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

My opponent claims the audience will "favor me" and also claims I am spouting propaganda of the NRA. I'd like to make a few things clear right now. 1. The only reason I see no contention for the win is not simply due to my belief in my argument but the fact that my opponent has not provided any substantial data or facts to back up a single word he has said. Had my opponent actually tried to seriously debate this topic and provided data and facts and an actual case for what he argues for then this would have been a great and highly intelligent debate.2. Not once have I used the NRA as a source, and only in a minor way have I even mentioned them. 3. Propaganda is defined as: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.I am not a spokesperson of any movement, group, institution, nation, or anything else. I am simply in an academic debate with someone and debating factual data that leads readers to make an informed decision on an issue. This is not propaganda, this is debating and arguing. So I'd appreciate it if my opponent would at least spend his final round repectfully and intelligently debating this issue rather than spending it belittling people and spewing false accusations and unchecked or backed ideas and opinions. The wild west mentality has reigned for centuries. Whether it was guns, crossbows, swords, or rocks, people have been trying to kill each other since th dawning of humanity. If we strip them of one weapon they'll find another. In addition, people buy guns for many more reasons than just safety. Also, the black market my opponent speaks of will persist even if you eliminate them from the hands of civilians, something he said so himself...The gun industry didn't create the world of chaos that we live in. Please explain how this happened?AR-15s and AK-47s are not assault rifles all the time. AR-15s are often used as hunting rifles, and AK-47s that are non-automatic are used for target, spot and game shooting as well. If the government burns down all the gun factories how will the police get their guns? That's by far the most contradictory statement my opponent has made. He has argued that only police and military should have guns (oh and certain civilians, like security guards and things like that), yet he now claims we should burn down all gun factories. This is what is known as propaganda and radical and nonsenseical ideas that spread fear in our societies. It is statements and soapbox speeches like this that cause problems in this nd other countries. Burning down all the gun factories will not make our children safe. It'll eliminate the ability for police and military to get new weapons and there are still criminals out there with guns and other weapons that they can hurt the children with. Need I remind anyone of the numerous bombings, plane crashings, and other attacks that happen here and around the world? Without an armed police and military we have no protection from that. In addition what does it do about the 270 million legal guns in the US? This is just a crazy idea that is nonsensical and pointless. Please in some universe tell me what marijuana and cocaine have anything to do with this debate?My comparison of the auto industry was in relation to a horrible concept not even part of this debate, where people would be charged for having something stolen from them if that was used in a fashion that was illegal. While automobiles were not designed to kill, the truth of the matter is they kill thousands more than firearms do every year, and many of those are due to illegal conduct. The premise I made is that having something stolen from you is not a crime and to charge those that have something stolen from them is just wrong. Guns are not just made for killing, guns are made for target shooting and other practices. Some guns are made to kill but not all. Just like some motor vehicles are made to kill, like tanks for example, which by the way, some tanks are legal to own and made street legal, however it is illegal to load their weapons. So, by this concept, some automobiles are made to kill and can be used improperly and illegally. Returning to my opponent's claim, the difference is guns are made to kill therefore makes it applicable to cars. Same goes for knives, not all knives are made to kill but some are, and because of that, just like some guns are made to kill and some aren't even though they can be used for that, just like knives can then by my opponent's argument knives that are stolen, even if it's a kitchen knife, should be responsible to the owner. I'm not even going to address the NRA points, not out of lack of ability but because my opponent has not shown any credible evidence to back up his arguments and I have proven all his points wrong with validated and credible evidence and so I am not going to waste my time. In addition it would only fuel his ranting about NRA propaganda. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now since this is my last round, I am going to wrap this up quite simply. First of all, I recognize that things I said in this last round may be harsh and may seem dsrespectful, however, at this point, my opponent has not taken this debate seriously at all, he has not provided any evidence, spent paragraphs ranting and spewing opinions that have no basis in fact, and in multiple cases berated my and my own self, calling me confused and a propagandist. Throughout this debate, I have strived and strained to maintain a level of respectable composure even whist my opponent blasted wave after wave of unfounded claims, ideas, and falsities at me. I know that many may agree with my opponent that guns should be taken away. However, this site is not here to just "agree with someone" from the get-go. This site is for true, respectable and factual debate. My opponent claims that I shouldn't worry cause I'm "well liked" and that you'll all "favor me" but I ask all of you, don't vote because you favor me, (which I don't see where he even gets that idea, I'm new to the site and have not developed a reputation here anway), I ask you vote based on this debate and the conduct, sourcing and arguments presented. Write comments and explain your reasons and vote credibly. My opponent is basically saying I'll win by default due to popularity. While I don't see any popularity that I have anyway, and while I do want to win of course, vote based on merit and the debate, not on the people or who you agreed with beforehand. If you were on his side before, put that aside and read through and make your decision. If you were on my side before, read through and make your decision. If you were tied before, read through and make your decision. But vote like the peers you are, the fellow debaters and academics and intelligent people that are able to read these debates and make informed decisions. In the end, my final statement comes down to this. Guns cause problems, but the issues that arise are not of the fact that we own them, it's the control over them. What control that is, that's for another debate. But ultimately, I have shown factual data showing that people have defended themselves from violence with guns, people have saved their families with guns, and statistically armed civilians result in fewer deaths than relying on police. While the fact remains that there is a black market for guns and guns do get stolen, 270 million civilian owned firearms, 70-80 million legal gun owners, and the rates of gun violence are extremely low. There are tens of millions of completely competent and legal gun owners out there that don't deserve to have that right stripped away. Boost control over trade regulation, sure, but stripping them is futile and will result in less safety.