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

[organofcorti]

So you like guns.

I'm interested in knowing what weapons, body armour and other high tech gadgetry you think should be allowed to the general public private citizen, not affiliated to any government and not necessary skilled in the use of the device.

This is for me a very interesting question because most people will have limits, even if that limit is a nuclear weapon. The limits various people have help me understand their political beliefs better.

Edit: If you do think there should be no limits on ownership, please indicate if you have procedural limits on the use of a typical item.

[Lethn]

I'm not necessarily a gun advocate ( because I don't believe that guns are the most effective thing out there ) but the idea behind everyone owning a gun is actually very logical because the idea is people wouldn't dare attack each other since they know they have as much strength as them and will be able to wipe them out. It's the same kind of logic with MAD, how do you think we haven't devolved into World War 3 yet? It's precisely because any country worth invading has nuclear weapons of course, Afghanistan being that rare exception of being mostly unassailable because of it's terrain and weather despite having no nuclear weaponry whatsoever or any official government.

I do think however that your average citizen before buying a weapon should be educated and trained properly in their use to prevent accidents.

[JoelKatz]

So you like guns.

I'm interested in knowing what weapons, body armour and other high tech gadgetry you think should be allowed to the general public. This is for me a very interesting question because most people will have limits, even if that limit is a nuclear weapon. The limits various people have help me understand their political beliefs better.

I think you've kind of guaranteed a useless answer by using the term "general public". Any weapon should be available to anyone who meets the reasonable requirements for owning such a weapon, whether it be a hammer or a nuclear bomb. There is no reason to draw a line at some arbitrary point rather than imposing reasonable requirements on ownership of all weapons. I can't imagine how any person might meet reasonable requirements for a nuclear bomb, if that helps.

[organofcorti]

I'm not necessarily a gun advocate ( because I don't believe that guns are the most effective thing out there ) but the idea behind everyone owning a gun is actually very logical because the idea is people wouldn't dare attack each other since they know they have as much strength as them and will be able to wipe them out. It's the same kind of logic with MAD, how do you think we haven't devolved into World War 3 yet? It's precisely because any country worth invading has nuclear weapons of course, Afghanistan being that rare exception of being mostly unassailable because of it's terrain and weather despite having no nuclear weaponry whatsoever or any official government.

I do think however that your average citizen before buying a weapon should be educated and trained properly in their use to prevent accidents.

You haven't mentioned any limits on the type of antipersonnel technology a citizen should be allowed to access, the topic of the OP. Do you think there should be any? If so, what?Hand guns ok, automatic weapons not ok? Knives ok, swords not ok?

[JoelKatz]

You haven't mentioned any limits on the type of antipersonnel technology a citizen should be allowed to access, the topic of the OP. Do you think there should be any? If so, what?Hand guns ok, automatic weapons not ok? Knives ok, swords not ok?

You don't give a four year old a kitchen knife. Your focus on types of weapons is unproductive, IMO.

Either pick a type of weapon and ask what restrictions should be on it, or pick a restriction and ask which weapons should be restricted no more than that. Otherwise, I don't think you'll get useful answers.

For example, "What should a person have to do to own a hangun" is a useful question. "What weapons should be available to a normal adult with no more than a background check and a day of training" is a useful question.

[Lethn]

You haven't mentioned any limits on the type of antipersonnel technology a citizen should be allowed to access, the topic of the OP. Do you think there should be any? If so, what?Hand guns ok, automatic weapons not ok? Knives ok, swords not ok?

Nope, I don't think there should be any limits, not when it comes to government law anyway, it should be down to the discretion of the seller whether or not they think it's a good idea to sell to certain people or not.

[organofcorti]

So you like guns.

I'm interested in knowing what weapons, body armour and other high tech gadgetry you think should be allowed to the general public. This is for me a very interesting question because most people will have limits, even if that limit is a nuclear weapon. The limits various people have help me understand their political beliefs better.

I think you've kind of guaranteed a useless answer by using the term "general public". Any weapon should be available to anyone who meets the reasonable requirements for owning such a weapon, whether it be a hammer or a nuclear bomb. There is no reason to draw a line at some arbitrary point rather than imposing reasonable requirements on ownership of all weapons. I can't imagine how any person might meet reasonable requirements for a nuclear bomb, if that helps.

I was just thinking something similar when I responded to the second post, so I've changed OP. I personally do believe that in no circumstance any private individual should be allowed unfettered access to and ownership of a nuclear device. Even if a they were able to satisfactorily protect their family and the weapon, any risk of a previously undiagnosed mental illness leading the owner to use the weapon is too great a risk.

