"assault weapons" should NOT be banned

I don't know how to make italics and different font sizes by the way (so it would be great if you showed me) "if something is unnecessary and poses a significant potential for harm, it should be banned." Who has given you the authority to control peoples lives? Why should products that thousands of good people use responsibly be prohibited because they have the potential to harm other people? You have the ideology of a "nanny governor". Other citizens have no power to control other citizens. 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. You are not from Europe. You should be well aware of what is going on with our legislation. The Succeeding the 2 mass shootings which sparked the need for a false sense of security (an "assault weapon" ban), the hot topic was semi automatic rifles with what are referred to as "assault weapon" features. I can pull numerous definitions of the word "assault weapon" and it will say JUST a semi automatic rifle with (so called) "military style features" The meriam webster dictionary is not the dominant dictionary of the world. You can actually read the bill here that was proposed by Diane Feinstein in 2013. https://www.govtrack.us... "Going back to the dictionary definition provided, an assault weapon is ANY automatic or semi-automatic weapon, and by Pro's own source, assault weapons are responsible for most mass shootings as well quite a bit of daily gun violence. " I suggest the opponent commits to some research. 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. You can also actually read the data from MotherJones. (which is a liberal and anti gun) While they do state "half of the mass shootings involve assault weapons", their data COMPLETELY contradicts their title. I gave you the link to show you the number of mass shootings that occurred and the number of mass shootings involving 'assault weapons". My article proves two things. #1. Anti gunners give false statistics #2. "assault weapons" make a very small portion of mass shooting deaths. "This is obviously false, as it is based off Pro's definition of an assault weapon and is not sourced, and thus shall be dismissed." The claim that " didn't give an adequate definition of an "assault weapon" has already been refuted in the beginning of this essay. "For this, Pro cites a table from the FBI, but taking a look at the table, NO WHERE does it specify whether the weapons listed are assault weapons or not; it just lists "hand guns", "rifles", "shot guns", and "other fire arms". Rifles and hand guns CAN be considered assault weapons if they are automatic or semi-automatic, which many are" A few things need to be pointed out. First, AR 15 and Ak style rifles don't make up the majority of rifles in America. 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. The vast majority of handguns sold in America are single or double action handguns with a pistol grip and your typical handgun slide. (these are not "assault weapons") "I have checked out all his sources and none of them support his case at all; in fact, some of them support MY case!" Incorrect. One can simply not refute historical and FBI data. You have not been able to refute a single one of my arguments. Each argument you made against my statistics and including my definition of an "assault weapons" has been debunked. Not only has my opponent made false accusations but has failed to actually look at mass shooting data. Not once has he gotten back to me on the fact that the 2 worst mass shootings in the entire WORLD were not committed by "assault weapons". This fact destroys the argument that "assault weapons" are more dangerous. Con still has not been able to give a valid reason as #1 how a ban on these weapons will make a positive difference #2 Why these guns are "more dangerous" Con also has not given a reason as to why he has the authority to order other citizens and tell them what they can own. I am also confused on Sub-Premise 1. He said I dropped this point. What exactly is meant by this? To summarize what I would like to be answered, explain how "assault weapons" are dangerous and unnecessary when the Second Amendment exists, "assault weapons" make up less than 2% of gun homicides, the 2 WORST mass shootings in the WORLD were not committed by "assault weapons" and in the past TEN years, less than 70 people have been killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings. I will give the number of deaths invoking "assault weapons" in mass shootings in the past ten years below: Sandy Hook: 26 Aurora: 12 Kinston: 10 Omaha: 8 Crandon: 6 Fairchild: 4 Carson City: 4 The total adds up to 70