"assault weapons should NOT be prohibited from law abiding citizens

The crux of Pro's argument against my evidence for the 1994 AWB is essentially this: He's telling me I can't prove it is directly causal. He's saying that it can't possibly account for all of it, so it must account for none of it. No one supports that it had an effect. They're not that different from regular semi-automatic weapons. Homicide rates have stayed low, so obviously it wasn't caused by the ban. Each of these is fallacious. On the first, I've provided ample evidence to believe that it's highly likely. Have I proven causality? No, but I don't believe that's possible. What I've provided is the best explanation in this debate for a steady and long-lasting decline in homicides. Pro hasn't contested that it happened, and has refused to provide any alternate explanation. At the point that Pro is practically attributing it to magic, I think I have the better story here. On the second, his argument that the numbers don't add up isn't sufficient. I made a clear statement in the last round that changes in gun policies can affect mindsets that extend well beyond a time frame. This applies to these numbers as well by altering behavior. But I don't have to win that 39% homicide reduction resulted from this alone. I've shown that it's highly likely that the AWB affected this ban substantially. I've supported that with several links. Pro has only challenged it with his opinion. On the third, this is just false. I've provided several links to show that support exists for it having an effect. His own study supported some effect, however minimal and long term. If he needs another, here is it, from a gun owning conservative no less.[1] On the fourth, I never said this. I said that there are traits of semi-automatic weapons that are harmful, but not that the additions only made a negligible improvement. In fact, that's been the basis for my arguments. On the fifth, Pro is still dropping my arguments. I've shown that his own links support a long-term effect of the AWB beyond its tenure. I've provided reasoning for how it can change mindsets, which has also gone dropped. If anything, this extension of effect only supports my arguments, not his. Pro keeps appealing to authority on the law enforcement issue. I haven't responded to this because it's opinion, just writ large. Opinion often doesn't mirror reality in the case of gun control legislation.[2] There's no reason to believe that law enforcement can adequately assess the impact of the AWB. Pro adds an argument that homicide rates tend to drastically increase and decrease. This only supports my argument. That tends to happen when there's not a major regulating influence. He can call homicide rates erratic all he wants, but all we need to do is look at the evidence in the U.S. to see that that's not the case here during this time period. Pro cites an article talking about another large drop off in gun homicides. Just because he doesn't care about alternate causality doesn't mean the rest of us don't. "The funds and work opportunities from New Deal relief probably eased some of the economic tensions and material inequality that contributed to more homicides."[4] Lastly, Pro finally addresses the chart. Of course, he fails to notice that very similar slight changes as occurred in 1992 occurred in 1990 and 1985, both of which ended abruptly. This has been a continuous reduction over a 5 year period followed by a sustained low level of homicides. I've said this more than once, Pro has failed to rebut it. And still no alternate explanation is forthcoming. Let's look back at my case for a moment. I did pay attention to what I said from the outset. I said I was following Diane Feinstein's assessment of assault weapons, and then listed out the traits. I didn't say I would mirror it exactly, and I made it clear which traits I was talking about. Pro has chosen to ignore the fact that, on the top of that list, is detachable magazines. That's his choice. It doesn't mean it's not there. He also dropped my point that even if I was following hers exactly, it would still be relevant to the debate. Having something en tandem with something else in the definition of assault weapons still makes it a significant part of that description. Pro launches into the second portion of our discussion by saying that I've never proven that assault weapons are more deadly. Let's look at the reasoning I've provided: Faster firing (slide fire stocks, bump fire, specialty triggers, pistol grip) Increased capacity (detachable magazines) More accurate firing and hip firing (pistol grip) Enhanced ability to navigate tight spaces (folding stock) Capacity to fire multiple weapons (grenade launcher) Pro has looked at them individually and provided a measure of mitigation in their individual usage, but has failed to rebut their usage en tandem. Even individually, he's completely dropped increased capacity, mostly dropped grenade launchers, and has spent so little time on the accuracy (I don't need video evidence, but if you want more, look at the 1989 Guns & Ammo quotes here[3]) and faster firing rates issues that he might as well have dropped them. Hell, he gave the argument for navigating tight spaces. That's his sole piece of offense, and it's been straight turned. His only response here is that, somehow, home owners get the advantage and not the criminal, though he never explains why having an assault weapon provides extra defense while providing no benefits to the criminals. He's proceeded to use quite a few red herrings to try and make my argument sound ridiculous, which he continues to do in this round, but none of them have any basis in this debate. The sole red herring I will address is pitt bulls. I really don't understand this. This is a living creature that can be trained to be vicious. It's not a tool, and the harms of banning pitt bulls from loving households outweigh the harms of them biting people. I wasn't aware that the ASPCA was doing videos on how automatic rifles need homes too. Pro has a burden of proof too " he must show that there is either some egregious harm that results from their ban, or that there is no harm that results from their usage. He's barely engaged in any of the former, so he's hedging all of his bets on the latter. The best evidence he's had for the mitigation point is that Anders Brevik managed a huge number of deaths without it, but he's ignored all of my responses regarding alternate causality, which all of his examples in the comments also suffer from to varying extents. Beyond that, the best he can manage is to call it rare, though all that does is reduce my impact. The outcome of a ban is still net beneficial if it affects 5% or 39% of shootings. Pro talks about the "nanny state." I don't understand this argument. If Pro wants to defend mass murder of criminals, be my guest. Considering the way that Pro has casually dismissed many of my deadly harms scenarios with humor and "lols," I find it funny that he's attacking me for being "kiddy." Pro says I'm "fail[ing] to trust someone who actually shoots firearms." First off, he's assuming that I've never used a gun. Second, it's anecdotal evidence. I understand that Pro likely has more experience shooting than I do, but that doesn't make him an authority on the subject. Third, it's not meant to insult. Even if he was an authority, he'd need support for his points. His point of view on the subject is tainted by his role in the debate. I'm a microbiologist, but I wouldn't simply assert that my knowledge on the subject is true in a debate about disease. 1. http://articles.latimes.com... 2. http://www.theatlanticcities.com... 3. http://mediamatters.org... 4. https://www.princeton.edu...