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

[JoelKatz]

On earth, there's little to no reason for anyone to have a nuke, for exactly that reason.

What about tactical nukes (say 10KT to 200KT) for use against submarines?

[Grant]

How would AnCap deter jihadists from acquiring nukes? Or anyone else who would value the nuke more than their own lives? Restitution is capped at one's lifetime income.

One question is what motivates current "jihadists" to do what they do ? (that seems to be that their competing jihadists, also known as governments who likewise are willing to sacrifice lives of own soldiers for political or ideological goals, drew lines on maps and claimed by force "these are your borders now sucker". Not saying any of those 2 jihad groups are justified, they're both acting like small children fighting over toys, but if it wasnt for the governments interfering in their affairs the jihadists would find something better to do).

Keep in mind that the 2 main sponsors of "Jihadi groups" are the USA, and Russia. With some of their subsidiaries co-sponsoring, such as Iran, Israel, etc.

So how would ancap resist NGO jihad from aquiring means to cause lots of damage, the same way it would resist a Government-form of jihad. Social pressure, few ppl would trade with you if they see you aquire stockpiles and/or if you have a history of bullying. You'd have to pay a premium for your reputation, in other words the rest of the world would get their weapons cheaper than you and you'd never get to the point where you can do any damage.

[myrkul]

On earth, there's little to no reason for anyone to have a nuke, for exactly that reason.

What about tactical nukes (say 10KT to 200KT) for use against submarines?

Well, I did say little to no.

[Explodicle]

What if I take the dollar value out of it? If I'm willing to die to save 100 people, does that also invalidate my opinion?

I apologize if this comes across as an ad hominem, but do you drive to work? To me that seems like much the same thing, but to a lesser extent; you're accepting several micromorts in exchange for money.

That changes everything.   In a moment of crisis, I too would sacrifice myself for 100 people.  I would not on the other hand, go to be slaughter in exchange for 100 people in a per-planned act.

I actually am fortunately close enough to my work where that I do not need to drive.  Why?

Because there is a risk associated with driving, so instead of going to a 100% certain slaughter, you'd be going to an x% certain slaughter. But if you are biking/walking then the exercise helps, so my hat's off to you. Way to be more consistent than I had cynically imagined!

But your unwillingness to die to save others (non-emergency) - no offense - sounds kinda selfish. What about you is so much more valuable than 100 other people? And when isn't it a crisis? People are dying right now.

[Dalkore]

You're not going to answer me, are you?

I know why, and I understand. Nobody likes admitting that they're a hypocrite.

No, I just feel at the point, putting my time into debating with you.  Your view port is currently at a place that is too extreme for my to expend energy on you.   You can't seem to see any value in what I am saying and if you knew me in person and the people I hold as company, I am known as very reasonable and someone who puts a lot of thought into what I say. 

If you want to engage further, you should go into the last couple issues we have discussed and maybe come closer to me from the extreme position you have stuck too.

[myrkul]

You're not going to answer me, are you?

I know why, and I understand. Nobody likes admitting that they're a hypocrite.

No, I just feel at the point, putting my time into debating with you.  Your view port is currently at a place that is too extreme for my to expend energy on you.   You can't seem to see any value in what I am saying and if you knew me in person and the people I hold as company, I am known as very reasonable and someone who puts a lot of thought into what I say. 

If you want to engage further, you should go into the last couple issues we have discussed and maybe come closer to me from the extreme position you have stuck too.

I see plenty of value in your positions. I would not ask your position on life insurance, for instance, if I did not value it.

Expecting me to compromise my values so that you can feel more comfortable, however, is going too far. I am a market anarchist, and I'm not compromising the principles that underlay that position just to make it easier for you to debate.

So, it's a very simple question, and I'd appreciate the answer very much: Do you now, or would you ever, own a life insurance policy?

[Richy_T]

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.

Pah, you can have my nuke when you pry it from my hot, glowing hands.

[Richy_T]

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?

The issue of defining why civilians shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons is complicated by the need to rationalize why governments should be allowed them.

[Richy_T]

Take the research I did in other threads for example, why is it in Serbia

Serbia?

Really?

[organofcorti]

Take the research I did in other threads for example, why is it in Serbia

Serbia?

Really?

Not that surprising, after a long and horrible war there.

[JoelKatz]

The issue of defining why civilians shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons is complicated by the need to rationalize why governments should be allowed them.

Nuclear depth charges in the 10-500KT range are the most effective way to combat submarines. Of course, there's also the issue of protecting yourself from other governments that might get them and use them for blackmail absent a threat of nuclear retaliation.

[Richy_T]

The issue of defining why civilians shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons is complicated by the need to rationalize why governments should be allowed them.

Nuclear depth charges in the 10-500KT range are the most effective way to combat submarines. Of course, there's also the issue of protecting yourself from other governments that might get them and use them for blackmail absent a threat of nuclear retaliation.

True as far as it goes. But that begs a whole lot of other questions.

[axus]

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.

Oh, if a seller were liable for harm caused by the person they sell to, they'd be very careful.  And have insurance.

[myrkul]

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.

Oh, if a seller were liable for harm caused by the person they sell to, they'd be very careful.  And have insurance.

This.

[Explodicle]

Is it aggression to sell a gun to someone who later uses that gun for aggression? If so, does this transfer all the way down - should iron miners be held accountable for selling to steel mills who sell to gun manufacturers who sell to gun dealers?

[myrkul]

Is it aggression to sell a gun to someone who later uses that gun for aggression? If so, does this transfer all the way down - should iron miners be held accountable for selling to steel mills who sell to gun manufacturers who sell to gun dealers?

No, but given a nuke's limited defensive uses, I think it's reasonable to expect a higher level of "due diligence" for them than your average pistol.

[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.

Oh, if a seller were liable for harm caused by the person they sell to, they'd be very careful.  And have insurance.

Not all vendors will sell legally. There's a big black market for weapons now - why would that change?

[myrkul]

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.

Oh, if a seller were liable for harm caused by the person they sell to, they'd be very careful.  And have insurance.

Not all vendors will sell legally. There's a big black market for weapons now - why would that change?

Nukes don't get blown up all the time now - why would that change?

[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.

Oh, if a seller were liable for harm caused by the person they sell to, they'd be very careful.  And have insurance.

Not all vendors will sell legally. There's a big black market for weapons now - why would that change?

Nukes don't get blown up all the time now - why would that change?

I wasn't talking about nukes specifically - this thread just got godwinned. People do go on rampages with automatics though - why would that change?

[myrkul]

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.

Oh, if a seller were liable for harm caused by the person they sell to, they'd be very careful.  And have insurance.

Not all vendors will sell legally. There's a big black market for weapons now - why would that change?

Nukes don't get blown up all the time now - why would that change?

I wasn't talking about nukes specifically - this thread just got godwinned. People do go on rampages with automatics though - why would that change?

Think about where those rampages happen. In places that disarmed their visitors. When was the last rampage shooting you recall at a gun range? Police station? Gun show?

Where guns are allowed, rampage shootings don't happen.