There is no rational reason for which an American civilian should want to own an assault weapon.

Nature of the Debate Pro resolved, "There is no rational reason for which an American civilian should want to own an assault weapon." An assault weapon was defined as "any firearms which is capable of the semi-automatic discharge of 7 or more continuous rounds." Our debate is about rational reasons to own hand guns beyond a six-shooter. The rationality of owning a hand gun with a six round magazine for the purpose of self-defense was asserted and never disputed by my opponent. We are strictly discussing the extra rounds. A Rational Action? - An action is rational if and only if we choose that action because we soundly believe it is the best way to achieve our goals, desires, tastes, etc. [1] My opponent accepted the burden of proof. Case 1: The Gun Collector I proposed a gun collector who would enjoy owning a hand gun with a 15-round magazine. The first six rounds were justified on the grounds of self-defense. The remaining rounds constitute a two-outcome lottery-- 99,999,999 out of 100,000,000 possibilities - Gun collector's life is much happier. 1 out of 100,000,000 possibilities - Gun collector becomes a mass-shooter. If the collector's goal is his own happiness, and the above are the lottery results, it follows that it's rational for him to partake in this lottery since participation maximizes his expected happiness. The nature of the lottery also makes accepting the risk essential--it must be done in order to reap the benefits. (As an aside, I also justified the ethics of participation in the lottery, under at least two systems.) Case 2: Self-Defense Inside I demonstrated, from my opponent's own source, that 30,000 times each year a civilian encounters 2-4 criminals, justifiably shoots one or more with a hand gun, and survives. This is precisely the case where a gun beyond a six-shooter is desired. In comparison, an average of ten people per year are killed in mass shootings involving a hand gun. The statistics attest to the benefits of gun ownership beyond a six-shooter. > if a group of two.. one.. will have had time to flank and/or disarm the defender You've ignored: 1) your statistics, 2) my counter-examples, 3) folks who don't live alone, 4) the defender often surprises the attacker with the gun, 5) many urban positions can be difficult to flank. > and firing warning shots are sufficientYour own source shows often warning shots aren't enough. I'll say it again, that a scenario is unlikely, doesn't mean we should ignore it. We use seat belts and smoke detectors for unlikely scenarios. And, of course, some live in communities with more crime. I presented Lance Thomas as a rational individual attacked by thugs multiple times, some of whom clearly wanted him dead. Case 3: Self-Defense Outside I explained how carrying a concealed/hidden hand gun doesn't create "terror" or "confusion". In the rare case it's drawn to save a life, that saved life would outweigh those factors for most. Pro then dropped those arguments and claimed that humans have a "right" to know any potentially lethal objects a passerby happens to be carrying--such as guns, knives, or ball-point pens. He conceded America doesn't recognize any such right, provided no justification for its existence, and doesn't show it outweighs safety and/or privacy concerns. Unless and until then, concealed carry is a rational choice. Case 4: Lower-power Calibres I showed that lower-calibre guns--often wielded by women and the elderly--require more shots to stop a bad guy than higher-calibre guns. Pro replies, "Suck it up, buttercup!" > "suck it up" and just deal with the tired arms and the minor pain Pro fails to explain why it's irrational for a woman to buy a gun that also does the job, isn't painful to fire, is lighter/easier to carry, is cheaper to practice with, and is allowed at more firing ranges. Pro's Conduct In round three, Pro stated that he had a pet meaning in mind when he said "rational" rather than the standard one I provided with multiple expert citations. In round four, Pro first claimed that "should" meant something other than the standard dictionary should, and that the debate was really about what was moral. I once again object to the above. Pro missed his opportunity to introduce pet definitions, which was way back in round one, before I accepted the terms of the debate. In round five, supposedly for our closing and vote pandering only, Pro introduced new arguments and/or rebuttals. I ask that these new points be set aside unconsidered. ConclusionWhile I see many reasonable opportunities for gun control in America, my opponent's claim goes too far, denying the existence of any rational reasons to own guns beyond six-shooters. I trust, dear reader, you will agree with me that my opponent didn't prove all of these cases irrational. Jahryn, I thank you for your time, and hope you will reconsider your extreme position in light of this debate's results.P.S. - In round three, I meant to write ".32" instead of ".38 calibre."