Gun freedom advocates - what weapons shouldn't be legally available?

[Richy_T]

What do you mean by "area denial weapons?' What about automated turrets that give a warning before "denying" entry?

I think he mostly means mines. Which I think are definitely a thought-worthy subject. On the one hand, a useful military tool, on the other hand, the civilian aftermath is simply unacceptable (though our modern predilection for pretending that civilians are not part of the conflict is somewhat naive and, given what's going on in the middle east, something most of us seem to prefer to be in denial about).

[Schleicher]

How biological is biological? Do nano-weapons counts?

Maybe change that to "no self replicating weapons"

[Mike Christ]

I think only weapons used for self defense should be legally available.  Nobody needs to defend themselves against an onslaught of attackers with an automatic assault rifle   That's a weapon for killing, not defense.

Then again, I also advocate an unregulated market...  I don't know what to believe anymore!

[TheButterZone]

I think only weapons used for self defense should be legally available.  Nobody needs to defend themselves against an onslaught of attackers with an automatic assault rifle   That's a weapon for killing, not defense.

Because criminals only EVER work alone. Yep.

And actually an automatic assault rifle is a weapon for missing "the enemy" most of the time, and getting "the enemy" to duck, cover, and retreat. In reality, it's called suppressive fire, not "when you absolutely positively have to kill everyone in the room" fire.

[Mike Christ]

I think only weapons used for self defense should be legally available.  Nobody needs to defend themselves against an onslaught of attackers with an automatic assault rifle   That's a weapon for killing, not defense.

Because criminals only EVER work alone. Yep.

And actually an automatic assault rifle is a weapon for missing "the enemy" most of the time, and getting "the enemy" to duck, cover, and retreat. In reality, it's called suppressive fire, not "when you absolutely positively have to kill everyone in the room" fire.

You have a point!  I'm not very good with guns so forgive me   But point remains, if you're ever in need of an assault rifle, you should probably just move to a better place.

[TheButterZone]

I think only weapons used for self defense should be legally available.  Nobody needs to defend themselves against an onslaught of attackers with an automatic assault rifle  That's a weapon for killing, not defense.

Because criminals only EVER work alone. Yep.

And actually an automatic assault rifle is a weapon for missing "the enemy" most of the time, and getting "the enemy" to duck, cover, and retreat. In reality, it's called suppressive fire, not "when you absolutely positively have to kill everyone in the room" fire.

You have a point!  I'm not very good with guns so forgive me  But point remains, if you're ever in need of an assault rifle, you should probably just move to a better place.

Human rights are inherent, not granted on a "need" basis.

What is a "better" place? An underground bunker where no criminal can get to you (without a bunker buster bomb) without dying in a gauntlet that only you can disarm? We'd prefer not to live in a self-imposed prison of no liberty, in the name of "security".

[imanikin]

...
  That's a weapon for killing, not defense.

Aren't all firearms for killing - and defense or offense depends on the situation? 

This is hillarious! 

He is the best shotgun salesman ever! Now, i want to buy a double-barrel shotgun! Which one is a good one? 

[organofcorti]

How biological is biological? Do nano-weapons counts?

Maybe change that to "no self replicating weapons"

Do von Neumann machine weapons count?

[TheButterZone]

...
 That's a weapon for killing, not defense.

Aren't all firearms for killing - and defense or offense depends on the situation?  

Not killing, stopping. We the law-abiding, who "gun control" advocates (100% of criminals) ultimately advocate rendering disarmed and defenseless (despite their categorical BS to the contrary), do not intend to murder, we just want the violent aggression against us stopped. If the aggressor dies, then that is an unfortunate result of their own actions. If you never want a law-abider's gun pointed at you, don't commit violent crime, and if you do, then join your fellow criminals in prison interviews saying "I'm scared of my victims having guns, please pass more gun control to keep me safe by only disarming innocent victims!", or the morgue if you really want to commit suicide by armed victim.

I expect those who were informed they were ignored for being scumbags will continue being scumbags and quote this post, knowing they can get away with their bullshit replies.

[organofcorti]

...
  That's a weapon for killing, not defense.

Aren't all firearms for killing - and defense or offense depends on the situation? 

Not killing, stopping. We the law-abiding, who gun control advocates ultimately advocate rendering disarmed and defenseless (despite their categorical BS to the contrary), do not intend to murder, we just want the violent aggression against us stopped. If the aggressor dies, then that is an unfortunate result of their own actions. If you never want a law-abider's gun pointed at you, don't commit violent crime, and if you do, then join your fellow criminals in prison interviews saying "I'm scared of my victims having guns, please pass more gun control against them to keep me safe!", or end up in the hospital, or the morgue.

Yeah, like that South African Olympian that killed his girlfriend because he thought she was an intruder.

[myrkul]

...
  That's a weapon for killing, not defense.

Aren't all firearms for killing - and defense or offense depends on the situation? 

