"assault weapons should NOT be prohibited from law abiding citizens

As con states in the beginning, he doesn't necessarily believe there should be an all out ban on these types of weapons. He says there should just be tougher background checks and training. My goal here is to prove to con that this isn't necessary. (as a matter of fact, I believe all guns should involve tougher background checks) Most links will be at the bottom. Just a side note. "The evidence available pretty strongly suggests that it played a significant role in reducing the number of gun deaths." This statement is very incorrect. Homicide rates were did not result in a decline because of the 1994 AWB. As a matter of fact, in 2004 when the ban was lifted, no significant changes in homicides occurred. As of now, homicides involving rifles is at it's lowest in MANY years. Your figures don't make sense. "assault weapons" have always made up less than 5% of gun homicides. If there was a 39% decrease in homicides, how can you give credit to the "assault weapons" ban? Now, still if that isn't enough evidence to support my argument that the ban had no effect on homicide rates, here is a quote from a huge proponent to the 1994 AWB. 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. Now, I also wanted to show you the number of police officers killed in the line of duty. The data shows from 1791to 2013. According to the data, with the "assault weapons" ban no longer in effect, the number of police officers killed is at its lowest. Not even the number of police officers killed in the line of duty had any visible effects from the AWB. http://www.nleomf.org... I'm going to keep the magazine debate separate. As a matter of fact, I can't argue that higher capacity magazines don't make a different in mass shootings, however, that doesn't mean I support a ban. Now you say bump fire stocks should be illegal. I don't own a bump fire stock, but I don't see them as necessary to being banned. No one has ever used one in a mass shooting and anti gunners have even said full auto weapons make it harder to kill more people. Now with the detachable magazine, you need to understand how the law works. An "assault weapon" is a rifle with a detachable magazine that HAS one of the "assault weapon" features (which you know) So, I don't understand if you are against magazine fed semi autos, which are some of the most popular rifles in America, or you want to ban "assault weapons" (which is more specific) which are also the most popular rifles in America. "The folding or telescoping stock makes a weapon easier to carry and conceal, and is a frequent factor in mass shooting situations" The length of an AR 15 is 33 inches. With a folded stock, it is around 28 inches. I would be darned if those 5 inches should make a simple characteristic of a firearm banned. What about in a home defense scenario where someone breaks into your home, and you need to clear each room carefully. Don't you think the adjustable but-stock would be beneficial in tight spaces? If you ask me, leaving the telescoping stock will only benefit citizens because you are helping them to defend themselves. Gun owners are typically trained with firearms (and they should be) Street gangs can't shoot properly and efficiently and the fact that they shoot their handguns side ways tells me they wouldn't get a'lot of of an adjustable but-stock Now, I shoot firearms. I have seen VERY minimal difference between a pistol grip and a non pistol grip. Now, most mass shootings are in close quarters. Maintaining a hight rate of fire from a distance at most of what, 20 to 30 yards isn't very difficult. And no, a pistol grip does not increase the fire rate. Pistol grips only control the fire rate VERY slightly. "It also enables shooting from the hip and sprying fire from the side" Hip firing is not a good way to shoot. I can't even hip at a target WITH a pistol grip from even 10 yards. The hip firing you see in video games isn't a good model. No shooters shoot hip fire. And also, bump firing is VERY inaccurate. I will also show you a link on how difficult it is to bump fire the convectional way. "The grenade launcher isn't quite so obvious, since explosive grenades are heavily regulated. However, other kinds of projectiles, including smoke grenades, aren't so hard to come by, and other explosives can be more easily made" But also, grenade launchers are HEAVILY regulated in the U.S. VERY few people have them, so even if you can get 20mm smoke grenades, doesn't mean you will have a device to shoot it. Now, if "assault weapons" were actually more dangerous, than why is it that less 2% (which is a reasonable estimate considering that 3.7% of homicides involve rifles IN GENERAL, of gun homicides involve "assault weapons, the 2 worst mass shootings in the entire WORLD were not committed by them (which dismisses the argument that they have the ability to kill more people) and in the past TEN YEARS, less than 70 people have been killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings? It just makes no sense. Not to mention, 90% of law enforcement officers say they do NOT support a ban on them and an "assault weapons" ban would have NO POSITIVE EFFECT. AR 15s are sporting/home defense rifles. They are NOT assault rifles. (FYI, AR stands for Armalite rifle) Nothing special about them. Tell me something. Why should "assault weapons" be banned if less than 300 people are killed a year by them (75% being criminals since most murder victims are criminals) but alcohol shouldn't be banned when 10,000 people are killed a year by drunk drivers? Now, Anders Brevik holds the world record for the worst mass shooting in the world. Anders Brevik did NOT use a rifle classified as an "assault weapon" He killed 71 people. With this fact, how can you prove "assault weapons" are more efficient at killing people? As I said before, were just going to stick with "assault weapons" for this debate. Magazines are going to be separate. http://www.nleomf.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... <--- look at the table on the right which shows the shootings from each continent http://en.wikipedia.org...(workplace_killings) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.fbi.gov... http://www.volokh.com... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.policeone.com... http://responsibility.org... Now the way i achieved the number of mass shooting victims involving "assault weapons" I took each mass shooting from 2003 to 2013 involving an 'assault weapon" and then added up the total victims in each shooting involving an "assault weapon." (Mass shooting is 3 or more victims killed)