An AR15 is a suitable option for home defence and hunting

My opponent has not given suitable grounds for believing that the AR15 is detached from other firearms to the extent that studies concerning firearms should not be applied to it. To return to my beer analogy, Saffron's porter is brewed in different conditions, using different ingredients, in different proportions, yet this does not mean we should regard the results of studies regarding alcoholic beverages as irrelevant to discussion of Saffron's porter. I am defending this point only because it may be of critical importance. I think I am justified in saying that my opponent argues that in the right hands, the AR15 is a suitable option for home defence, while I argue that people, in general, fall short of being the 'right hands'. I am not going to be intellectually dishonest. It is obvious that 'in the right hands', the AR15 can be used as a suitable option, because to prove that you would only need one example of that being the case. However, it is not currently suitable for the vast majority of 'responsible adults' to keep firearms such as the AR15 in their home for the purpose of 'home defence'. There is no caveat in the title of this debate, although my opponent refers to 'character flaws', he does appear to argue that anyone who is entitled to defend their home is entitled to own an AR15, as, he appears to argue, this is the most suitable option for home defence. I refer to the question he has frequently posed: 'If the AR15 is not suitable, then what is?' - clearly, the AR15 is his champion. Furthermore, he has stated that the problems I have raised "will not simply go away just because they don't have a gun". Presumably, even people who bully and intimidate others are entitled to defend their home from criminals, as are the mentally unsound, for if this was not the case then any attempt by a schizophrenic to defend her home would be wrong, and that is not the case. As preventing these individuals from owning AR15s would not solve any problems other than the problem of their home being broken into, they should have access to the AR15. If my opponent's argument is true, then every adult who is entitled to defend their home should be permitted to own an AR15. I shall summarise the argument, accepting your points as true. 1. The AR15 is a suitable option for home defence. 2. Ownership of the AR15 in itself does not cause negative consequences such as intimidation, suicide, murder, etc. Therefore, the only effect of allowing someone to own an AR15 is that crimes against their home will be prevented. Therefore, anyone permitted to defend their home should also be permitted to own an AR15. Of course, this is an argument I strongly disagree with, for otherwise I would not be opposing in this debate. As studies show, firearms are far more likely to be used irresponsibly than responsibly in the home, and you cannot absolve weapons of all blame. It is easy to intimidate someone when you have a weapon in your hand; it is easy to make a bad decision and kill yourself when instead of having to go to great lengths to achieve death you can simply shoot yourself. Firearms make a lot of things easy, but often it is the wrong things which become easy. You might think that you can use an AR15 responsibly, and perhaps you can, but if so, you do not represent the majority in this respect. The AR15 might be a suitable option for some people, but my opponent must, if he is not to contradict himself, refuse to accept that statement and my caveat, and that is where he is wrong. "The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil" - Jeff Cooper, "Art of the Rifle" [1] Yes, but there are far more fools pointing rifles than there are burglars who need rifles pointed at them. [1] http://www.goodreads.com...