An AR15 is a suitable option for home defence and hunting

A 'suitable option' is not one which is perfect;Your words, not mine. Your criticism regarding my choice to attack 'all guns' instead of the AR15 specifically is fairly ridiculous. To my knowledge, the civilian AR15 is a fairly typical civilian firearm, and therefore it is reasonable to think that studies and statements concerning civilian firearms are applicable to the AR15.Funny you should bring that up, because, like I said, your study wsa done in 1998. 4 years after President Clinton signed the AWB which effectively banned the AR15. So it is reasonable to assume that a very low number, if any at all, where in play in that study. Another reason not to include all gun studies with the AR15 is their functional, mechanical and preformance differences. AR15s are more accurate and lethal than handguns, more compact and lighter than shotguns with a higher potential magazine capacity than both.In general, it does. If a drug was developed that provided mild pain relief for 50% of test subjects, but caused excruciating pain in the remaining 50%, and if the effect could not be predicted, would we call this drug 'a suitable option for a headache'?This is different case altogether, the last time I checked, A person can't choose how they react to a drug. What they're essentially doing is taking a pill and hoping the problem goes away. Not so with self defence, self defence requires you to be proactive on your part, otherwise, don't bother worrying about it.Though they may be effective in certain situations, they are used to disastrous effect in the considerable majority of cases. If (lets say) 90% of the time putting a gun in your home is going to lead to suffering, when you intend the opposite, this is clearly not a suitable choice 90% of the time. Having a rabid St. Bernard dog in your home might prevent burglary, but Kujo is clearly unsuitable, because in all likelihood he will bite you too.I used the term firearm because that's what your study said. I find it interesting enough, that in your study, it says that for every one justifiable homicide (I paraphrase here), there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides and 11 suicides. Let's break this down here for a second. By unintentional, I'm just going to assume it was an accidental discharge. This is a problem caused by the person not being either, safe, competent or mature with whatever firearm happened to be on scene. This problem is easily remedied by proper education. On the 7 homicides note, your study does not say if the homeowners firearm of choice was used against them, or if it was the perps gun. Something to consider isn't it? And I find the 11 suicides irrelevant because if someone really wants to kill themself, not having a gun isn't going to stop them. People have knives, they have cars, and rope is cheap. The 11 suicides via firearm, are not the fault of the firearm, it's the fault of mental health of the person.You're arguments after this, involving acronyms that you don't explain, lost me. You're source (no.3) says that the 1-3 million number is fase, but doesn't offer a more accurate number. Convenient. Interestingly, David Hemenway, who participated in your third source, is re-estimating his numbers because there has been a reported drop from the FBI in murder and assault by 41 percent. According to (1.) He deduces a drop in crime will lead to a parallel shift in defensive firearm use. Again, I use the term firearm because that's what all your sources say. A recent metastudy, by an author who contributed to the previous report, found that "scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit" and that "there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in".[4] We must remember that using a weapon for 'home defence' necessarily involves keeping a gun in the home, which is why this has been the focus of my attack.Look, I've already stated, that suicide is not the fault of the gun, but of the mental health of the person who kills themself. If someone genuinely wants to kill themself, not having a gun won't stop them. The gun was just the first option for them. I've already shown in my other arguments that defencive uses of an AR15 or whatever firearm you may have, are not mythical. As to intimidation of women, this too is a character flaw, like the wish of suicide, that will not simply go away just because they don't have a gun. i'm also curious as to wonder, If a firearm (I use this term because that's what your sources use. I mean this with sincerity when I say it would be nice if you could bring forth something that deals with AR15s exclusively, as that is what we're arguing, not firearms in general) isn't suitable for home defence, than what is?Well, there goes the hunting argument. My opponent agrees with me while citing an immoral use of an amoral object.1. http://www.standard.net...