"assault weapons" should NOT be banned

Ok, in your very first statement, I can easily point out a contradiction. You say "if something is unnecessary and dangerous, it should be made illegal" meanwhile, I am more than certain you will drink alcohol or you do drink alcohol right now. How can assume that? Because over 2/3 of Americans drink alcohol occasionally. Chances are good, you will drink alcohol. Now answer this, obviously alcohol is not a necessity and is dangerous because it claims over 10,000 lives each year (according to the CDC) Tell me why "assault weapons" need to be banned but not alcohol? Now, here's the problem. "assault weapons" are not more dangerous (and I will prove it eventually in this comment) and are not illegal (in most states) Your thinking of fully automatic rifles. So called "assault weapons" are semi automatic rifles WITH "assault weapon" features. Now, explain why "assault weapons" should be banned when they make up less than 2% of gun homicides, 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? Cars which travel above 30mphs per hour have no significant benefit to society. Why does someone need a 2,000 pound vehicle to travel around places when there is something called a bus or train? Your logic flawed on a grand level. Prohibiting things that are deemed "dangerous" or not "needed" is simply ridicules. Why must you feel the authority to tell mentally sane law abiding citizens what kinds of firearms, cars, or beverages they can have? Why do you punish mentally sane law abiding citizens because crazy people who take psychiatric drugs go on mass shootings? In fact, did you know over 90% of mass shooters were on or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs? http://www.foodmatters.tv... http://www.cchrint.org... http://www.naturalnews.com... So, to summarize my argument, why should "assault weapons" (which is a made up term created by the media to create fear against rifles that cosmetically LOOK like actually assault rifles, when in fact, they do NOT perform like them since assault rifles are fully automatic firearms) be banned if they kill so few people, the worst mass shooting ever was NOT committed by an "assault weapon", alcohol is unnecessary and kills FAR more people than "assault weapons" and psychiatric drugs are proven to be the cause to mass shootings? My goal here is to try and change the thinking of my opponent and get him to realize we should be looking for alternative to stopping mass shootings rather than prohibiting certain things from good citizens.