"assault weapons" should NOT be banned

First of all..."You haven't even displayed any arguments as to why a ban on these weapons would save lives."Actually, I did... I presented a case from logic showing that assault weapons should be banned, supporting both premises with reasoning and drawing the obvious conclusion from them. Pro has failed to disprove either of those two premises, and so the conclusion remains standing. Just needed to get that accusation out of the way before proceeding with my counter-rebuttals...PREMISE I"I showed you how motor vehicles pose a significant threat and that there are other alternatives to getting to locations...why aren't you advocating [car bans] to be done?"As I stated before, cars provide much, much more than alternative options in terms of schedule flexibility and range of accessible locations, so cars DO have a large benefit to society that outweighs their harm to society. This analogy simply doesn't work.My premise remains standing: anything which is both dangerous and unnecessary SHOULD be banned....PREMISE IISemantics"it is generally an understood term in America. When you say "assault weapon" people know you are talking about those "scary looking semi automatic rifles"....I've debated this topic literally over 100 times. You are the ONLY American to not understand what definition of "assault weapon" I am talking about."Pro's personal experiences are irrelevant, as they are subject to confirmation bias and, more importantly, are unverifiable. If he wished to debate whether or not "scary looking semi automatic rifles" should be banned or not, he should have said so. I accepted the debate with the standard dictionary definition in mind, and to try changing the definition after I've built my case around the OFFICIAL definition, is unfair. "i used the definition from dictionary.com. You used your definition from Merriam."I am embarrassed to admit that I did not notice this earlier, but if we go back to the link Pro provided for his definition, we see that it is the definition of an assault RIFLE; not an assault WEAPON.Let's take a look at the dictionary.com definition of an assault WEAPON (http://dictionary.reference.com...=/)"any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge, designed for individual use."Huh? That sounds familiar... It has now been proven thoroughly that Pro's case from semantics is completely invalid. An assault weapon is any automatic or semi-automatic fire arm. This also confirms that all of Pro's statistics that are contingent upon his flawed definition are invalid. Assault Weapons are Dangerous"I even stated and sourced my data before, but my oponent is proving the point that he makes false accusations and simply won't do any research himself. The only link he looked at was the FBI statistics link which I posted on my argument."Lol... at the very top of Pro's Wikipedia article, there is a disclaimer:"This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness."Not only is it from a not-so-well-respected source, but it even states that it is incomplete. And on top of that, Pro is using his faulty definitions to choose which incidents he gets to select. How does he expect ANYONE to take statistics like that seriously!?And as for the FBI source, I see Pro hasn't denied my contention that the statistic he cited from it isn't actually present in the source material itself. Pro indirectly admits to making up statistics. "For how I got less than 15% of mass shootings in the U.S involving "assault weapons" I simply took the total number of mass shootings and divided it by the number of mass shootings involving "assault weapons""Invalidated by faulty definitions. "Motherjones displayed no proof "assault weapons" are capable of killing more people than other firearms."Invalidated by faulty definitions."I'd really like for you to read up on The Oslo shooting. This obliterates the argument "assault weapons" some how have greater capabilities of killing people."Pro provides no elaboration whatsoever on why this is so...Assault Weapons are Unnecessary"Actually, they do have a benefit to society because they are personal defense rifles. Home invasions have been prevented by the use of semi automatic AR 15s."Oh wonderful. Save a family every once in a while at the expense of suffering several mass-shootings per year. Perfect logic. Unfortunately for Pro, citing a couple of miracle stories doesn't really prove that assault weapons have a benefit to society that outweighs their immense cost.Also, the article cited by Pro insinuates that the only purpose that an assault weapon serves is fear factor; any type of gun can be designed to look intimidating!"[The Second Amendment] does prove them that they cannot be prohibited"False. The Constitution isn't a eternal, objective guide to right and wrong; it is a living document with provisions to allow it to change with the times.Guns are far, far more dangerous than they were when the Second Amendment was written, and the Constitution needs to change to adapt to that new threat.Both premises remain standing, and so the conclusion remains valid: assault weapons should be banned. Vote Con!Thanks to Pro for a spirited debate!