"assault weapons" should NOT be banned

Of course, this isn't a debate on alcohol, but I will continue to use arguments which prove an "assault weapons" ban to be ineffective and prove both a ban on alcohol and rifles with "scary cosmetic features" to be pointless and unnecessary. "Assault weapons, on the other hand, were DESIGNED to kill people, and are not even comparable to alcohol in terms of potential to harm. " I'd like to point out two flaws to this. You say "assault weapons" are designed to kill. If "assault weapons" are designed to kill, why isn't any other type of gun designed to kill? There is a huge problem within the anti gun movement with understanding what an "assault weapon" is. As I stated before, the term "assault weapon" was a name created by the media to categorize rifles that LOOK like military assault rifles. Military assault rifles are fully automatic firearms. (which are extremely hard to acquire and afford) For example, the AR 15 SPORTING/DEFENSE rifle is a semi automatic rifle created by Eugene Stoner. (I would also like to state that the acronym "AR" does not stand for assault rifle. "AR" stands for Armalite rifle, which Armalite is the company that first developed the AR 15 platform) Also, your argument that "alcohol isn't made to kill, and "assault weapons" are made to kill proves a point for me. Why is it that alcohol, (a chemical compound) which is NOT made to kill people, kills over 50 times the number of people killed by so called "assault weapons" which you claim is "made to kill people"? Don't you find it strange? Moving on. "they provide an amount of freedom in terms of schedule flexibility" trains and buses provide the same flexibility, and not only that, but reduce the amount of vehicle emissions into the air, and also reduce the amount of gas needed for every day life. You're making arguments and missing counter arguments that can be made against them. You copied and pasted my "train and buses" argument, and made no argument against it. The point of me mentioning this is to expose the hypocrisy of my opponent. He wants to ban particular rifles based on their scary "cosmetic features" (meanwhile these guns kill less than half the amount of people killed by hands and feet each year) but doesn't want to ban 2,000 pound personal vehicles which claim over 30,000 innocent lives per year. I would like to state I absolutely do NOT support a ban on personal vehicles. People have the right to own what they want. (as long as they are responsible) "According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, an "assault weapon" includes ANY automatic or semi-automatic fire arm" my opponent is not acquainted with the national debate. The newest proposed gun control laws consisted of banning SEMI AUTOMATIC rifles with "assault weapon" features. This debate is solely on semi automatic with "assault weapon" FEATURES. In this debate, (and in most debates,) assault rifles and "assault weapons" have 2 different definitions. In this debate, "assault weapon" is what I stated earlier. An 'assault rifle" is a rifle with SELECTIVE fire capabilities. The debate is NOT on assault rifles. (fully automatic weapons) My apologies for not citing my resources. For the 2 worst mass shootings in the world: You can look up the 2011 Oslo, Norway shooting, committed by Anders brevik with a rifle NOT classified as an "assault weapon" The second worst mass shooting in the world, committed by Woo Bum Kon, which took place in 1982. How I got the stats for the total number of people killed in mass shootings in the past ten years: http://www.motherjones.com... You can use the table presented in the above link. If you start from 2003, to 2013, you will find that less than 70 people have been killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings. if you add up the total number of mass shootings in the past 10 years committed by assault weapon (there were 7 mass shootings involving assault weapons) the total number of people killed in those shootings was 76. What also needs to be taken into consideration is that "assault weapons" were not the only weapons used in those mass shootings. Shotguns and handguns were also present and killed people in those mass shootings. To be generous, I subjected about ten deaths which leaves the number of people killed in mass shootings by "assault weapons" in the past TEN years to be less than 70 people. If you would like, I would gladly state each mass shooting since 2003 in the comment sections and show the number of people killed in each one. http://en.wikipedia.org... Less than 2% of gun homicides are committed by "assault weapons: http://www.fbi.gov... According to the FBI, 3.7% of gun homicides are committed by rifles IN GENERAL. That means a VERY reasonable estimate for the number of people killed by 'assault weapons" each year makes up less than 2% of gun homicides. If you want to test my data with mass shooting statistics, I would implore you to that way you can see my arguments and statistics are not faulty. http://dictionary.reference.com... a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge. 2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire. We are using definition #2 for assault weapon. Definition 2 is currently being debated, not definition #1