"assault weapons should NOT be prohibited from law abiding citizens

I do respect him and his position, no matter how much we disagree. Before I step into the arguments, let's look at my case. I think I made it very clear which issues were being addressed under my assault weapons ban proposal, and in what ways they mirrored Feinstein's proposal. I'm baffled that there is still, after 4 rounds of debate where, each time, I made a case against detachable magazines, my opponent is still confused about my case. That confusion on his part should not play out in the votes. I made it quite clear what my case was, and if he wanted clarification, it was up to him to ask either in the comments or in the debate proper. I saw assumptions, but no questions. Now, into the arguments. 1. The 1994 AWB as an example of success. Pro has spent a lot of time trying to dissuade voters from the notion on that 1994 AWB has had any effect. If he didn't understand the term "alternate causality," he should have made that clear from the outset. What it means is that he should have shown that another set of factors was responsible for the homicide reduction. I was hoping to see something in the way of an alternative explanation. As it stands, we can assume that his position is that random chance did it. Voters should always prefer a version of events that has some reasonable sense to it over this type of scenario. If I can present any substantive justification for the AWB being part of the cause of this reduction in homicides, that's proof enough for me to win this debate on that alone. Pro is still on this 1930's kick. I invite voters to look at his links " they're not hard to parse. What he wants you to believe is that this period from 1934-1940, where homicides decreased dramatically, was random chance. But I've already provided alternate causality. I even quoted my link, and I'll repeat that quote: "The funds and work opportunities from New Deal relief probably eased some of the economic tensions and material inequality that contributed to more homicides. " In other words, the New Deal brought about sufficient relief during this time to ease tensions and reduce homicides. Pro is in no way responsive to this. He cites numbers showing that unemployment was still up through 1940, and he's right, but the New Deal did a lot of important things to raise economic hopes and help the poor. None of his links show anything on that. He has failed to engage my point and my link. Pro keeps saying that the decline started before 1994, again ignoring my argument from the last round where I showed multiple time periods in which similar rises and falls have occurred with seemingly no rhyme or reason. I'm not saying that changes in homicide levels aren't ever random, just that the one following 1994 is very difficult to attribute to randomness. The fact that such a period exists and correlates strongly with the AWB is something Pro has yet to explain. Pro does point out that the 1994 AWB is different from my plan. Glad he's finally grasped the concept that I brought up in R2, which was that this is a lesser impact as compared with my plan. This is just meant to be a baseline justification using evidence, it's not meant to be the same. Lastly, Pro appeals to police opinion again. Their experiences are important, but they're individual, and most certainly not going to tell the whole story. No, I'm not appealing to politicians. I'm appealing to data, cold hard facts about homicide rates. Those tell the story impartially and across the country. 2. The unique harms increased as a result of assault weapons being legal to own Even if voters aren't buying that I'm winning the first half of this debate, this is an easy place to vote. Pro has spent nearly all of his time here mitigating my impacts without ever actually erasing them. The fact that he cold drops the impact of detachable magazines on reload times is sufficient reason to vote here, because his sole piece of offense is only working for me, but I'll get to that shortly. Pro keeps posting videos of guns being fired quickly, of course ignoring that he already conceded multiple points. 1) He conceded that it is possible to pull the trigger faster on a pistol grip 2) He conceded that bump firing, slide fire stocks, and specialty triggers increase the fire rate These are all I need to win this point. Voters can watch all the videos he posted, but it hardly matters. These concessions still stand, and the point that increased fire rates lead to increased death do as well. On accuracy, and I think he's losing here as well. Both my baltimoresun link and my mediamatters link contend that increased accuracy with a pistol grip is a reality. A few Youtube videos don't disprove the evidence. On portability, Pro is conceding that it's beneficial for both the invader and the defender to have smaller rifles for higher mobility. He's still dropping my points about why that helps the invader more than the defender, so that's sufficient to vote for me as well. His sole response is that their usage among criminals is uncommon, but this has nothing to do with my point. It doesn't matter if they're uncommon. It matters if they present a uniquely larger danger when used in a home invasion, which they do with folding stocks. If Pro had wanted to say that they are more effective at defending a home than other guns, he could have made that point. He didn't. And remember, this is his sole piece of offense. Even if you're partially buying any of these points, they outweigh this single benefit he's ascribed to keeping these guns legal. Pro still leaves the grenade launcher addition untouched in this final round, again sufficient reason to vote for me. 3. Red Herrings: Maybe it's time I defined these. A red herring is a logical fallacy, meaning that something misleads or detracts from a given relevant issue. He's used quite a few of them, and honestly, I'm sick and tired of it. . It doesn't matter what my perspective on pitt bulls is (though I made it clear why they're different), just as it doesn't with drunk driving, comfortable seats and cup holders in cars, or anything else he's brought up. None of these affect the question at hand, which is, should assault weapons be banned? I don't have to go through these examples in order to clarify that my case is reasonable. If Pro had wanted to say that policies like this could lead to something worse, he should have made that clear. If Pro wanted to call me a hypocrite, he could have made that clear. Voters shouldn't care what my views on drunk driving are in deciding whether or not I've made a good argument with regards to assault weapons. I may be a terrible person (and probably am), but the arguments stand for themselves. Pro leaves us with one last (and new) red herring. He says that we should instead be addressing psychiatric drug reform and background checks. I'd say we could do this right along with my policy and that both would be effective. I'd say that this, again, doesn't matter within the debate. Pro hasn't taken this as his couterplan in the debate, therefore it's irrelevant. If my proposed ban is net beneficial, then it doesn't matter if these could have been more so. I think world peace would be awesome, but it's not a plank in either of our plans. So let's just keep these in our imagination, or debate them later, OK? Conclusion We're assessing the benefits of assault weapons being banned. I've made a clear case where I've stated substantial and obvious harms that result from their continued legal presence, and I've shown that past policy has worked. Pro's sole response has been mitigation, and he's missed a lot of points in doing so. He's provided almost no reason for why these weapons should continue to be legal for the common good.