"assault weapons" should NOT be banned

OK, since this is my last chance to put my case forward, I'm going to attempt to list and highlight all my arguments in this round:1. An assault weapons ban would save lives First of all, I am in no way pretending that the homicide rates will plummet the moment assault weapons are banned. That doesn't mean, though, that placing the ban will not have a notable impact. Over 70% of the USA's homicides are carried out by firearms. In 2012, 8855 were killed by firearms as opposed to 2785 by all other types of weapons and methods (http://tinyurl.com...). Gun control has to start somewhere, and assault weapons are well suited for that.According to some estimates (it is uncertain which of the varying figures are correct), assault weapons are involved in 7% of homicides. In the above FBI source, that would be around 814 human lives taken by assault weapons. Of course, due to the uncertain and incoherent nature of these surveys, the real number may be a great deal lower. If the popular estimates of 2-3% are to be taken as true, then that itself means around 300 lives. 300 lives. The possibility of saving human lives in this magnitude itself outweighs the importance of assault weapons in society. A survey I cited earlier stated that 20 assault weapons out of a total of 143 firearms were recovered from the perpetrators of mass shootings. Put simply, assault weapons are designed for assault. Their proliferation should be prohibited by law. 2. The function of assault weapons in society is entirely dispensable The three legal uses of firearms are self-defense, hunting and target shooting. In all three fields, there are a large number of guns NOT classified as assault weapons that are as well, if not better suited to the purposes in question. For example, Kahr PM9's and Glock 19's are considered by experts to be some of the best guns for home defense. Colt Frontier Six Shooter's and Winchester 1873's have few legal rivals in the field of hunting. Now, I do understand that certain assault weapons may be preferred by several law abiding citizens. But honestly, if there is a possibility of saving lives of the aforementioned magnitude, then it is but a small sacrifice. If giving up your gun of choice means that over at least 300 innocent people could continue to live, then is it really not worth it? Considering that assault weapons have such limited practicality, is it in any way fair to continue pretending that they should stay legal only so we can have a greater range of choices when we purchase guns? 3. The previous assault weapons ban was effective The Justice Department released a study which categorically stated that the AWB of 1994 was solely responsible for a 6.7% decrease in total gun homicides, this too while holding all other factors equal. This same study also found that "Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.” The percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia that had high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired. 37% of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the 1994 federal ban expired. Here's the source, in case anyone wishes to carry out a fact check: http://tinyurl.com.... Now, if a ban which was criticised by even the pro-gun lobby as being to weak could achieve this kind of change, imagine the effect of an updated version which stronger laws. "'Assault weapons' ban would have NO POSITIVE EFFECT," my opponent once said. Huh. 4. An assault weapons ban would help root out domestic terror Legalizing high-power weaponry only forces public safety agencies to carry out more monitoring of civilian activity. The FBI is charged with “preventing homegrown attacks before they are hatched.” This would naturally involve extensive and comprehensive research into the lives of all legal gun owners, which is especially unfortunate in a day and age when extensions of this kind of monitoring are such a big issue. Also, as I read on a very interesting article on a similar issue (http://tinyurl.com...), which pointed out how an assault weapons ban would allow agencies to go after all assault weapon owners instead of worrying about the intent of those who had purchased them. This same article mentioned the issue of assault weapons being involved in a high amount of killings of police officers. In fact, as I mentioned before, the expiry of the AWB lead to a consistent increase in the number of police officers dying from gunfire (2009: 49 < 2010: 61 < 2011: 68). 2011 marks the only year for a while in which the leading cause of on duty police officer deaths was gunfire and not traffic fatalities. If we continue to arm both criminals and officers with this level of high power weaponry, we're genuinely asking for instability, chaos and anarchy. ***Throughout this debate, my opponent and I have agreed on the fact that there are no real negative effects of an assault weapons ban. His case is that there is no positive effect, mine is that there is. I've tried my very best to convey the latter to you. Now, if, despite that, you still are of the opinion that an assault weapons ban will have "No positive effect," then you should go ahead and vote Pro. But honestly, how, despite all this evidence, can that still seem a valid statement? An assault weapons ban is NOT an attempt to limit American gun rights. It is a last firm stand, one of the many required measures we can take to reduce the blatant, ugly criminal activity that fills the streets. A measure against crime, homicide, terror and fear. Choose, today, as you vote, the country which you want to see.