Resolved: citizens shouldn't be allowed to have assault weapons

Pro opens by arguing that assault weapons are unnecessary because people can defend themselves with other firearms like shotguns or pistols. He also claims, but notably fails to source, that banning assault weapons would reduce the crime rate. He also presents statistics on how frequently guns are used in violent crimes.
Con almost completely wastes his opener with complaints that Pro didn't define assault weapons. The only thing that might be relevant here is his point that pistols, which Pro agrees are a valid tool for self-defense, might qualify as assault weapons.
Pro immediately solves this by producing a definition of assault weapons and points out that Con didn't refute any of his arguments.
Con then argues that defensive gun uses are at least as common as the use of guns in crime. He argues that assault weapons can be used for self-defense and points to the Sutherland Springs shooting as an example.
Pro points out that Con is just cherry picking by only using one example and says that pistols are just as good for self-defense. He then links to a list of mass shootings and claims that there is an average of one death in a mass shooting every day. He also claims that in only one of the shootings was committed with a pistol that wasn't an assault weapon.
Con responds by quoting Stephen Willeford, hero of the Sutherland Springs shooting, who said that he might not have successfully stopped the shooter if he had used a pistol. He again repeats his claim that assault weapons are good for self-defense. He also links a study saying that banning assault weapons doesn't reduce crime.

Overall, I'm not really convinced by either side. Both brought some irrelevant arguments like how frequently guns are used in crime or self-defense. Neither of those statistics are specific to assault weapons, so they don't tell us anything. Pro had the BOP here, since he was making the positive claim. His best arguments were that banning assault weapons would reduce crime and mass shootings and that they are unnecessary. However, he does this in a very haphazard fashion. He doesn't source his claim that banning assault weapons would reduce crime. He pointed out how assault weapons are used in mass shootings, but neglected to show that banning assault weapons would actually prevent mass shootings. For instance, how do we know that criminals would still get hold of assault weapons or that they wouldn't just use other weapons? Pro's argument makes some sense on the surface and is a point in his favor, but it is still a leap to get from "assault weapons are used in mass shootings" to "banning assault weapons would prevent mass shootings." His argument that assault weapons are unnecessary is better, especially since Con's refutation (the Stephen Willeford quote) is simply cherry picking one man's opinion rather than giving evidence. On the other hand, Con doesn't really convince either. He argues the point of self-defense, but only tells us how frequently guns in general are used for self-defense, without providing specific data about assault rifles. His strongest point is a study that banning assault weapons doesn't reduce crime. However, it's in the last round. If Con had introduced this argument earlier, it could have won the debate. But in the last round, although this wasn't against the rules of this debate, Pro has no chance to respond. Given how late this argument was presented and how underwhelming his earlier arguments were, Con doesn't win the arguments. Thus, arguments are a tie.

Sources seemed equal, as did S&G and conduct. I just didn't see anything in this debate that would give either debater the win.