1 - 3
Then please, cite some statistics. Violent crime and murder are both half of what they were in the early 90s, and have been going down faster in states which allow concealed carry. Large urban areas with tough gun laws account for a vast majority of murders and violent crimes, in both absolute and relative terms. Rifles of any type ('assault' or otherwise) account for about less than 3% of murders.
in 2011 only 323 of 12,664 murders were committed with a rifle of any kind. 6,220 were committed with a handgun. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8) So, you're saying that you'd make a 20:1 trade-off, in order to 'reduce gun crime'? Right.
Then by all means, let's take that option off the table! We wouldn't want people making their own decisions; that sounds too much like liberty! Can you cite those statistics? Are they for black belts, or just the general population? Having actually had quite a bit of experience with combatives and pistol training, I can tell you that it's damned difficult to take a gun from someone without getting shot, unless you're using movies and TV as your baseline.
1 - 3