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

I will focus on the rationality of Simon the Collector and self defense. (I will not be defending hunting, the right of people to rebel against their government, nor one man's desire to own a killdozer to exact revenge on his local city council. There is no need to, per the debate terms.) I. In Defense of Rationality Pro failed to define rational, and thus should not be surprised I have provided cited, expert definitions for the relevant terms in our debate. > people can clearly hold irrational beliefs, and so belief cannot be the basis for rationality Per the round two definitions, rational actions are not based on just any beliefs, bur rather sound beliefs. What constitutes a rational belief is itself defined. It thus follows that Pro's attacked a strawman, and not the actual definitions provided for rationality. > If someone believed that Drano was a delicious and refreshing drink.. Pro's example is loaded because Pro, I, and most voters know "Drano" is a caustic substance used to clean drains that causes ill effects if you swallow it. Let's consider a balanced variation with a lesser-known label-- A tourist walks out of an African desert and feels thirsty. He observes two gentlemen drinking a beverage called "Granadilla Twist" and orders one himself. Unbeknownst to him, the tavern owner has poisoned his glass, and intends to kill then rob him. Is his belief that the fluid in the bottle is potable rational? Yes. Is his belief that the fluid in the bottle is potable accurate? No. Pro posed the resolution as, "There is no rational reason for which an American civilian should want to own [any guns beyond a six-shooter]." It's possible for a reason to be rational and yet fall short of accuracy. I hold Pro to his resolution. II. In Defense of Simon the Collector Pro challenged my counter-example of Simon, who "ever since his early retirement" has "enjoyed inviting friends over to show them his collection." The problem? Simon one day "may snap and USE their weapon." (a 15-shooter, as opposed to the 6-shooter this resolution does not oppose). I will tentatively grant a slim chance of a man of this age and character going insane, without warning, and using the gun to shoot 7+ times--say 1 in 100,000,000 (I based this on some quick research, but am open to higher odds, if and only if Pro can prove them.) In philosophy, this is called a lottery-- 99,999,999 out of 100,000,000 times - His quality of life is improved through ownership 1 out of 100,000,000 times - His quality of life is reduced through ownership. Pro writes, "It is clear that his desire to own such an unnecessary weapon is not rational" No, it's not clear at all that the rational choice is to avoid doing what you love in life. In fact, if there's a 0.99999999 chance his life will be improved by even 1% and a 0.00000001 chance his life will become worthless, the math says to take that chance! This should hardly be a surprise. The desire to hang glide, scuba dive, sail, hike the Grand Canyon, or conquer new mountains is not generally considered irrational. And we have those immortal words from the old philosophers--carpe diem, seize the day! III. Self-Defense in the Home Pro's Conclusion IB was "As such, no [gun beyond a six-shooter] is likely to ever be necessary for the purposes of home defense." Pro's conclusion is insufficient to meet his burden of proof. We rationally buy and use many items in preparation for unlikely events. Good examples include seat belts, smoke detectors, and home alarm systems. Pro's only concluded that such an event is <50% likely to occur. Pro's not proven it's irrational to prepare for it. IV. Self-Defense in the Streets Pro's argument IIA/D: He says it's unlikely. Again, that doesn't prove we shouldn't prepare. It's also obvious that living in some communities entails more risk than average. Pro's argument IIB: "Carrying assault weapons in public for civilians terrifies and terrorizes the population and disturbs the peace." May I remind my opponent, he didn't resolve against "military-looking rifles" such as those appearing in that YouTube video, nor against openly carrying guns. Pro has not demonstrated that the most common way civilians carry hand guns in public--concealed from view--"terrifies" civilians nor "disturbs the peace". Pro's argument IIC: "Allowing [guns beyond six-shooters] in public for civilians.." That's irrelevant,since the resolution isn't about what society should allow. Pro's arguments against self-defense are thus totally dismantled. V. Self-Defense: A Case for More than Six Rounds! Before concluding, I wish to introduce a few statistics of my own: i) Pro's own source states 52.7% of defensive gun uses involved two or more attackers, and 26.6% of defensive gun uses involve three or more attackers. [4] ii) Pro's own source states 48.1% of defensive gun uses involved armed attackers, and mostly they arms themselves with sharp and/or blunt objects. [4] iii) Police and civilians are typically trained to shoot at the center of mass of the bad guy. Accurate shot placement in a tense situation on a moving target is hard. [5][6] iv) Police and civilians are typically trained to shoot twice ("double tap") or more. In real life, bad guys don't instantly drop to the ground upon being successfully hit once. [5][6] v) Size matters. With a .22 calibre hand gun, bad guys are stopped at most 34% of the time with an ideally-placed shot. With a .45 calibre hand gun, bad guys are stopped at most 94% of the time in five seconds with an ideally-placed center of mass shot. [7] vi) Civilians, especially women, often buy smaller guns because: (1) they're less tiring to fire, (2) they're smaller/lighter and easier to conceal, (3) ammo for them is cheaper, and (4) urban gun ranges often only allow small bores, particularly .22 calibre. [8] vii) Winter clothing, such as jackets, can negatively affect a hand gun's effectiveness. [9] While the burden of proof is actually upon my opponent, I contend these facts together provide a compelling case for more than six rounds, especially for the smaller .22 and .38 calibres. VI. Conclusion I've shown why Pro's single argument against Simon the Collector fails. I've also shown the folly of his arguments against self-defense, which leave him falling short of meeting the burden of proof. Not only that, I went on the offensive, and made a case in favor of ownership. VII. Sources [4] http://www.saf.org... [5] http://www.policeone.com... [6] http://www.policeone.com... [7] http://www.chuckhawks.com... [8] http://www.cbsnews.com... [9] http://www.theboxotruth.com...