Restricting the type of firearms available to civilians will reduce gun death

I know this is supposed to be closing remarks, but I feel the need to put forth a definition real quick. I apologise I didn't do this in R1. Semi-automatic: "Full Definition of SEMIAUTOMATIC : not fully automatic: as a : operated partly automatically and partly by hand b of a firearm : able to fire repeatedly but requiring release and another pressure of the trigger for each successive shot "" semiautomatic noun "" semi"au"to"mat"i"cal"ly adverb" Taken from Merriam-Webster. Semi-automatic rifle bans: A semi-automatic rifle ban will not decrease overall gun death because semi-automatic firearms are not the only firearms that exist that are used in crimes. I noted in R2 that in 2012 there were upwards of 8000 gun deaths caused by handguns and only 325 by rifles. The FBI does not discriminate between semi-automatics, bolt guns, lever guns and muzzleloaders, so it's reasonable to assume that not all of them were by semiautomatic rifles. With these numbers one should be able to glean that handguns (which are by the definition above, semi-automatic)are just as capable as killing people whether it be a mass shooting, Such as Virginia Tech or the Gabby Giffords shootings will confirm this. Even if the argument is made that rifles are hands down the best weapon to use in a mass shooting, if they become un-available, what is to stop a would-be shooter from acquiring the next best thing, a handgun or shotgun? Nothing. So the 325 who die from rifles, would die from something else, be it handgun, shotgun or completely different implement. The features on most semi-automatic rifles such as a hand guard, pistol grip or flash suppressor, do not make the gun inherently more deadly. The "stealth" factor from a flash suppressor can be accomplished in a DIY fashion using a plastic soda bottle and wet newspaper or cotton balls. The pistol grip was designed to make the gun more comfortable to fire from the shoulder, not the hip. Traditional style grips are easier to use from the hip (Reference my earlier video). If they were banned, these rifles, if truly desired by the criminal element, would just be another commodity such as drugs and cars. It's illegal to smuggle, buy and own illegal drugs, but that doesn't stop anyone. Beer was illegal during Prohibition, that didn't stop anyone. The same argument can be had for standard capacity magazines. Magazines: As I've mentioned before, smaller magazines for a criminal who expects no return fire will not slow him down or put him in any kind of danger. They can be modified via taping and/or coupling and the reload speeds are essentially the same. However, if a law-abiding citizen is required to use their gun in self defence against someone with a gun, smaller magazines are a large hindrance as each reload gives the perp time to move and shoot. Since the magazines don't slow down the attacker as shown in my very first video, there is no reason to put this hindrance on the law abiding. Self defence in the home: I don't know how this went awry, but essentially, my point here is this. If according to my opponents 5 (or 3, whichever it was) there are 200,000 violent crimes committed and my II. from a few rounds ago says that there were at least 500,000 uses of a gun for self defence, then that would mean that you would have a higher likelihood of coming out on top if you chose to engage the invaders with force. Even if we go my opponents sources, there is still more defensive gun use than gun crime overall, so the odds are still in your favor. Google the phrase "shoots home invaders" and loads of self defence reports will come in from across the country. And with that, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. Ciao.