Please define your definition of Assault Weapon

Joe, Seems this will be our last round. First I want to thank you for being courteous during this debate. If you want to continue I will gladly accept a debate from you to further this discussion. Unlikely or bogus examples? Please explain because I was explaining reality on what really transpired. Your rebuttal to # 3 really doesn"t hold much water: "This unfortunate Mother might not have had to shoot the man in question if the local law enforcement had prevented it" Thanks for making my point clear, they didn"t and they cant. Law enforcement isn"t a 24 hour search every inch security force. Law enforcement normally comes in after the crime has proceeded. And with this economy and States producing budget deficits what do you think gets cut" government jobs specifically police. Even the Police Chief in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Gun Control recently admitted his staff has been cut due to budget constraints. Less police = increased response times. Simple math. "(By the way, how on earth did he live if he was shot 5 times in the head area? That should kill anyone)" Nothing is absolute. And this is a prime example. You don"t know how many bullets it will take to put down the threat. Police are trained to keep firing until the threat has ended if deadly force is required. Many times they reload and continue firing. Because in a stress oriented environment your accuracy goes down hill fast due to the adrenal dump and you may not hit your target. Accuracy goes down even further when someone shoots back. Many people tend to take that out of the equation but it needs to be considered. "Let me ask you this, do you need as many shots as your talking about to defend yourself? If she had shot the man once he would have ran off. Are you suggesting that she should have killed him?" As stated before I will never know how many bullets I will need to stop the threat. You will never know. So having your best option available based on your finances is always your best solution. Are you absolutely sure he would have run off? How can you guarantee this? He just broke into the home with a crowbar after determining she was alone, searched the house until he found her. He had determination to do her harm. He wasn"t there to steal anything or else he would have entered when nobody was home. What if the one shot missed? Then the gun jammed? You can what if all you want but if she was your wife and your kids what would you have her do? In the circumstance in #3 I have instructed my wife to fire until the threat ends. That means they leave, give up or die" nothing less. And I would expect nothing less for your family as well. But I have instructed her deadly force is a last resort. "In reasons 1 and 6 you used hurricane Katrina and looting, again, you can get rid of obnoxious looters with 1 shot. The bans allow this." Again, how do you know? How many looters have you scared away with one shot? Are they armed? How many are they? Are they determined and not there for property but there to harm, rape, kill? How long has it been since they ate or had water" how desperate are they? Too many variables. Just because you live in Utah doesn"t mean you are not exempt from a home invasion (See embedded video) - http://www.youtube.com... Look" I was where you were in this discussion 10 years ago. I remember running on my treadmill hearing that Bush was going to let the AWB of 1994 end. I remember shaking my head saying to myself, "wow you are really going to let people have machine guns?!!!!". Then I decided to actually research the subject. Understand what they banned and the relevance to crime. The more I researched the more I realized the ban wasn"t on machine guns. It didn"t reduce crime. And other states, cities and countries that proposed further gun control or eliminated guns all together didn"t see the benefit of less crime. Actually they saw the exact opposite. Yes we have a problem with mass violence in the USA lately. Yes I want to have a meaningful discussion on this. However, I don"t support a ban that was already proven not to be a game changer to crime" it failed which is why it was allowed to sunset. Doing the same thing twice expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. I already stated what I think we should do to deter this going forward in Round 2 of our debate. I feel that is a more comprehensive way to tackle this issue. Empower the future victims and keep the criminals on their heels. You get the luxury of the last word. I"m sure I won"t be able to change your mind. But if I got you thinking about things you wouldn"t normally consider I feel that"s a step in the right direction. Kind regards, Raul