"assault weapons" should NOT be banned

"Please remember that this is just an online debate." Exactly. Remember it is just an online debate. Stop harping over the fact that I simply didn't clarify the definition of "assault weapon" (even thought most Americans know what the heck I am talking about) I've debated this topic literally over 100 times. You are the ONLY American to not understand what definition of "assault weapon" I am talking about. "This premise is based in the common sense notion that if something poses a significant threat to society and no benefit" I showed you how motor vehicles pose a significant threat and that there are other alternatives to getting to locations. If people took buses and trains, we would #1. Have less traffic #2. Have thousands of fewer motor vehicle deaths each year #3. We would save our fossil fuels. So if you take into consideration that there are other alternative means to travel from point A to B other than cars, why aren't you advocating that to be done? Premise II Again, to sum up what I said in the first paragraph, it is generally an understood term in America. When you say "assault weapon" people know you are talking about those "scary looking semi automatic rifles" As you said, it is just an online debate. Get over it and improvise. Adjust yourself. You haven't even displayed any arguments as to why a ban on these weapons would save lives. It hasn't affected you. if you want (and I'd prefer not to,) I will close this debate, start a new debate and be more specific for you because you apparently don't understand what I meant. "Lol Pro says that after using dictionary.com for his own definition" Yes? And? i used the definition from dictionary.com. You used your definition from Merriam. It is neither ones fault. (Except it is baffling that you live in America and you have been aware of the gun control legislation which recently failed to pass) and you didn't know what definition I was referring to. "Pro's historical data was based off faulty definitions and wasn't even sourced." http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.fbi.gov... Since you don't believe my argument for the fact that less than 70 people in the past TEN years does not hold water (even when I showed you the mass shootings committed by "assault weapons" between the years of 2003 to 2013) I recomend you do the research. Note that a mass shooting consists of a shooting involving 4 or more deaths committed by 1 or 2 indivudals. I even stated and sourced my data before, but my oponent is proving the point that he makes false accusations and simply won't do any research himself. The only link he looked at was the FBI statistics link which I posted on my argument. Sources cited: U.S gun ownership rates: http://www.statisticbrain.com... For how I got less than 15% of mass shootings in the U.S involving "assault weapons" I simply took the total number of mass shootings and divided it by the number of mass shootings involving "assault weapons" You can use the list of rampage killers link to look at the number of mass shootings which have occured in the U.S. Be sure to also look at workplace shootings. Not a single workplace shooting in the U.S was committed by an "assault weapon". You should also take school shootings into consideration. My 15% figure is actually being quite generous since it is far lower than 15%. Premise 1 Actually, they do have a benefit to society because they are personal defense rifles. Home invasions have been prevented by the use of semi automatic AR 15s. www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/Neighbor-Stops-Home-Invaders-by-Shooting-One-and-Holding-Other-at-Gunpoint-236891461.html?device=phone http://www.theblaze.com... I can cite more articles if you believe it is neccessary (excuse the purple letters. It is glitching right now)I think Pro's own source (http://www.motherjones.com......) has already displayed that assault weapons are, without a doubt, dangerous and pose a significant threat to the well-being of society. Motherjones displayed no proof "assault weapons" are capable of killing more people than other firearms. Anders Brevik used a rifle NOT classified as an "assault weapon" and killed 70 people which is the world record. http://en.wikipedia.org... I'd really like for you to read up on The Oslo shooting. This obliterates the argument "assault weapons" some how have greater capabilities of killing people. Here is more proof an "assault weapons" ban would not save lives. (This is from a huge proponent of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban) Koper, 2004: Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs [Assault Weapons], any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs [large-capacity magazines], which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation"s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs. These are more statistics for proof the "assault weapons" ban would not be effective. (This is a police survey) http://www.policeone.com... "How does the existence of the Second Amendment make assault weapons harmless and necessary?" It doesn't make them harmless. However, it does prove them that they cannot be prohibited. I should have mentioned the Second Amendment in a different debate. This should have been a different discussion. My apologies. If you would like to argue it in a different debate, inform me. " And as for being unnecessary, it's up to Pro to show exactly why assault weapons are necessary when any non-automatic gun could easily suffice for the purposes of self-defense." I can't exactly make an argument for the reason that I am not sure if mean both semi automatic and fully automatic, or just fully automatic. You should clarify next time.