"assault weapons should NOT be prohibited from law abiding citizens

"I've provided reasons why at least part of that reduction is the result of the AWB" this is your opinion. You have no solid evidence to support the claim that the ban had an effective on homicide rates. If I can't make a reasonable estimate as to the average percent of homicides involving rifles in the past 20 years, how should you be allowed to present your argument as if it is the cold hard fact that the ban reduced the homicide rate. No one had supported the previous "assault weapons" ban said it had any effect. The only effect it had was the reduction of "assault weapons" on the streets. And that doesn't prove a reduction of so called 'assault weapons" automatically will reduce the homicide rate because we clearly see, and you even admitted there is a very minimal difference between "assault weapons" and regular semi automatic weapons. Your only argument which can support your claim that the ban had an effect on the homicide rate is that the rates dropped during the ban. you continue giving credit to the ban, meanwhile you won't don't mention that homicides involving firearms are at it's lowest today (while the ban has been dropped) and you also fail to acknowledge that homicide rates have the tendency to go up drastically and go down drastically. The problem with con is that rifles make up such a low portion of homicides, yet, the OVERALL homicide rate went down. Look at this graph. http://www.zeigen.com... Look at the drastic drop in homicides that occurred during the 1930s. It's an even greater drop than in 1994. And you didn't look closely enough at the graph. The homicide rate begins to dip starting at 1992 and 1993. Have you taken that into consideration that perhaps the homicide rate was already dropping? This is the same thing people who try and defend the Aussie gun ban. They fail to look at the drop already occurring. When examining a graph, look at years prior to to a deadline or beginning. "He mentions that the UK homicide rates jumped within 1 year. First off, it's a single year, and therefore it's difficult to create a trend for it" Con still fails to understand the point being made. Homicide rates can be erratic. I even show a steep decline in homicide rates starting from 1930 and ending at around 1943. So two important things. The drop in homicides didn't start in 1994, and there have been other previous drops in homicides before in U.S history. You don't have definite proof the ban had anything to do with the drop in homicides. How could it possibly be in the first place if so few gun homicides are committed by "assault weapons"? "It's my burden to show that the number of deaths they could achieve would be reduced in the event of such a ban." and yet, the worst mass shooting ever was not committed by an 'assault weapon". You NEED to find sufficient proof an "assault weapon" can kill more people in a shooting. You don't have therefore, you don't have a legitimate argument to support your claim. Randomly stating a few mass shootings that involved "assault weapons" doesn't prove they are more dangerous. That is like me advocating a ban on red cars, and then me sending you pictures of car crashes involving red cars. "Again, Pro returns to the point about alcohol, now assuming my views on that subject. Again, it's irrelevant to this debate." So was Hellfire triggers and bump fire stocks. If you have the "nanny state" type of idea of how citizens should be controlled, why are you ok with banning "assault weapons" which make up less than 2% of gun homicides but seem to be ok with keeping alcohol legal when 10,000 innocent people are killed a year. Are you also forgetting about the fact that most gun murder victims are criminals in they first place. So, with the fact that the vast majority of murder victims are criminals, why should the most popular sporting rifles in America (over 4 million in total) be prohibited because you have a hunch that they are a tad bit more dangerous? https://www.google.com...- 8#q=most+murder+victims+are+criminals&rls=en&spell=1 http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com... http://articles.baltimoresun.com... http://www.rockawave.com... "He's completely non-responsive to the very point he quotes, which explains why it is unreasonable to keep something legal that's highly deadly just because it's not commonly used." I'm sorry, but would you follow the same idea with pit bulls. Pitbulls are not very common, however they have a very high potential to being ferocious animals. Is it necessary to prohibit pit bulls too? Where does the line get drawn from just dangerous enough, to too dangerous? Again, pit bulls kill few people, but they are in fact deadly, and are rated in the top 5 deadliest dogs. Voters, please pay close attention to the point I am making here. "In fact, despite spending a lot of his time on this point about how I have to prove that assault weapons are more dangerous" I like the that whole "I already proved you wrong" kind of kiddy thing. You proved me wrong? Then please explain why the homicide rate was already dropping before the 1994 AWB, the worst mass shooting EVER was NOT committed by an 'assault weapon" and the VAST MAJORITY of law enforcement say a ban on these weapons would have no positive effect on crime? lol. I see that is being childish that you would say that. Your an intelligent debater, that makes me lose my respect for you right there. The fact that you said that tells me you are not confident. You should pay attention to what you say. You said you were using the definition of Diane Feinstein's idea of an "assault weapon" http://www.feinstein.senate.gov... You should be more consistent. "That hardly matters within a crowded space, and it's ameliorated by the pistol grips. It's still firing more bullets, and if someone can control the gun effectively, it's a big problem." Con COMPLETELY disregards what I explained to him about pistol grips and folding stocks and throws it under the bridge. He fails to trusts someone who actually shoots firearms, (unlike con) Con still fails to find proof a pistol grip can make a difference in a shooting. He makes the claim that pistol grips allow for easier hip fire, meanwhile a shooter is more efficient at shooting any targets holding the firearm up and aiming the sights. Con disregards the fact that hip firing can cause VERTICAL drops and climbs. One can shoot way too low or too high. Crowd or not, it does't make a difference. Diane Feinstein's definition of an "assault weapon" isn't a semi automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. I am VERY confused with what you are talking about right now. I am not understanding whether you support a ban on semi automatic weapons with detachable mags, or a ban on "assault weapons" "The person with first hands on a gun and the element of surprise is the home invader, nor the person defending their property. Ergo, folding stocks provide more benefit to the invader than the defender" Problem con fails to acknowledge. Even with the technology, criminals RARELY USE RIFLES for crimes. The odds that a home invader will have a rifle is VERY slim, therefore, home owners get the the advantage MORE from an adjustable but-stock. Con also throws this under the bridge because it does not fit is argument. Con fails to provide any video showing a pistol griped firearm has the capability of firing faster. Con insults my personal experience with firearms, meanwhile uses baltimroesun as a "legitimate source" for firearm cosmetic features. (continued in comment section)