[organofcorti]

You haven't mentioned any limits on the type of antipersonnel technology a citizen should be allowed to access, the topic of the OP. Do you think there should be any? If so, what?Hand guns ok, automatic weapons not ok? Knives ok, swords not ok?

Nope, I don't think there should be any limits, not when it comes to government law anyway, it should be down to the discretion of the seller whether or not they think it's a good idea to sell to certain people or not.

Why would a seller not want to sell? Especially if he or she doesn't live locally.

[JoelKatz]

I was just thinking something similar when I responded to the second post, so I've changed OP. I personally do believe that in no circumstance any private individual should be allowed unfettered access to and ownership of a nuclear device. Even if a they were able to satisfactorily protect their family and the weapon, any risk of a previously undiagnosed mental illness leading the owner to use the weapon is too great a risk.

Of course. A rule requiring multiple people's assent to grant access to the weapon is totally reasonable. Regular monitoring of mental health is reasonable too. As a practical matter, nobody is likely to go to the trouble of meeting these qualifications, so probably nobody will bother figuring them out in the first place. But in principle, there's no reason nuclear weapons shouldn't be available to civilians if they can meet those reasonable requirements needed to handle them safely.

Presumably, there is some set of requirements sufficient to ensure they're used properly and responsibly. If people can't meet those requirements, they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. If they can, why shouldn't they have them?

[Lethn]

You haven't mentioned any limits on the type of antipersonnel technology a citizen should be allowed to access, the topic of the OP. Do you think there should be any? If so, what?Hand guns ok, automatic weapons not ok? Knives ok, swords not ok?

Nope, I don't think there should be any limits, not when it comes to government law anyway, it should be down to the discretion of the seller whether or not they think it's a good idea to sell to certain people or not.

Why would a seller not want to sell? Especially if he or she doesn't live locally.

It will depend on the community, but you can be pretty sure that sellers etc. in the community would take it pretty personally if they're friends got threatened with guns that they sold, the problem with taking the position of a government loyalist is that these people don't seem to realise that most don't want to fight or have violence happening around them constantly, the idea that violence happens purely because of guns is just daft by itself too, particularly when I can get my hands on all sorts of explosives and chemical weaponry at your average hardware store.

You don't have to have a government in order to live peacefully, in fact, most people do it regardless of the police walking around their neighbourhoods.

[organofcorti]

You haven't mentioned any limits on the type of antipersonnel technology a citizen should be allowed to access, the topic of the OP. Do you think there should be any? If so, what?Hand guns ok, automatic weapons not ok? Knives ok, swords not ok?

Nope, I don't think there should be any limits, not when it comes to government law anyway, it should be down to the discretion of the seller whether or not they think it's a good idea to sell to certain people or not.

Why would a seller not want to sell? Especially if he or she doesn't live locally.

It will depend on the community, but you can be pretty sure that sellers etc. in the community would take it pretty personally if they're friends got threatened with guns that they sold

I would hope so. But someone wants to make lots of money will sell to whomever they want, and in a way that most citizens won't be able to stop. Selling parts by mail, or selling blueprints for 3d printed weapons, for example.

, the problem with taking the position of a government loyalist is that these people don't seem to realise that most don't want to fight or have violence happening around them constantly, the idea that violence happens purely because of guns is just daft by itself too, particularly when I can get my hands on all sorts of explosives and chemical weaponry at your average hardware store.

No positions are being taken. I have no loyalty to the US Government, or any particular government party of any particular country.

You don't have to have a government in order to live peacefully, in fact, most people do it regardless of the police walking around their neighbourhoods.

Source? When you say "most" do you mean "most people" or "most people I know"?

[organofcorti]

Presumably, there is some set of requirements sufficient to ensure they're used properly and responsibly. If people can't meet those requirements, they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. If they can, why shouldn't they have them?

OP updated again.

[JoelKatz]

With no special skills, I draw the line at knives and swords. Even for shotguns and long guns, I think it's reasonable to require a gun safety course, trigger locks, and so on.

[Lethn]

Source? When you say "most" do you mean "most people" or "most people I know"?

Sure Captain Specifics, I meant most people, as for the source, it's a bit like with evolution, when you look using your eyes instead of silly propaganda you'll realise that people get along with each other fine most of the time, you can even see it amongst your friends, you do have friends don't you?

[organofcorti]

You don't have to have a government in order to live peacefully, in fact, most people do it regardless of the police walking around their neighbourhoods.

Source? When you say "most" do you mean "most people" or "most people I know"?

