet they collectively account for a fraction of the deaths handguns do. I'll note once more that my position is not that gun control works to make civilians any safer--indeed, I believe the opposite. But if it does work, gun control advocates should use their political capital to ban handguns, not pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles. Pro argues that handguns are necessary for self defense because no one ever has long guns outside of the house. This is empirically denied. Many stores have shotguns propped up in the back and most states allow open carry of long guns even if it's a right rarely applied. I honestly don't understand what Pro is arguing here. If gun control works to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, negating the resolution by banning pistols still vastly outweighs his tiny self defense advantage. As it is, gun control does not work and you can negate the resolution on that. My opponent ironically asks for statistics and argues that "bigger guns" are "advanced" protection except they really aren't. A semi automatic pistol is far more advanced than a pump action shotgun who's mechanism was developed in the 19th century.Pro loses the debate on the hunting argument. He argues that: "Hunting should be like it is in Europe: it requires a special license of a huntsman, and then you can legally buy the bigger guns." he agrees that long guns SHOULD be sold to civilians in some circumstance. Thus he's conceded. Vote neg.Pro falsely claims that I "ignore" his argument about not needing to defend yourself in a civil war or armed conflict. The reality is that he's completely dropped my rebuttals to it--namely that you do and I gave a historical example of an armed population helping to deter an invasion. I encourage the judges to re read them.II. Second amendment Pro completely drops my legitimacy impact--affirming the resolution and passing an unconstitutional ban will literally cripple the federal government by showing that it's mandates will be ignored, or by causing a second civil war. You can vote Neg on this point. Pro's only real response is that there's no difference between homicide and democide. It's true that both involve a well armed aggressor harming an under armed victim. I think this is the best argument to negate the resolution, thanks Pro. To be clear, the difference between homicide and democide is scale; Matthew White estimates the total number of murders in the 20th century to be 8.5 million[1], this is compared with over 200 million deaths by government. To account for unreported murders, lets say there were 10 million in the 20th century. This means the average person is about twenty times more likely to be murdered by their own government than a fellow citizen. Even if my opponent wins that guns increase the number of homicides, this is an acceptable harm to offset the risk of death by government. My opponent also dropped my argument about deterring foreign invasion. III. More guns, less crimeMy opponent totally drops every one of my statistics. Extend them and negate the resolution. To try and salvage his case, Pro accuses me of manipulation here but I'm not. I've been clear from the outset that gun control does not work (so any of his impacts don't exist) and if it does he's going after the wrong type of guns (he is). I'm not advocating a ban on pistols per se, what I'm arguing is that if you accept my opponents logic (criminals follow laws) voting aff would still be bad. You can ignore his arguments about how this is a contradiction because I've been extremely clear from the outset what I'm arguing--as the negative, my goal is to negate the resolution in any way and I'm allowed to take a variety of approaches to do this. If Pro left a pistol sized loophole in the resolution, this is not my fault. The only real argument he makes here is that my statistics lump long guns in with pistols, and this is true. But if you accept the logic that criminals are afraid of armed civilians and the statistics show that, the advantage would still exist for long guns so he gains no ground here. =Aff case=False dichotomyMy opponent concedes that some of the guns he's trying to ban are "less useful" than others. So why, exactly, are we attempting to ban them? My opponents only argument is that because he wants a "strict and clear law" but this is nothing other than blind legalism. If a weapon has zero negative impact on society, like an old musket, banning them from civilian hands for literally no reason is just asinine. My opponent completely fails to understand that long guns have even more variety than handguns. Pro is lumping together flint lock, single shot muskets with AK-47's for no reason other than the length of their barrel. You can vote neg here because it shows how absurd the resolution is. Easier for criminalsPro concedes that criminals would still be able to get any weapons they wanted illegally, even acknowledging that to argue otherwise would be "dumb". You can negate right here because the only impact is to strip honest civilians of their rights and defense abilities. His only attempt to argue the point is that insane people go to buy the first guns they can get ahold of. Not only does he have zero evidence of this, but this only applies for insane criminals. According to Christopher Williams in the Encyclopedia of Murder and Violent Crime, only about 1 in 10,000 criminals is ruled so insane by the court that they are declared not guilty for this reason[2]. Thus the *vast* majority of criminals, even if they are deranged, have the cognitive ability to make decisions. Pro argues that long guns are only useful in defense at home but like I've shown this is false--stores have them too. More importantly, his argument that the ideal solution is to hide like a coward and hope the police come in time. In my world, the ideal solution is a criminal full of lead and a lot of green saved by the taxpayer. My opponent then makes a strange argument, saying that having a long gun makes no difference in terms of your chances to overcome an enemy in the home. First of all, I've already argued about why shotguns can be preferable in some instances. Secondly, if he doesn't think long guns are more lethal than there is no reason to ban them. His only real argument is that any gun has a "psychological impact". You can turn this point. Edward Hill of the College of Public Affairs[3] collected data on estimates of the kinds of guns Americans own--the latest estimate puts the amount of long guns in the United States far ahead of handguns by a margin of 82 million (114 million handguns to 196 million long guns). so if we strip away public ownership of long guns we negate his psychological impact in most cases. Easier to solveMy opponent fails to produce any statistics on how much more often we solve homicides that use long guns compared to handguns. How can anyone vote on this point if we don't know how big the impact is?I don't really know what to say here--my opponent simply has no impact coming off this point without statistics. Prefer my impacts because they are empirical and confirmed to exist.The resolution is negated. Sources:1. http://necrometrics.com...2. http://www.sagepub.com...3. http://www.urban.csuohio.edu...