Assault Rifles should not be outrightly banned.

The main feature of assault rifles is that they are produced to attack masses of people in a short amount of time. So? What if a person is being attacked by multiple people at a time? Don't you think that there could be a use for that with civilians? Also, this doesn't matter at all, because even if its designed for that, it depends on the user to use it like that. A sword designed for killing people can be used as a wall hanger. Similarly, a gun designed to kill many people can be used only to defend oneself. One of the major reasons of not regulating guns in the United States is that people consider guns a method of self-protection. However, consider this, usually in a theft there will be one thief trespassing in your home. Do you need a weapon designed to kill a crowd or will a pistol be enough to defend your home? In home defense, pistols are great. But if it's outside, at longer ranges, I would much prefer the accuracy of a rifle. And even if I miss the first tim, I got 29 shots or more to follow through with. With a hunting rifle, I'm lucky to have 5 shots shot slowly. Also, you fail to mention another major reason why the 2nd Amendment was put into plac. It helps protect us from a tyranical government. Now, I've heard the argument that the early Americans only had muskets/flintlocks, they didn't know of the firepower guns would have nowadays. So therefore we are interpreting the 2nd wrongly to include much deadlier weapons. However, this argument fails. Back then, the British army also used muskets/flintlocks, so the two were evenly matched on weaponry. The US Army as of right now uses assault rifles, and so to have any chance against a tyrannical US government, the people need to be matched in small arms weaponry. Think about it, in the Civil War, the South (who at least thought the North was being tyrannical) was not only limited to using muskets/flintolock rifles. They too could weild faster shooting breech loaders, revolvers, and even a few lever actions. Because of this, they too had a chance. it is also true that assault rifles are used more in mass shootings where large amounts of people are massacred. True, but realize that if asult rifles are banned, mass shooters will turn to other weapons. The Virginia Tech shooter killed a huge number of people, more than the average mass shooting, using only pistols. It's possible for other people (and plus, these are concealable.) If I attached a big sword to my car, I could kill many more people with my car. Obviously, this is illegal, and assault rifles are illegal, too. Logical fallacy of the weak analogy. There is absolutely no reason for attaching a sword to your car, especially when you are driving. It's illegal because you pass pedestrians and it's out in public all the time pointing at people. An assault rifle actually has a use, a much more practical use, and is not a constant safety threat to pedestrians unless a crazy person does it. Also, you bring up a good point for my side. So attaching a sword to a car is illegal. Do you really think the law will stop a criminal from doing this if he really wants too? No. The only real solution would be to ban swords altogether, but that would infringe on so many law-abiding citizen's rights. Similarly, a criminal will use an assault weapon regardless of the regulations put forth by government, and so banning them would only gurt law-abiding citizens. Just look at gangs. For the most part, full-auto weapons ar highly, highly restricted, and yet they use MAC-10s, AK-47s, Uzis... Is the law helping in these situations? NO. And if full auto weapons were legal across the board, this still wouldn't help, because right now full-auto street weapons are insanely cheap compared to legal ones.