Sure Captain Specifics, I meant most people, as for the source, it's a bit like with evolution, when you look using your eyes instead of silly propaganda you'll realise that people get along with each other fine most of the time,

I believe evolution exists because the preponderance of evidence supports it, not because I'm using "common sense" or my own personal experience. Can you say the same about your your view that most people live peacefully "regardless of the police walking around their neighbourhoods."

You may be correct, but I don't think it's out of line to ask you if you have any source material for your beliefs. It helps me judge how accurate they're likely to be.

you can even see it amongst your friends,

Just because your friends live in a nice quiet neighbourhood doesn't mean all people do.

you do have friends don't you?

Wait, what? We're not friends anymore?

[TheButterZone]

I like self-defense. Just happens guns are the most effective tool to exercise that fundamental human right, so I have no choice but to be proficient in their use and not hate what is used to save innocent life many times more than it is used to harm it. If The Force and lightsabers existed, or Phasers (original Trek), I'd carry one instead.

Everything should be legally available, but if you use it aggressively or negligently, you must pay, government or not. I don't see how it's possible to use a nuke in self-defense due to "collateral damage", but if you can have one (and secure it 100% against misuse) without harming innocents, then why not? Have it around in case aliens try to invade, an asteroid is on a collision course with earth, load it onto a rocket and detonate it just close enough to divert the trajectory, but not break it up so the earth gets hit with space buckshot.

[Lethn]

You may be correct, but I don't think it's out of line to ask you if you have any source material for your beliefs. It helps me judge how accurate they're likely to be.

The thing is my sources are what is currently around us just like with evolution, if you look around you and at other countries you'll see the majority of the time people get along with each other reasonably well and even if they don't, most disputes etc. are solved peacefully with debate or through a third party rather than blowing someones head off. I swear you really do only seem to have this kind of problem in America where you have people becoming psychopaths from the amount of abuse people seem to go through over there.

Take the research I did in other threads for example, why is it in Serbia and Switzerland we have millions of guns in civilian ownership yet we don't hear stories from over there about schools getting shot up etc.? Making guns illegal won't do a thing for public safety, I also question the logic of gun regulation when politicians oh so confidently state how well it works yet they insist on walking around with security guards carrying concealed weaponry that civilians wouldn't be allowed to have, leaders couldn't be that sure of their own beliefs if they felt the need to have armed guards around themselves 24/7 to feel safe. You also have them constantly ranting about how all countries need to get nuclear weapons but you barely ever see them attempt it either so I'd like to see how they'd justify that kind of regulation when they won't put it on themselves.

The thing that's become most obvious to me lately is that people who scream for gun regulation want everyone except them or certain groups they support to have guns which screams to me of a power grab situation rather than caring about peoples safety, it's just a shame that a lot of gun advocates can't make these kind of arguments without screaming back and sounding like they're lunatics which is precisely why I mock them both.

p.s. I know a method of self-defense that's far better than any gun

[organofcorti]

You may be correct, but I don't think it's out of line to ask you if you have any source material for your beliefs. It helps me judge how accurate they're likely to be.

The thing is my sources are what is currently around us just like with evolution, if you look around you and at other countries you'll see the majority of the time people get along with each other reasonably well and even if they don't, most disputes etc. are solved peacefully with debate or through a third party rather than blowing someones head off. I swear you really do only seem to have this kind of problem in America where you have people becoming psychopaths from the amount of abuse people seem to go through over there.

I understand that's what you have experienced and it's how you've interpreted what you see. But it's a point-of-view, not actual data. That's ok, but it is important to make that clear.

[myrkul]

I like self-defense. Just happens guns are the most effective tool to exercise that fundamental human right, so I have no choice but to be proficient in their use and not hate is used to save innocent life many times more than it is used to harm it. If The Force and lightsabers existed, or Phasers (original Trek), I'd carry one instead.

Everything should be legally available, but if you use it aggressively or negligently, you must pay, government or not. I don't see how it's possible to use a nuke in self-defense due to "collateral damage", but if you can have one (and secure it 100% against misuse) without harming innocents, then why not? Have it around in case aliens try to invade, an asteroid is on a collision course with earth, load it onto a rocket and detonate it just close enough to divert the trajectory, but not break it up so the earth gets hit with space buckshot.

This.

[MysteryMiner]

There should be no limits, even private nuke is OK for me.

The procedural limit for me is - use tactical nukes only against government forces and use strategic nukes only as a 3rd wave of strike (if governemnt retaliates). Government - any form of capitalism, communism, cannibalism, onanism.

The 2nd amendment is not intended for hunting deer and boar, it is for hunting down other people representing corrupt government.