Not killing, stopping. We the law-abiding, who gun control advocates ultimately advocate rendering disarmed and defenseless (despite their categorical BS to the contrary), do not intend to murder, we just want the violent aggression against us stopped. If the aggressor dies, then that is an unfortunate result of their own actions. If you never want a law-abider's gun pointed at you, don't commit violent crime, and if you do, then join your fellow criminals in prison interviews saying "I'm scared of my victims having guns, please pass more gun control against them to keep me safe!", or end up in the hospital, or the morgue.

Yeah, like that South African Olympian that killed his girlfriend because he thought she was an intruder.

For every example of a law-abiding person who accidentally shoots a loved one that you provide, I can provide 5 or six of intruders stopped and families saved, and 3 or 4 of law-enforcers shooting innocent civilians (or their dogs).

If you're looking for harm reduction, gun control is not the way to do it.

[organofcorti]

...
  That's a weapon for killing, not defense.

Aren't all firearms for killing - and defense or offense depends on the situation? 

Not killing, stopping. We the law-abiding, who gun control advocates ultimately advocate rendering disarmed and defenseless (despite their categorical BS to the contrary), do not intend to murder, we just want the violent aggression against us stopped. If the aggressor dies, then that is an unfortunate result of their own actions. If you never want a law-abider's gun pointed at you, don't commit violent crime, and if you do, then join your fellow criminals in prison interviews saying "I'm scared of my victims having guns, please pass more gun control against them to keep me safe!", or end up in the hospital, or the morgue.

Yeah, like that South African Olympian that killed his girlfriend because he thought she was an intruder.

For every example of a law-abiding person who accidentally shoots a loved one that you provide, I can provide 5 or six of intruders stopped and families saved, and 3 or 4 of law-enforcers shooting innocent civilians (or their dogs).

If you're looking for harm reduction, gun control is not the way to do it.

I don't disagree with you myrkul. I think gun control in the US would cause more problems than it would solve. Although I could disagree with your statement as it applies to any specific country, depending on the available statistics for that country.

The point I'd hope I was making by creating this thread was that making arbitrary distinctions and then rationalising them is just silly. You have explained what TheButterZone was trying to explain much better on many occasions, without providing rationalisations that are illogical or are not well thought through.

If the legality of certain weapons is to be made questionable, then a legal framework needs to be decided on beforehand - not added on so that it agrees with popular beliefs.

[myrkul]

...
  That's a weapon for killing, not defense.

Aren't all firearms for killing - and defense or offense depends on the situation? 

Not killing, stopping. We the law-abiding, who gun control advocates ultimately advocate rendering disarmed and defenseless (despite their categorical BS to the contrary), do not intend to murder, we just want the violent aggression against us stopped. If the aggressor dies, then that is an unfortunate result of their own actions. If you never want a law-abider's gun pointed at you, don't commit violent crime, and if you do, then join your fellow criminals in prison interviews saying "I'm scared of my victims having guns, please pass more gun control against them to keep me safe!", or end up in the hospital, or the morgue.

Yeah, like that South African Olympian that killed his girlfriend because he thought she was an intruder.

For every example of a law-abiding person who accidentally shoots a loved one that you provide, I can provide 5 or six of intruders stopped and families saved, and 3 or 4 of law-enforcers shooting innocent civilians (or their dogs).

If you're looking for harm reduction, gun control is not the way to do it.

I don't disagree with you myrkul. I think gun control in the US would cause more problems than it would solve. Although I could disagree with your statement as it applies to any specific country, depending on the available statistics for that country.

The point I'd hope I was making by creating this thread was that making arbitrary distinctions and then rationalising them is just silly. You have explained what TheButterZone was trying to explain much better on many occasions, without providing rationalisations that are illogical or are not well thought through.

If the legality of certain weapons is to be made questionable, then a legal framework needs to be decided on beforehand - not added on so that it agrees with popular beliefs.

Which is why I do not advocate placing any restriction on weapon ownership, only that they not be used in aggression.

[Mike Christ]

I guess there's no way around it.  Capitalism = crime enabling = gun violence.  So gun control of any sort just leads to normal people being accused of crime, and thus they become criminals.  Freedom of all weaponry is just as scary.  Of course, those who enjoy their guns know why it's important to keep guns free; whenever anyone finally decides to make the first move against the terrorists in the WH, having even fire power against the offense is vital to actually winning the battle.  However, instituting a ban on certain weaponry wouldn't stop someone from getting it if they really wanted to get it.  So it's clear: the gun debate isn't actually about guns, it's about stopping the gov from procuring all control over resistance to tyranny, which a ban on guns would do, as those who are above the law still have the right to the banned guns and can still take out American citizens easily.  Problem is, it still doesn't solve crime, and never will.  The only solution to crime is to remove incentive to commit crime, which requires people to abandon any hope of becoming wealthier than someone else.  I don't see that happening in my lifetime

[myrkul]

Capitalism = crime enabling = gun violence. 

