"assault weapons should NOT be prohibited from law abiding citizens

Ok, I will continue on. If any credit could possibly be given to the reduction of homicides from the 1994 AWB, why is it that homicides did not sky rocket after 2004 when the ban was dropped? I don't doubt the data. If you were inferring that's what I was saying, it's incorrect. What i was saying is that homicides involving rifles have ALWAYS made up a VERY small portion of gun homicides. So how can credit be given to the ban when 39% of homicides declined and rifles make up such a small portion of gun homicides? "Pro provides no alternate explanation for this drop in homicides" Of course their is no explanation for homicides being dropped. There isn't any explanation as to why in the 1980s, international homicide rates have been on a decline. Where is the evidence to support the ban had to do with the drop in homicide rates? You said there was a 39% drop. Why is it that in the Uk, the homicide rate went up 22% from 2001 to 2002? It's simply a red herring. Also, con has not mentioned a word about the fact that the gun homicide rate is lower than the gun homicide rate during the AWB. http://www.citizensreportuk.org... Well, I can't prove it's been 5%. The estimate is made because on the FBI stats for homicides by weapons, it only shows from 2007 to 2011. Homicides involving rifles iN GENERAL throughout those years have made up less than 5% of gun homicides. "even if 5% is all that's achieved, it's still a substantial reduction in deaths." Con has yet to prove that some homicides involving "assault weapons" could not have been achieved by a different kind of weapon. (or a non "assault weapon") This is the forefront of the debate. There is no reason for me to be afraid to put that in. This is your claim before stating the percentages; "That's not to say that I believe even the former assault weapons ban, was ineffective, simply less so than it could have been. The evidence available pretty strongly suggests that it played a significant role in reducing the number of gun deaths. " So my question is, do you have solid evidence to support that the ban had an effect. it isn't a matter of "was the ban active for a long enough period" (and personally, 10 years is a long enough time) You were insisting the ban was a direct result of the decline in homicides. So do you have proof the ban was the result of the 39% decline in homicides over 10 years? Because before, I showed you dat for the UK with homicide rates jumping 22% in JUST ONE year. There isn't an explanation for it. So my point being, homicide rates have the tendencies to drastically go up and down for no reason. Another example is Australia. Homicide rates are actually going back up again. "We realistically understand that allowing people to have legal access to and full use of a tank and its ammunition is harmful, and we don't need instances of actual abuse of a tank to recognize that the potential harm outstrips any desire." We also see that abuse of alcoholic beverages outstrips our desire for it. 10,000 innocent people killed a year due to drunk driving. So, by your logic, alcohol should be prohibited. Chances are you don't support a ban on alcohol because #1. 2/3 Americans claim to drink and most Americans don't support a ban on alcohol. Now still, you haven't made argument proving a ban on adjustable but-stocks would be beneficial to the public. (but yeah, a sliding but-stock makes all the difference in a mass shooting. As long as the shooter has no slide but-stock, he won't be able to kill more people) lol On the hellfire trigger, I have no reason to own one, and the hellfire trigger is irrelevant to the topic of "assault weapons" Please remember that. "The reality is that a faster rate of fire means a higher likelihood of more deaths. Pro doesn't touch slide fire stocks." faster rate of fire means more muzzle climb. More muzzle climb means it will be harder to efficiently engage a target. Problem is that a detachable magazine doesn't make a gun an 'assault weapon" A detachable magazine on a semi automatic firearm WITH an "assault weapon" feature makes an 'assault weapon" I'm sorry, but magazine sizes are are going to be out of this debate. "Pro generates any offense at all, and he really wants to have this both ways. He wants to say that 5 inches isn't much." agh, here's the problem. You said "The folding or telescoping stock makes a weapon easier to carry and conceal" I am mocking the fact that you believe reducing a 33 inch rifle to 28 inches will truly make it easier to conceal a weapon. 33 inches is already short enough. I am simply saying that an adjustable but-stock will give a home owner the advantage in a home invasion because room to room clearing in a HOUSE is as close quarters as it will get. So now contradiction was made on my part. You simply misinterpreted was I was saying. Now, your argument is that we need to make it as hard as possible for gun owners to protect themselves against criminals as the expensive of your belief that getting rid of adjustable but-stocks will make a reduction in gun homicides and mass shooting deaths. So, would it be necessary to make car seats for drivers less comfortable that way they have less distractions? Should we remove cup holders from cars that way drivers don't get distracted from drinking to pick up their beverage from their cup holders? it's the same logic. To be frank, it actually sounds foolish that you want to fight gun deaths by getting rid of adjustable but-stocks and pistol grips, meanwhile the worst mass shooting in the entire world was committed by a rifle with neither of those features. So, i need to understand. Do you support making it harder for gun owners to defend themselves against home invasions? Now, often, people will say "then the criminals will bring "assault weapons" to houses and they will have adjustable but-stocks like you" Rifles make up a VERY small portion of gun crimes. The weapon of choice for crimes are handguns. "On the pistol grip. I did provide a link to this effect, and no, the point was not that all pistol grips are going to increase harms. We're talking about the substantial ones, the larger ones, which are capable of reducing the recoil and allowing faster trigger pulls." lol, you mean the link from baltimoresun? Is baltimoresun tactical professionals and have strong experience with firearms? "Pro asserts that there's not much of a difference, but that depends entirely on the experience of the person doing the shooting." I've been shooting firearms for years now. Sounds to me like your saying that if you have a'lot of experience with firearms, you will only figure out how to control the fire rate and accuracy of a rifle with a pistol grip. That is literally what you are saying. That does't make any sense. "Even if the difference is small, that can still mean several more bullets fired with more accuracy." You don't even have proof that "several more bullets" can be fired. A pistol grip is just going to subtract nano seconds. if you don't shoot ten rounds with a pistol grip, you may just shoot 20 nano seconds off rather than if you used a pistol grip. I mean how many more times can I say it? Anders Brevik, who holds the record for the worst mass shooting in the WORLD did NOT use a pistol grip. "As for shooting from the hip, Pro just says this is really inaccurate. That doesn't matter. It's not meant to be accurate, it's meant to fire into crowds with little to no accuracy, hitting more targets at a rapid pace" but why wouldn't you aim the sights down if it allows you to shoot targets where you want to hit them at the same speed? If I am hip firing, I could be shooting low, or I could be shooting. I could just be shooting at peoples legs. Why hip fire if I can lift up my gun and shoot accurately and more effectively. I am out of space so my continuation will be in the comment section.