Restricting the type of firearms available to civilians will reduce gun death

Ok, so I had a sort of brain fart composing the resolution for this debate which has been since discussed with my opponent. So, for the purposes of this debate, the resolution we are debating shall be " Restricting semi-automatic rifles and their standard capacity magazines will reduce gun death". Let's do this thing. 1. Restrictions on semi-automatic rifles. Restricting the public's access to semi-automatic rifles, regardless of their type, pattern or caliber, will do not reduce gun death as a whole or the frequency of mass shootings because they are used so little in crime to begin with. In 2012, 8251 people were murdered with handguns and only 325 were committed with a rifle. By way of comparison, in that same year, more people died from knives or cutting implements than by rifles. The reason I suspect rifles are used in so little crime is because of their size. It's hard not to draw attention to yourself carrying around a firearm that's 10x the size of a handgun. If one were to try to stop gun death simply by banning a gun, you would have better luck trying to ban handguns. Banning these firearms in particular would also not stop mass shootings because they are not the exclusive firearm used in mass shootings. Colombine happened with handguns. The Navy yard shooting had a shotgun and handguns. Virginia tech happened with handguns. The shooting involving Gabrielle Giffords was perpetrated by a man with a single handgun. While the lethality and effectiveness of a rifle over a handgun can be debated, I see no reason why if rifles were to disappear that mass shootings would become less frequent when the other 2 types of firearms are just as effective if one's goal were to kill people at one time in one place. Restricting standard capacity magazines. Those of you who have served in the military or local law enforcement branch, or just get out and talk to these guys on a regular, basis will know 2 unchanging truths when it comes to firearms. 1.) People will RARELY be stopped by one shot, unless that shot hits the brain stem, and 2.) People are going to miss no matter what. In 2005-6 the NYPD had an average hit percentage of 22.85 %. So let's just say you're in a home invasion scenario with 2 perpetrators (this number is not uncommon). One is high on heroin, cocaine, meth, bath salts or whatever(This is also not uncommon). And the other guy has a gun (let's say this a world with restricted magazines, but he has 2 illegal magazines of 30 rounds in a handgun.) If you were armed with a gun that only held 10 rounds, the likelihood of you making it out alive is slim, because you will inevitably have a discourse of lead with the gunman while having to worry about his high friend. So if trained professionals have a hit percentage of 22.85%, and let's say that your training is equal or lesser to the average street cop, then 10 rounds will not be enough to stop the intruders from doing you harm. Note this man (III) who was shot 21 times but lived, because none of the rounds hit a vital organ or blood vessel. And just to show that from a mass muder perspective that magazine size does little to slow the attacker, please watch the videos. I.http://www.fbi.gov... II.http://www.nytimes.com... III.http://news.yahoo.com... IV.http://www.youtube.com... V.http://www.youtube.com...