"assault weapons" should NOT be banned

PREMISE I"Who has given you the authority to control peoples lives? ... Other citizens have no power to control other citizens."Please remember that this is just an online debate.It is not like I'll be the one enforcing these laws... I'm arguing that the GOVERNMENT should ban assault weapons, and the Government DOES have the authority to do that.This premise is based in the common sense notion that if something poses a significant threat to society and no benefit, it needs to be removed from society. Pro has not refuted this at all; he has just thrown a red herring my way, claiming I don't have any authority when I didn't claim to have any in the first place.PREMISE IISemantics"Actually, yes, I can use the definition which was originally intended because #1. semi automatic firearms with "assault weapon" features is the the commonly debated topic. #2. It is my debate."If it is your debate, then you should have taken the initiative to provide a definition in round 1. You failed to do so, and I did it for you, using the standard dictionary definition."The meriam webster dictionary is not the dominant dictionary of the world."Lol Pro says that after using dictionary.com for his own definition...And actually, Merriam-Webster's Oxford Dictionary is very well-respected all around the world.Pro made a mistake and he needs to accept the consequences of it.It's round 4 of the debate. Time to put the issue to rest.An assault weapon is ANY automatic or semi-automatic fire arm. Pro's Sources"Incorrect. One can simply not refute historical and FBI data. You have not been able to refute a single one of my arguments."Pro's historical data was based off faulty definitions and wasn't even sourced. His FBI data was faked, as I showed by actually looking into his source last round. One of his sources even supported my case instead of his."Estimates say the number of "assault weapon" owners in America exceeds a little over 4 million. About 43% to about the mid 30% of households own at least on gun (most gun owners own rifles) Therefore, if 3.7% of homicides are committed by rifles in general, the fairest estimate for the number of people killed by "assault weapon" could only make up less than 2% of gun homicides.""Out of the mass shootings we have had in America, the number of mass shootings involving "assault weapons" makes up less than 15% of mass shootings."Pro's statistics really have no meaning at this point, as NONE of them are sourced, and they are all based off of his faulty definitions. Actual Debate"I am also confused on Sub-Premise 1. He said I dropped this point. What exactly is meant by this?"I claimed that assault weapons provide no benefit to society. Pro did not address that at all."To summarize what I would like to be answered, explain how "assault weapons" are dangerous and unnecessary when the Second Amendment exists"Well, that is quite the fallacious argument... How does the existence of the Second Amendment make assault weapons harmless and necessary?I think Pro's own source (http://www.motherjones.com...) has already displayed that assault weapons are, without a doubt, dangerous and pose a significant threat to the well-being of society. And as for being unnecessary, it's up to Pro to show exactly why assault weapons are necessary when any non-automatic gun could easily suffice for the purposes of self-defense. CONCLUSIONBoth premises remain standing strong, unscathed by Pro's red herrings, faulty definitions, and un-sourced statistics.Thus, my conclusion remains valid: assault weapons should be banned.Back to Pro for the final round of the debate.Make it good.