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

I. In Defense of Rationality>Google defines...Again, you are not speaking to the intent or context of the definition, particularly when this is a normative ethical should. If you could call "it is objectively not rational to do otherwise" as an obligation to do, only then it would be an obligation based "should".>In the best of all worlds poison would not exist...This is playing semantics. There remains an ethical should, namely that the world would be better all things considered if persons could know of the existence of poisons, so we have an obligation to strive towards that world.II. Simon's final nailI have already said that Simon can participate in lotteries himself. The question is whether he has the right to force others into his lottery, particularly when he can still make his life better without doing so.>> I’m not about to let you [seize my day too]...>Pro can't strong-arm me to win.I have been clearly taken out of context here; the rest of the sentence has been returned, as seen. I am not making any attempt at strong arming in the above quoted sentence, when the remaining text is returned. It is a statement that given the fact that individuals universally have a right to defend themselves (and thus society as a whole maintains such a right), that we have every right to demand others not force us to the consequences of their risks. As the consequence of this risk is potentially my life, and that he can never repay my life to me once taken, it is absolutely to be prevented.>>Con conceded the point>I addressed this point above and in round 3, section II of our debate.At no point did con speak to the contention that desires can be irrational if they run against our reason.>Since rationality compels Simon to participate...First, this is begging the question to assume it is a RATIONAL desire which compels him; As it stands, I have described WHY it is irrational, and as such accepting this desire which compels him is also irrational.>Whether it's rational to do an unethical thing depends on how you define ethics.As the resolution contains a "should" the question is if we can rationally justify this desire within ethics.>The debate resolution relates to rationality and not ethics.Again, I point to the "should" in the resolution. Further, neither Kant or the Golden Rule say that others must be treated equally. An agreement must logically be reached between parties as to what risks they allow others to put them in. As I do not agree to allow Simon to put me in that risk, I agree to not put Simon in that risk. Simon does not have any right to invalidate my non-acceptance of that risk, any more than I have a right to violate his non-acceptance of me doing some other unethical thing to him.Thus the claim that Simon is unethical is sustained.　III. In Defense of Self-Defense in the Home>It can take several shots to stop an attacker"Stop" an attacker how? To kill them? I already showed that stopping them as in "scaring them away and saving oneself" only usually requires a brandishing and usually at most warning shots. Being shot still sucks and anyone capable of understanding that is likely to back down at the mere threat of it, as is supported by [1]. Given this extant truth of reality, wanting to kill when injury is enough is apparently unethical; why kill or cripple when slightly wound will do?>I completely agree 5+ crooks are too many.Then as the study showed before, a gun is enough>You contend the gun owner will lose to two criminalsI do not contend any such thing. I contend that in the majority of circumstances, given my evidence, that a defender will scare away any reasonably sized group with few to no rounds ever being fired.My contention is that if a group of two+ people is intent on doing bodily harm, if someone empties all six shots and they remain to stand and deliver, then one or more of the remaining will have had time to flank and/or disarm the defender.>We both agree... mass shootings involving semi-automatic pistols w/ 6+ rounds are rare.I agree with no such thing. If a mass shooting happens, generally it happens with a semi-automatic weapon that is capable of firing 7+ rounds, including the use of pistols.>[T]here are [many] defensive hand gun uses... where a gun owner is attacked by 2-4 ...... In such cases one would prefer more ammo.I have already shown why that last assertion is mere assertion, counter to the evidence. Brandishing and firing warning shots are sufficient, even in cases of multiple attackers, and even common sense dictates that in the possibility where an offender may be injured, running is the most prudent action.>If even one civilian has a rational reason to believe [needing to defend against a group] is more likely for them [it is rational to own assault weapons]I already showed why even in defense against groups, the extra capability is entirely unnecessary.　IV. Self-Defense on the Street>> I apologize...>Calling out your inaccuracies is sneaky?Yes. It is clear from context and use that the intent of the word was not the intent you spoke to.>You contend that carrying a concealed (hidden) hand gun may confuse civilians and/or law enforcement into believing you're an active shooter. The flaw in your argument is that the gun's hidden.No, I contend that given the necessity of informed consent, carrying concealed weapons is ethically wrong and the desire to do so is irrational.>I note the constitution, federal law...This is an argument from law. I'll just go ahead now and note that we both agreed that argument from law is insufficient here.　V. Self-Defense: A Case for More than Six Rounds!>>"suck it up, buttercup"I contend that if a lower caliber can't get the job done...>> buy a heavier weapon and learn how to use it.and if that hurts too much, "suck it up" and just deal with the tired arms and the minor pain of firing a more powerful weapon. It gets easier the more you do it, and it's certainly less painful than being killed, robbed, or raped.>> This is an argument against the unavailability of crappy firing ranges>No, it's one reason many civilians choose guns with lower-power calibres.No, it's an EXCUSE.>> start your own range, or campaign for state run ranges.>Obviously, that wouldn't be the rational choice for many civilians.Ah, so it's irrational for people to demand important infrastructure from their government?　VI. ConclusionAs has been defended throughout this debate, CON lacks a leg to stand on, Simon being a selfish and unethical prig, as he SHOULD NOT force others to accept risks they wish to not accept, and as it is silly to want more rounds than is useful or necessary in an assault situation.