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

I will thus focus on invalidating CON’s points. Those points which CON has not answered I continue to maintain, and as you will see I have rebutted the remainder below. I. On rationalityI would like to note that the debate resolution, even as per CON’s original formulation of it was dealing with the subject of “rational desire”, and to further note the use of “should”. The way it reads, and from both CON’s counter-example and my own initial argument, it is clear that the resolution was previously correctly interpreted as dealing with the subject of whether the desire is justifiable rationally, particularly given extant truths as per my own point V(D) in my original argument. While it is possibly subjectively rational to believe that the drink a given container is potable, there is still that pesky should in there, which implies ethics. In the best of all worlds, would an ethical agent not know of the poison; SHOULD they know of the poison? On this point, CON has failed to address my contention that “our reason can tell us which of our desires are consistent with truths of reality and with our knowledge. Those goals which are consistent with our reason we can understand are rightful desires, and those which are not are thus irrational desires” and thus dropped and conceded it. II. Further Damning Simon the CollectorFor this particular argument, I must again note that I have not spoken against Simon owning something that looks like a Baretta, or even against Tom owning something that looks like a Killdozer. If someone enjoys doing some unethical thing and may understand that it is unethical, it is clear that the rational choice is to avoid doing that unethical thing (or for someone else to inform them that it is unethical, so that they may carry on with avoiding it). Certainly Simon or Tom may be a little disappointed in the fact that they own a toy rather than a functional weapon, but it may even be the case that with some public oversight there may be room to allow access to some vital manufactured piece which would allow converting the toy into a functional weapon provided strict public oversight. In such a case, however, ownership of the weapon aspect of the object remains outside of the individual’s grasp, and in such a case, the individual wanting to have access to some deadly weapon for some time bears the responsibility to render his potentially dangerous activities safe. In this way it remains possible to both have the improvement of their lives, and not own the unnecessarily overpowered weapons. In any case the desire for more than a toy given the possibility of a mental break remains irrational given the dropped (and thus conceded point) that people SHOULD not want to do so. On the subject of lotteries, the relevant difference between CON’s declarations of activities such as hang gliding, scuba diving, sailing, hiking, or mountain climbing is that in the case of assault weapon ownership, they put others rather than just themselves at risk. Simon is not only taking his own life in his hands with his lottery, but forcing the risk of his “winning” upon other unwilling citizens. Seize your own day, sure, but I’m not about to let you seize my day too. In no way is it objectively rational to wish to submit people to this unnecessary risk. III. Self Defense in the HomeCon asserts that I have not met my burden of proof. Despite the fact that I have indeed met this burden, I will further elaborate. First, it is my contention that a six-shooter is enough. When will an assault weapon be more sufficient? Does CON contend that a group of seven people will maintain morale and overpower someone despite the risk of any of them of being shot and killed? If they are armed with firearms, there are three general courses of action: Either they have the spine to draw and fire back and they shoot the defender as he dispatches one of them, or they lack the wherewithal and they run, or they overrun him and kill or disarm him as he shoots one of them. Lesser armed offenders have only the latter two options available, however in none of those cases does the defender have the need for an assault weapon, nor in any of them is the attacking group more threatened by an assault weapon. Secondly, as I have contended previously in this debate, I maintain that it is a preparation for an unlikely event to not own an assault weapon, that event being the mental break of the person who is in question. Not owning an assault weapon is the “seat belt use” prescribed for mental breaks. CON has not proved it is irrational to prepare for that possibility. IV. Self Defense in the StreetFirst, CON has already dropped the point that allowing civilians to carry assault weapons confounds police and prevents them from doing their job, and that doing such confounding is irrational. Secondly, I’ll note that in the video, the individuals in question were also carrying hand guns. While this is likely the material for another debate, it is a denial of an individual’s ability to make informed consent to their presence or activities by denying them the information that a person is armed; people have a right to know when others may present a threat to their existence, and it is irrational to deny them that right. Third, CON speaks against my point of the semantics of “allowing”, however going back to the good faith nature of this debate, and particularly the “no sneaky ____erism” rule, it is particularly clear that the discussion wasn’t about “allowing”, per-se, as much as a euphemism for the objective rationality of the desire for a civilian to engage in behavior which confounds such discernment. There was no intent to make such discussion, and while I apologize for my poor word choice, it is easy to see that upon correcting this poor choice of words that the argument continues to stand. V. For self defense, six rounds are enough. In response to CON’s largely irrelevant declarations. .. i, ii) Even though the majority of those situations involved multiple attackers, brandishing the weapon (not even firing it) remained an effective deterrent, even when the attacker(s) were armed [2]. iii) Warning shots and limited shooting was sufficient to cause the vast majority of attackers to run. Even in situations where the attacker was not hit at all, the attacker still ran [2]. iv, v) Even if bad guys don’t “drop” from getting hit, they’re sure as hell likely to RUN when the bullets start flying [2]. vi 1-3) These are not an argument for ownership of assault weapons, this is an argument by con for women to “suck it up, buttercup” and buy a heavier weapon and learn how to use it. In any regard, my rebuttals to i and ii above continue to serve here, and CON’s own vii particularly supports this contention, particularly when many of the more serious threats on the street now wear body armor rather than just jackets [6]. vi 4) Either go to a different range, start your own range, or campaign for state run ranges. This is an argument against the unavailability of crappy firing ranges, not for the ownership of assault weapons. vii) This is not an argument for assault weapons, this is an argument for owning more effective not-assault weapons, and to use more effective armor piercing rounds in them. In no way do any of these points combine to create an argument for the rational ownership of assault weapons. VI. ConclusionsI’ve shown why Tom and thus Simon are irrational, and CON has conceded many points in my favor, and perhaps the most important point: that reason is a valid measure of what desires we should have. I have upheld my burden to defend the contention that there is no rational reason people should want to have assault weapons, and thus the resolution stands defended. [6] . http://www.slate.com...