The United states will ban Assault Rifles.

You make many good points, and indeed, assault weapons were meant for military use-- but what difference does it make if a murderer uses a gun over a knife or a sword. In this event, he'll most likely choose a gun; but he only does this because it's easier. He can still kill the same amount of people with a non-firearm alternative. It is easy to discern that your Telegraph source has liberal bias. You're also advocating the ban of assault weapons; yet in your debate, your statistics show that handgun deaths outnumbered the amount of deaths related to assault weapons. Also, when you cite the 20,000 people that commit suicide via shooting themselves, this has no connection to firearms. If firearms were banned, do you think that those 20,000 people wouldn't have killed themselves? No, they would've had an alternative. There always is. They just happened to pick the gun. Banning assault weapons does not increase liberty, and it does not increase security. Eliminating Second Amendment rights will reduce liberty, not increase it. And even if assault weapons are banned, criminals are easily able to buy weapons via underground markets. It would put police forces at a significant disadvantage. Gun ownership in homes also supports lower crime rates, as criminals are less motivated to invade homes due to the fear of being injured in the process. Without that fear, they would be completely free to rob people. You also say that civil liberties would be enhanced, but basis for this is that law enforcement agencies are given less stress; not the people themselves. Gun possession decreases crime rate, and is a powerful deterrent. Simply putting a ban on assault weapons for public is bad, and foolish, but for police forces too? That is idiotic, and would put police forces at the biggest disadvantage they will ever face. Not only does gun ownership discourage crime, it is also a factor in defense. Nations know that there are gun owners all over the U.S., which would make an invasion, however unlikely, extremely hard to carry out, thanks to the sheer militia force of the people. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Now, I am going to explain my part of the story. With increased gun ownership, crime is often decreased significantly, thanks to the powerful deterrent. Detroit, in particular noticed stunning decreases in crime rates, with 37% fewer robberies in 2014 than in 2013. The Chief of Police, James Craig, said this was thanks to increasing gun ownership in Detroit, a city notorious for high crime rates. Many people believe that the purpose of a firearm "is to kill" but it's real objective is to defend. The myth that gun ownership in homes increases domestic violence is not true. A research project conducted by James Wright and Peter Rossi, for the U.S. Department of Justice shows that gun ownership is possibly the most effective deterrent to crime. The two professors questioned about 1,800 felons in prison. 81% of these criminals agreed that the smart criminal will try to find out if a person is armed before commencing a crime, 74% said that burglars usually avoided occupied homes, because of fear of being shot, and 57% of felons felt that the average criminal feared being shot by armed citizens more than the police. http://www.washingtontimes.com... http://people.duke.edu...