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

I. In Defense of Rationality > there is still that pesky "should".. Google defines "should" as "an obligation". This jives with the cited expert definition of rationality, since rationality compels action. > In the best of all worlds.. In the best of all worlds, there would be no poisons. In lieu of paradise, rational and accurate are distinct and useful words. "Accuracy and rationality are linked, they are not the same: a fool may hold a belief irrationally as a result of a lucky guess or wishful thinking yet it might happen to be correct. Conversely, a detective might hold a belief on the basis of a careful and exhaustive examination of all the evidence and yet the evidence may be misleading, and the belief may turn out to be wrong." [10] II. In Defense of Simon the Collector I addressed why it is rational for Simon to partake in a lottery where he has a 99.999999% chance of sweetening his life, and a 1 in 100,000,000 chance of souring it. Pro didn't dispute the rationality of owning a gun with six rounds for self-defense, so his first six rounds can simply be explained as dual-use. Pro did not dispute the odds of him mass-shooting were 1 in 100,000,000. > I’m not about to let you... Pro can't strong-arm me to win.> the desire for more than a toy given the possibility of a mental break remains irrational > given the dropped (and thus conceded point) Repeatedly claiming I have conceded points does not make it so. I addressed this point above and in round 3, section II of our debate. Due to character limits, I can't quote your every word. > In no way is it.. rational to wish to submit people to this unnecessary risk. Since rationality compels Simon to participate in the lottery, and that risk is an essential part of the lottery, accepting it is necessary. > it is clear that the rational choice is to avoid doing that unethical thing Whether it's rational to do an unethical thing depends on how you define ethics. > If someone enjoys doing some unethical thing The debate resolution relates to rationality and not ethics. While I will humor you by defending Simon's actions according to one ethical system, I do not agree to any change in the resolution. The Golden Rule and Kant's Universality are two common ethical standards. They implore us to treat others as our equals, but don't require putting them on pedestals. For example, I BBQ food in my backyard, even though the smoke it generates could be hazardous to my neighbors. Similarly, my neighbor gardens her backyard, even though those trees and branches could endanger me in a storm. An action that entails a small risk to others is ethical if and only if we'd be okay with another doing a similar thing. Simon wasn't presented as a bigot, and has every reason to believe that if all Americans participated in such a lottery, we'd be the better for it. The claim that Simon is unethical was unsubstantiated and is now refuted. 　 III. In Defense of Self-Defense in the Home > First, it is my contention that a six-shooter is enough. When will [a gun beyond a six-shooter] be more sufficient? It can take several shots to stop an attacker, especially when using a gun in a lower-power calibre. The graph above shows when I would prefer more than six rounds. Let's see if you've proved only six is sufficient. > Does CON contend that a group of seven people I completely agree 5+ crooks are too many. Now that you've decimated that strawman, let's discuss the interesting cases. > 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. Lesser armed offenders have only the latter two options available, This is our clash. You contend the gun owner will lose to two criminals (with guns, knifes, bats, or unarmed). Your contention has problems-- 1) You didn't prove that, and it's counter-intuitive in the unarmed case. 2) A household may have more than one person defending it. 3) Many crimes--such as rape and kidnap--do not involve immediately killing the victim. The "victim" later uses their gun with an element of surprise. 4) Even when both criminals have guns, there are many counter-examples. One is watch shop owner Lance Thomas, who's successfully fought off many robbers. In the last attempt, two gang members simultaneously drew guns on him. "You're dead!", they shouted. Lance killed them both. [11] > I maintain that it is a preparation for an unlikely event to not own a [gun beyond a six-shooter], that event being the mental break of the person who is in question. We both agree (a) defensive uses requiring 6+ rounds are rare, and (b) mass shootings involving semi-automatic pistols w/ 6+ rounds are rare. Which one is more likely? Facts: Averaged across the last 30yrs, ten people per year are killed in mass-shootings, wherein the killer carried (but didn't necessarily use) a semi-automatic hand gun. [12] Statistically, there are ~30,000 justified defensive hand gun uses per year where a gun owner is attacked by 2-4 people, shoots at least one, and survives. In such cases one would prefer more ammo. [4] The facts favor my side of the debate. Democrats, like Obama and Feinstein, have proposed a higher and more defensible limit of ten rounds. My opponent's claim goes much further-- >"There is no rational reason for which an American civilian should want to own an assault weapon." Again, some communities face increased risks, like Lance Thomas' shop in downtown Los Angeles. If even one civilian has a rational reason to believe scenario (a) is more likely for them, a vote in my favor is due. 　 IV. Self-Defense on the Street > I apologize for my poor word choice.. "no sneaky ____erism" rule Calling out your inaccuracies is sneaky? ::rolls eyes:: 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. If the citizen is required to draw their gun to save their own life or that of a passerby, confusion may exist, but then it's outweighed by the saved lives. > people have a right to know [if another citizen is carrying a concealed weapon] This is a good try, since concealed carry invalidates both your "terror" and "confusion" arguments. I note the constitution, federal law, and 48 of 50 states disagree with you. Thus, it would be your obligation to prove both that this 'right' exists and trumps all other considerations, such as privacy. 　 V. Self-Defense: A Case for More than Six Rounds! > this is an argument.. for women to "suck it up, buttercup" Seriously? Your response to the fact that limiting the ammo count to six rounds disadvantages female shooters is "suck it up, buttercup"? I'm surprised. A reasonable response--what I expected--would be to admit the rationality of higher ammo counts for guns with lower-power calibres. > buy a heavier weapon and learn how to use it. Again, many find the higher-power calibres to be tiring and painful to shoot. > This is an argument against the unavailability of crappy firing ranges No, it's one reason many civilians choose guns with lower-power calibres. > start your own range, or campaign for state run ranges. Obviously, that wouldn't be the rational choice for many civilians. 　 VI. Conclusion I've again defended Simon the Collector and poked holes in both Pro's attacks on the rationality of self-defense. Note, Con's made erroneous claims I've conceded points in his favor. To clarify, if I concede, I will say so. Next, the exciting conclusion. :) 　 VII. Sources: [10] http://ai.stanford.edu... [11] Lance Thomas YouTube Video http://www.youtube.com... [12] http://www.motherjones.com...