"assault weapons" should NOT b banned

"Pro argues that because firearms that are not assault rifles have been the tools of the majority of homicides, assault rifles are not more deadly than other firearms. However, the assault rifle was designed with a specific purpose in mind: mid range infantry combat." #1 I proved they aren't more dangerous because I showed you the worst mass shooting ever was not committed by an "assault weapon", and 90% of law enforcement say an AWB will have no positive effect. #2 Con has ignored what we are discussing. I actually clearly gave the definition of an "assault weapon" There is actually a difference between an assault rifle, and an "assault weapon" (which is a term made up by the media). assault rifles are fully automatic firearms. "assault weapon" (which are semi automatic sporting rifles, but were coined the term "assault weapons" by the media because they had the same cosmetic look of real assault rifles, when in fact, they do not function as such) To make it clear, assault rifles and so called "assault weapons" are two very different things. AR 15s are specifically made for civilian use. Basically, the AR 15 was the first so called "assault weapon" made. The word "assault" was given to the name because when you hear the word "assault", you think military or bad. This was a scare tactic by the media. "Assault rifles are more dangerous than many other firearms because they are often capable of selective fire and because they have attachments to increase their ammo capacity, rate of fire, and overall deadliness." My apologizes for not stating in the intro that an 'assault weapon" is semi automatic ONLY. Full auto rifles are basically illegal unless you have a very special permit which few people have. Full autos are NOT what we are discussing. "There is no reason for individuals to own assault rifles, because they can attend shooting ranges and sporting events to shoot them." Con disregards the fact that the 2nd Amendment clearly says "the right to keep and bare arms shall NOT be infringed" If you are law abiding and mentally sane, you should not be prohibited from any firearm. But right now, we are wasting time because we are both using two different definitions. I am discussing semi automatic rifles with "assault weapon" features and you are outright arguing about fully automatic weapons. Full auto weapons have not been the heat of discussion. The recent gun control efforts were legislation that would ban semi automatic rifles with so called "assault weapon" features. I am arguing that it is absurd and will have virtually NO positive effect on crime. "That the statistical number of homicides using assault rifles is low does not tell us how powerful they are relative to other guns." You have a serious problem with ignoring what I say. I added in my argument that the worst mass shooting in the WORLD was not committed by an "assault weapon". I also stated that over 90% of law enforcement say a ban on "assault weapons" will have no positive effect. Now, even though I refuted the argument that "assault weapons" are more dangerous, let's just say hypothetically they are a little more dangerous. Where does the line get drawn between just enough dangerous, and too dangerous? Con, please make your arguments.