"assault weapons" should NOT be banned

If simple semi automatic sporting rifles which use 120 year old technology is not necessary for a society which has a right to bear arms, then can you explain to me how alcohol should fit in with society? You haven't even been able to prove to me how how an "assault weapons" ban would benefit our society. When you want to ban a particular thing, you should be able to explain how banning this particular thing will save lives. You have not been able to do that. They are not required for hunting. Just as alcoholic beverages are not required for a party. So, is the option to prohibit these 2 things? I highly doubt you agree with with banning alcohol. If we start stripping people of " the non necessities" what will we become? We don't need violent video games to play videos games, so is the option to ban M Rated video games? "They are replaceable, and if there could be a positive impact from replacing them and bringing down the homicide rates to some degree, then they should, in fact, be replaced." You are not listening. In order to make such a controversial claim, you need facts to support it. I told you that less than 2% of homicides are committed by "assault weapons" each year (which are some of the most commonly found firearms around, yet they STILL only make up less than 2% of gun homicides) the 2 worst mass shootings in the ENTIRE WORLD were not committed by "assault weapons" (which dismisses the claim that "assault weapons" have the ability to kill more people thus ALSO proving that any homicide committed by a rifle classified as an "assault weapon" can be done with a different kind of weapon) (I hope you are paying attention here) and in the past TEN YEARS, less than 70 people have been killed by 'assault weapons" in mass shootings. With these facts, how can you prove that an "assault weapons" ban is capable of decreasing the already excessively low homicide rate committed by these types of firearms? 90% of law enforcement even say it themselves that a ban on "assault weapons" would have no positive effect on crime rates. "you also seem to disagree with what the FBI Handbook on Gun Regulations has to say about AR-15's when you rubbish the claim regarding the conversion of AR-15's to full auto. Now, I'm of the opinion that the FBI knows what they're talking about. I may be wrong." The FBI did NOT mention anything about being "easy to convert to full auto" And you clearly ignored the fact that out of the 50,000 illicit firearms the LAPD recovered, not a SINGLE ONE was converted to fully automatic. Did you know you can remove the computer which controls the speed of a car? Not to mention BATF regulations require that semi-automatic rifles be manufactured so that they cannot accept parts or modifications that would allow them to be capable of fully automatic fire. No, I'm not missing your point and I am dumbfounded by the fact that over 90% of mass shooters were on psychiatric drugs means nothing to you. It isn't a matter of the fact that Holmes had access to an AR 15. What matters is that he was mentally insane and had access to guns IN GENERAL. james Holmes could have use a totally different rifle and killed just as many, if not more people. Anders Brevik, the Norway mass shooter proves my point. He used a rifle NOT classified as an "assault weapons" and hold the record for the worst mass shooting in the WORLD. 2 things wrong: 1, didn't say many mass shootings are not committed by "assault weapons" 2. You are proving NOTHING because AGAIN, the worst mass shooting in HISTORY was NOT committed by an "assault weapon". The worst mass shooting in the U.S was not committed by an 'assault weapon" and even the SECOND worst mass shooting in the world was NOT committed by a rifle with "assault weapon" features. I've seen that article before. You haven't presented me any arguments I haven't seen in the past. So i will make it clear, I did NOT mention anything about "assault weapons" not being used in mass shootings. Actually there are some major flaws, and before everyone votes, please pay extra attention here. The reason why 'assault weapons" are the popular choice of firearms for gangs and legal gun owners is because of the mere fact that their cosmetic looks makes them look very attractive. There is a reason why the AR 15 is the most popular sporting rifle in America. Its looks attract buyers. Semi automatic rifles with the "hunting look" are in the past. AR 15s are the new trend because they are sexy looking rifles. "In a study of young adult purchases of handguns in California buyers with minor criminal histories were twice as likely to purchase automatic pistols as those with no criminal history. " There is a problem here. You cannot legally purchase ANY fully automatic weapon in ANY gun store in the country (unless you are talking about semi automatic). Incase you didn't know, most 99% of handguns these days are semi automatic so I don't really believe your "statistic" that criminals have a higher tendency to purchase handguns that are semi automatic because I know no one who would buy a single action revolver these days. Also, .01% of gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. (half of those offenses don't even involve a gun threatening someone) Your argument doesn't prove a ban on "assault weapons" would save lives. I certainly agree with making tougher background checks however. "I would also like to base my debate on the principle that a single life saved makes the ban worthwhile." So your saying that 4 million people should give up their guns just to save one life (which could be a gang member since 75% of gun homicide victims are criminals in the first place due to their high risk lifestyles) So if you are willing to ban the most popular sporting rifles in America, (which make up less than 2% of gun homicides or less than 200 homicides) are you willing to prohibit alcohol to save thousands of lives from drunk drivers? That concludes my argument for round 4. I will assure that if my opponent replies to this, I will continue the debate in the comment section here.