"assault weapons should NOT be prohibited from law abiding citizens

The majority of this debate seems to be on the subject of proof of effect. Pro is essentially shouldering me with the burden here, stating that it's my duty within this debate to show exactly how it was causative. I've provided reasons why at least part of that reduction is the result of the AWB, and I'll get to those later, but I really don't understand what else Con wants from me here. I've shown that there is a very distinct correlation. It's not a correlation that stretches a year or two, it's a pretty stark change in the homicide rate that lasted the entire period the assault weapons ban was in effect and thereafter. Pro's own evidence has provided justification for its continued effectiveness following its end, since many of the effects are felt out to the long term. It shows that the long term effects of the ban could account for the lower gun homicide rate today. Pro's response to this is to say that homicides should have skyrocketed the day the ban was up, but bans tend to have effects that go well beyond their duration, since they change seller and buyer habits. He admits that there is no alternate explanation that he can provide for the data. The argument he's making here seems to be that since there's no absolutely stark proof, voters should disbelieve my arguments. I don't think this is at all reasonable. Looking back at those charts, the effect follows directly along the lines of the start of the 1994 AWB. If Pro would like to attribute that decline to something else, he is welcome to do so. So long as he does not, voters should prefer the argument that it's not just coincidental. He tries to showcase this is with a red herring. 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. We can determine trends if they're over a long enough time period. Second, the absence of an explanation in this case doesn't mean that there's no explanation in ours. It's irrelevant to this debate. "Con has yet to prove that some homicides involving "assault weapons" could not have been achieved by a different kind of weapon." This is fundamentally the problem in Pro's attacks on my case. No, it is not my duty in this debate to say that a person who wants to go out and kill a bunch of people with a gun would reconsider in the absence of an assault weapon. It's my burden to show that the number of deaths they could achieve would be reduced in the event of such a ban. That person may still pick up a gun and shoot their classmates, but they will kill and wound fewer of them without an assault weapon to bear. Again, Pro returns to the point about alcohol, now assuming my views on that subject. Again, it's irrelevant to this debate. I don't have to prove that a ban on assault weapons would be as beneficial as an end to drunk driving in order to win this debate, nor do I have to be consistent on separate issues. Pro finally gets to the slide fire stock, and is jocular on the subject of someone firing their semiautomatic rifle at a rate that rivals and automatic one. I don't think it's funny, especially when that increased fire rate means more bullets in more peoples' bodies. 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. In fact, despite spending a lot of his time on this point about how I have to prove that assault weapons are more dangerous, he's done scant little to ameliorate the harms of the various add-ons, most of which still make the weapon quite dangerous en tandem. group. So even if voters are buying that the 1994 AWB did nothing, it doesn't matter. This showcases a distinct and demonstrable harm that my case would address, something that that policy only accomplished partially. If nothing else, it provides strong reasoning for a ban to prevent future usage of these weapons. Pro's response to the Hellfire trigger example is that he has no personal reason to own one and that, for some unknown reason, it's irrelevant to assault weapons, despite the fact that it fits his own description of an assault weapon to have one. His only other point here is that assault weapons cause muzzle climb, making it less accurate. 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. On the detachable magazine, Pro is ignoring my [1] and [2], both of which classify semi-automatic guns with detachable magazines as assault weapons. What he's trying to do is to claim that since the 1994 AWB also included that other features were necessary to be classified under this, that my policy also includes it. It doesn't. Nowhere in my initial post did I state that. Besides, even granting his point, a detachable magazine is still a part of an assault weapon that isn't commonly seen in semi-automatic wepaons. If I'm lumping in some semi-automatic weapons with my definition of assault, that's fine. It still means he has to respond on the magazine capacity argument, which he is still ignoring. So long as he's ignoring that, it's reason enough for me to win this debate. On the folding stock. Pro still doesn't see his own inherent contradiction. I don't need the concealment point. If you have a home invasion where someone is trying to move room to room quickly, then it doesn't matter who is wielding the gun, they're going to have an advantage in having a slightly smaller gun to slip through doors. 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. Pro is non-responsive to this point. And that's the opposite of "mak[ing] it as hard as possible for gun owners to protect themselves against criminals." Homeowners will still be able to defend themselves without assault weapons. The next set of arguments is a laundry list of red herrings. I don't have to state or defend my views on any of those subjects in order to warrant this one. Pro needs to focus on the topic at hand; if he had, he might not have run out of space. Pro then proceeds to throw his weight around with personal experience, not citing one thing in support of his claims for the pistol grip. He concedes that a pistol grip will increase the rate of firing (even if it's small, and it's not nearly so small as he claims, one bullet is enough to show a harm), drops that recoil is reduced as a result of their usage, and then claims that he knows better than my source because apparently he's been at this for a while. I don't doubt that he has personal experience, but if that's the case, it shouldn't be hard to find some support for his points. He refers back to Brevik. Again, I explained in my last post why his killing spree was so much more deadly. It had nothing to do with the type of gun being fired because any gun would have done for that situation. Pro is non-responsive to my points. His only response to hip shooting is that it's better to shoot accurately. In a crowded space, I'd say not, but also with the combination of bump fire and slide fire stocks, it is more dangerous, mainly because you're spending less time aiming and more time unloading bullets. Pro drops my arguments regarding grenade launchers, which he conceded are available to some and therefore a present danger. He still has no basis for the argument that this ban would have "NO POSITIVE EFFECT." Pro drops my responses on Brevik. Of course, he provides responses to some of these in the comments section, though I urge voters not to include those comments in the debate, as they are extensions on his argument that allow him to surpass the character limit. He imposed the limit to start, and he should adhere to it.