"assault weapons should NOT be prohibited from law abiding citizens

I find it unbelievable how con fails to see this isn't the first time in U.S history where there was a sudden drop in homicides. I clearly showed him that in the 1930s, there was a mass landslide in homicides over a period of 10 years, yet he is essentially ignoring this. He STILL fails to acknowledge the drop did NOT beginning in 1994, but in 1992/1993. it is astounding that he truly believes a ban on a pistol grip and adjustable but-stock can actually decrease crime rates. I am dumbfounded by his neglect of these facts and assertions. Still, he goes on trying to give credit to the ban, meanwhile forgetting the decline was beginning prior to 1994. I don't see how a ban on a particular rifle which accounts for so little homicides will change the mindset of rapists, gang members, and street thugs. (is this what you are inferring?) Also, Con is not familiar with the 1994 "assault weapons" ban. The ban made it that you cannot have MORE than one "assault weapon" feature. Gun manufacturers made 1994 ban compliant weapons. For instances, they made AR 15s with just "pistol grips" So, how can you give credit to a ban if it didn't fully cover those pesky "assault weapons" you're talking about? Now, I see the article you sent. it talks about the 1968 gun control laws and how when that was passed, homicides decreased. the 1968 gun culture laws mainly consisted of tougher background checks and penalties. How can you correlate the increase in background checks which is proven to prevent guns in the hands of criminals to the 1994 "assault weapons" ban which isn't even cover all "assault weapons" It was an absolutely ridicules article. "Pro keeps appealing to authority on the law enforcement issue. I haven't responded to this because it's opinion, just writ large. " There is an issue here. Law enforcement are at the front lines of crime. They see it everyday. Who am I going to believe? A few politicians who describe a "barrel shroud" as a "thingy that goes up" (research what I mean) or law enforcement officers who see crime because it is their job? "Pro adds an argument that homicide rates tend to drastically increase and decrease. This only supports my argument." i can't see how this supports your argument. We have seen homicide rates randomly decline with no new legislation passed during that period. I don't even know why i should both explaining this because AGAIN, homicide rates were falling PRIOR to 1994. BUT, that gets thrown under the bridge and is dropped by con. Con tries to mention that the economic relief caused a decrease in homicides. The decline in poverty occurred. Look at the links below. The data doesn't seem to fit your argument that the decline in poverty was due to the decrease in homicides. Unemployment in 1932 was 23.6. 2 years before (the data goes by every 2 years) the unemployment rate was 8.7. homicides for 1930 was 8.8. For 1932, it was 9.0. Just .2 higher. In 1928, when unemployment was 4.2%, homicides were 8.6. This was lower than the period of when the economy was slowly improving, yet between the years of 1934 to 1940, the homicide rates were lower, yet the unemployment was higher in those years than in the 1920s. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.infoplease.com... You had me confused, so if it makes you feel better, I apologize. I have been confused on your stance. i thought you were modeling Feinstein's idea of an 'assault weapon" because you said "Mine will follow the lines of Senator Diane Feinstein's proposal" Here is the videos which show a non "assault weapon (by Diane Feinstein's idea) This will not disprove about the detachable magazines. This only disproves that an a rifle without a pistol grip and can easily be controlled and fired VERY quickly. https://www.youtube.com...... https://www.youtube.com...... https://www.youtube.com...... These videos clearly show a pistol grip is NOT needed to fire quickly and accurately. Voters, I implore you to watch these videos and see that con is VERY wrong about pistol grips. And I appreciate cons understanding that it is important for home defenders to carefully move around in a house incase a burglar breaks in. If pro choose not see videos (and as a matter of fact, he did want to see proof) the voters can watch the videos. I don't know why we are talking about grenade launchers. They are NFA weapons. A grenade launcher is an accessory which requires VERY long waiting periods. There is no point in focusing on it. "though he never explains why having an assault weapon provides extra defense while providing no benefits to the criminals." Incorrect, I proved that most crimes are not committed by rifles or "assault weapons" and "assault weapons" with adjustable but-stocks allow someone in a home to navigate through a house easier because of close quarters scenarios. If adjustable but-stocks just make the firearm smaller so a person can more through a house better, and the odds of a criminal having a rifle with an ABS, doesn't it outweigh the negatives to having it illegal? Did con mention anything about the fact that most crimes are committed by handguns and not rifles? http://www.fbi.gov... Unbelievable how con fails to understand the examples i provide for. Just to give a personal experience, my friends cousins owned a pit bull who was trained VERY well and ended up mauling his 8 year old sister who could have been killed. The dog was trained. Why do you have a problem with a cosmetic feature on a firearm labeled as an "assault weapon" because fearful politicians needed to find common characteristics of scary looking guns, but are ok with pit bulls, who can even be trained and have the potential to kill someone? Were you able to find an article on how a but-stock ended up getting an innocent person or a cop killed? It is difficult for me to argue what he means by " alternate causality" because I have no idea what he means by that. If con can be more descriptive on that, maybe I can give him my input on that. The "Nanny" kind of person (for example Michael Bloomberg) is the kind of person who feels necessary to "be everyones keeper" and prohibit anything that has potential to harm someone, even if that object is the most popular sporting rifle in America and is providing jobs for gun companies. What I don't understand is why you want to ban things without looking for alternatives. Over 90% of mass shooters were on or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs. Doctors like Peter Bregin, one of the top psychiatrists in the entire world says that these drugs cause these mass shootings. Why are you looking to prohibit guns from good citizens when there can be psychiatric drug reform and tougher background checks? Look how few mass shootings Switzerland has any they can own full auto weapons? They have tough background checks but no psychiatric drugs laws. Imagine if psychiatric drug laws were put in place in that country? http://www.foodmatters.tv... http://www.naturalnews.com... http://www.wpbf.com... http://www.wnd.com... Voters, please read the links above.