Care to make this non sequitur into something that makes sense?

[organofcorti]

@snapsunny

The political ideology to which a country adheres doesn't have a signficant impact on rates of gun violence. Look at the main capitalist developed nations of the world. Most are clearly capitalist, none have greater rates of gun violence than the US.

[Lethn]

Yeah, like that South African Olympian that killed his girlfriend because he thought she was an intruder.  

The answer to this is simple, stupid people shouldn't be able to own guns, which is why I advocate education and training, not gun control, I often look at these incidents and even without any knowledge of guns am amazed at the complete stupidity of the people who caused this. Not only that, it's seemed to most that the Olympian incident it was murder, how do you shoot someone that many times and 'think' they were an intruder?

Usually defendants in those kind of cases either plead insanity or claim it was an accident to try and reduce their jail time once they realise they've been caught, it isn't normally to do with them being innocent at all.

[organofcorti]

Yeah, like that South African Olympian that killed his girlfriend because he thought she was an intruder.  

The answer to this is simple, stupid people shouldn't be able to own guns, which is why I advocate education and training, not gun control

Stupid people shouldn't be able to own cars either, but they do. Forgive my cynicism, but I have difficulty believing a government could actually educate and train almost any applicant sufficiently to prevent accidental firearm murders.

Regardless, the quote was a response to the following:

If you never want a law-abider's gun pointed at you, don't commit violent crime

I was implying that this was hyperbole at best, and completely wrong-headed at worst.

.......Not only that, it's seemed to most that the Olympian incident it was murder, how do you shoot someone that many times and 'think' they were an intruder?

Usually defendants in those kind of cases either plead insanity or claim it was an accident to try and reduce their jail time once they realise they've been caught, it isn't normally to do with them being innocent at all.

Let's wait for the current legal case to be completed before we call the defendant a murderer.

[Lethn]

Stupid people shouldn't be able to own cars either, but they do. Forgive my cynicism, but I have difficulty believing a government could actually educate and train almost any applicant sufficiently to prevent accidental firearm murders.  

The problem here is if you don't think that the government aren't capable of educating or training people in firearms then what makes you think they'll be at all competent in enforcing a ban? From what I've seen American soldiers and police officers are worse than the gun owners that they're going to be banning. I shouldn't have to remind people about the infamous friendly fire incident which got British soldiers killed in Iraq which is why I am seriously staggered that anyone would suggest banning guns is going to achieve anything worthwhile.

Just to show I'm not hugely biased and just being anti-american the Tottenham riots which happened recently were supposedly started off by British police officers who were doing an arrest and ended up shooting the guy they were going to get, there was a big fuss about whether or not he resisted and stuff or did anything to deserve it. Which pretty much shows you that the idea that anyone has a right over other people to defend themselves or uphold the law with or without guns is just plain bullshit.

As far as I'm concerned the idea that police or government forces are some how 'morally' superior in enforcing this etc. is just silly loyalist propaganda.

[organofcorti]

Stupid people shouldn't be able to own cars either, but they do. Forgive my cynicism, but I have difficulty believing a government could actually educate and train almost any applicant sufficiently to prevent accidental firearm murders.  

The problem here is if you don't think that the government aren't capable of educating or training people in firearms then what makes you think they'll be at all competent in enforcing a ban?

I have no idea how competent a government would be in enforcing a ban. Probably not very good, given the number of unlicenced car drivers in many countries. You're still ascribing me preferences I don't have. From a previous post:

I think gun control in the US would cause more problems than it would solve.

I'm not really following this part:

From what I've seen American soldiers and police officers are worse than the gun owners that they're going to be banning. I shouldn't have to remind people about the infamous friendly fire incident which got British soldiers killed in Iraq which is why I am seriously staggered that anyone would suggest banning guns is going to achieve anything worthwhile.

Just to show I'm not hugely biased and just being anti-american the Tottenham riots which happened recently were supposedly started off by British police officers who were doing an arrest and ended up shooting the guy they were going to get, there was a big fuss about whether or not he resisted and stuff or did anything to deserve it. Which pretty much shows you that the idea that anyone has a right over other people to defend themselves or uphold the law with or without guns is just plain bullshit.

As far as I'm concerned the idea that police or government forces are some how 'morally' superior in enforcing this etc. is just silly loyalist propaganda.

I'm not sure this is a conversation you're having with me, or a chance to blow off steam on a topic about which you feel strongly. Fair enough! We all have our favourite rant topics

But I don't want to be dragged sideways into a conversation about things of which I know even less than the thread topic, and about which I have not yet formed an opinion.

Maybe you have misunderstood the general point I've been trying to make in this thread. A while after starting the thread I came to a conclusion: making arbitrary distinctions in the legality of weapons and then rationalising those categories is pointless.