So called "assault weapons" should NOT be prohibited

Sigh.... This is why I cannot bare to argue gun control with people who don't know U.S gun laws. http://www.guncite.com... It is 100% ILLEGAL for any gun store to sell fully automatic weapons to citizens, whether they are law abiding or not. You can only buy a fully automatic weapon if you have an NFA permit which is #1 not easy to get #2 expensive, then you can take the federal background check which takes a few months, then you are permited to own a fully automatic weapon. The Ak 47s you see in gun stores are NOT fully automatic. They were either made semi automatic or were imported from a European country and then converted to semi automatic. Besides, since 1986, there have been NO NEW fully automatic receivers made for civilians to purchase. You can only purchase fully automatic receivers BEFORE the 1986 ban (and there aren't many full autos left to buy) So incase you forgot, this debate IS NOT on fully automatic weapons. "Semiautomatic rifles with a bayonet lug and flash suppressor make them even more dangerous." I have only found ONE article of a man being stabbed to death with a bayonet. Now tell me why someone can't simply duck tape a knife to a rifle and then go and stab someone? Not very difficult. Also, as in the police poll I explained to you before, majority of cops say an "assault weapons" ban would have no effect on crime. So, how could banning a "flash suppressor" affect crime? Tell me something. Why can't I have a simple bayonet lug and a muzzle device on the end of my rifle (which made up 3.7% of gun homicides last year) but average citizens are allowed to consume alcoholic beverages which lead to over 10,000 drunk driving deaths each year? And you're concerned about "bayonet lugs and flash suppressors"? In my Second Amendment debate (if you would care to discuss after this one, I can get more in depth as to how a ban on a muzzle device would be unconstitutional) http://www.nbclosangeles.com... "By combining to deadly weapons together, it would just increase the murder rate." incorrect. The previous 1994 "assault weapons" ban was already proven to be ineffective. The quote I will present below is from one of the huge proponents to the 1994 "assault weapons" ban. Koper, 2004: Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs [Assault Weapons], any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs [large-capacity magazines], which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation"s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs. Since the "assault weapons" ban was lifted in 2004, we now have the fewest number of homicides involving rifles in over 50 years. So actually, I already dismissed your argument with my first comment proving to you that the 2 worst mass shootings ever committed were done by rifles NOT classified as "assault weapons" but, why not go the extra mile and show you the comment from one big proponent to the 'assault weapons" ban http://www.fbi.gov... Above are statistics for homicides by weapon. (3.7% of homicides involved rifles last year by the way.) "A pistol grip and adjustable but-stock are optional to make the weapon more comfortable depending on the owners personal taste. Where as a flash suppressor is to hide/mask the flash produced by the gun. In a military situation that is an essential but for an every day citizen that could cause a problem. Not knowing where the shot is coming from is deadly because they wouldn't know where to run away from." I see. So, let's make guns less comfortable for gun owners because a vertical grip somehow gives the rifle magical powers to kill more people. Should we make seats in cars out of wooden blocks that way drivers don't get to relaxed and distracted while driving? I'm sorry, but your arguments are just absurd. Basically you want to prohibited "good guns" so you can feel safer at night. Do you have any statistics that show a pistol grip and adjustable but-stock made a difference in how many people were killed in a mass shooting? Anders Brevik, killed 71 people (which is the record) with a rifle NOT classified as an "assault weapon". He had no pistol grip, adjustable but-stock, flash suppressor, or bayonet lug, yet was able to kill more people than any other mass shooter in history. Do you have any comment on that? http://en.wikipedia.org... "In a military situation that is an essential but for an every day citizen that could cause a problem. Not knowing where the shot is coming from is deadly because they wouldn't know where to run away from." what about a home defense situation? There are roughly 3.7 million burglaries per year. Your idea to protect people is by prohibiting pistol grip and but-stocks which can assist a home owner in a home invasion? Do you want to make all rifles 40 pounds that way shooters can't lift their guns up? Your idea for these regulations is laughable and preposterous. You want to prohibit "military features" when the pistol grip wasn't even patterned for the military? What can stop me from buying a pistol grip for airsoft guns, properly fixing it onto my rifle, and then going about? http://www.bjs.gov... I"Why play a numbers game with people's lives? People still get killed by them. According to your statistic 25% non-criminals get killed by them since 75% of the rest are criminals or assailants. It is justified in a self defense situation but when someone is not a criminal, why do they get to die?" So you are telling me you would be ok with an all out ban on alcohol, and private motor vehicles? Is there a need for alcohol and cars? Why don't we just make people take buses and trains. If we did that #1 we would use up less fuel #2 there would be thousands of fewer traffic deaths per year #3 commutes could actually be faster because of no traffic. "According to your statistic 25% non-criminals get killed by them since 75% of the rest are criminals or assailants." Correct. That means less than 1 innocent person per 100k is being murdered in the U.S by any type of weapon. Because less than 1 person out of every 100k, it is necessary to prohibit self defense ammo from good citizens which allows them to protect their families? I just don't understand. I can't comprehend why you think it is fair to step on the Second Amendment, and restrict good citizens from defending themselves. If you listen to what i am saying VERY FEW innocent people get killed by guns each year. Not only that, but take into consideration that just because someone was killed with a gun, doesn't mean they couldn't have been killed by say a knife. Did you know that around 35% of households in America own at least one gun. Did you know 77% of justifiable homicides (where it is a life or death situation) involves firearms? if firearms are the ultimate deterrent against crime, why do you want to make it harder for good citizens to defend themselves? http://cnsnews.com... I am out of room now so I will continue what I was saying in the comment section.