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

[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?

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.

In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others at once, why wouldn't they use it?

[myrkul]

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

In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others at once, why wouldn't they use it?

Are we back to nukes, then? Suicide bombers happen now, you know. (might want to ask yourself why they do that, too)

[organofcorti]

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

In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others at once, why wouldn't they use it?

Are we back to nukes, then? Suicide bombers happen now, you know. (might want to ask yourself why they do that, too)

Not necessarily. Kevlar and something that spits out lots of lead all at once will also do the trick I imagine.

[myrkul]

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

In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others at once, why wouldn't they use it?

Are we back to nukes, then? Suicide bombers happen now, you know. (might want to ask yourself why they do that, too)

Not necessarily. Kevlar and something that spits out lots of lead all at once will also do the trick I imagine.

Doesn't really fit the "a weapon that will kill them and many others at once" though, does it?

[Richy_T]

Are we back to nukes, then? Suicide bombers happen now, you know. (might want to ask yourself why they do that, too)

It might be interesting to ask ourselves why more people don't actually do that.

[organofcorti]

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

In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others at once, why wouldn't they use it?

Are we back to nukes, then? Suicide bombers happen now, you know. (might want to ask yourself why they do that, too)

Not necessarily. Kevlar and something that spits out lots of lead all at once will also do the trick I imagine.

Doesn't really fit the "a weapon that will kill them and many others at once" though, does it?

Let me rephrase to something a little less explosive:

...... In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others quickly and in a short period of time before they can be killed, why wouldn't a disturbed individual use such weapons/armour?

A kevlar vest could enable an individual to last longer before either he is killed by someone else or he runs out of targets and turns his weapon on himself. "At once" was very poor phrasing on my part and does sound very bombish. I was thinking more that the event would be over quickly, but in that time many could die before the killer could be stopped.

[ImNotHerb]

A kevlar vest could enable an individual to last longer before either he is killed by someone else or he runs out of targets and turns his weapon on himself. "At once" was very poor phrasing on my part and does sound very bombish. I was thinking more that the event would be over quickly, but in that time many could die before the killer could be stopped.

All the more reason to have armor-piercing bullets. Besides, you don't think a nut who wants to go on a homicidal rampage doesn't mind being shot in the arms, legs, or head?

[myrkul]

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

In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others at once, why wouldn't they use it?

Are we back to nukes, then? Suicide bombers happen now, you know. (might want to ask yourself why they do that, too)

Not necessarily. Kevlar and something that spits out lots of lead all at once will also do the trick I imagine.

Doesn't really fit the "a weapon that will kill them and many others at once" though, does it?

Let me rephrase to something a little less explosive:

...... In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others quickly and in a short period of time before they can be killed, why wouldn't a disturbed individual use such weapons/armour?

A kevlar vest could enable an individual to last longer before either he is killed by someone else or he runs out of targets and turns his weapon on himself. "At once" was very poor phrasing on my part and does sound very bombish. I was thinking more that the event would be over quickly, but in that time many could die before the killer could be stopped.

"In the case of guns, sure," indicates that you accept that citizens armed with guns will stop a rampage shooter armed with a gun. So, we can rule out firearms. You're now ruling out bombs. Exactly what weapon do you suppose the nutjob has, then?

[FreeMoney]

It's a bad question because reality is that whoever has the top level weapons gets to keep them because they have them. All we're talking about is what the people with the most dangerous weapons will 'allow' others to do. But it's backwards, once you manage to get the top weapons suddenly you are actually 'allowed' to have them. All the current dickering is about how many orders of magnitude weaker to keep the people who are weaker than the best armed people.

[organofcorti]

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

In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others at once, why wouldn't they use it?

Are we back to nukes, then? Suicide bombers happen now, you know. (might want to ask yourself why they do that, too)

Not necessarily. Kevlar and something that spits out lots of lead all at once will also do the trick I imagine.

Doesn't really fit the "a weapon that will kill them and many others at once" though, does it?

Let me rephrase to something a little less explosive:

...... In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others quickly and in a short period of time before they can be killed, why wouldn't a disturbed individual use such weapons/armour?

A kevlar vest could enable an individual to last longer before either he is killed by someone else or he runs out of targets and turns his weapon on himself. "At once" was very poor phrasing on my part and does sound very bombish. I was thinking more that the event would be over quickly, but in that time many could die before the killer could be stopped.

"In the case of guns, sure," indicates that you accept that citizens armed with guns will stop a rampage shooter armed with a gun. So, we can rule out firearms. You're now ruling out bombs. Exactly what weapon do you suppose the nutjob has, then?

OK:

But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others quickly and in a short period of time before they can be killed, why wouldn't a disturbed individual use such weapons/armour?

[myrkul]

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

In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others at once, why wouldn't they use it?

Are we back to nukes, then? Suicide bombers happen now, you know. (might want to ask yourself why they do that, too)

Not necessarily. Kevlar and something that spits out lots of lead all at once will also do the trick I imagine.

Doesn't really fit the "a weapon that will kill them and many others at once" though, does it?

Let me rephrase to something a little less explosive:

...... In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others quickly and in a short period of time before they can be killed, why wouldn't a disturbed individual use such weapons/armour?

A kevlar vest could enable an individual to last longer before either he is killed by someone else or he runs out of targets and turns his weapon on himself. "At once" was very poor phrasing on my part and does sound very bombish. I was thinking more that the event would be over quickly, but in that time many could die before the killer could be stopped.

"In the case of guns, sure," indicates that you accept that citizens armed with guns will stop a rampage shooter armed with a gun. So, we can rule out firearms. You're now ruling out bombs. Exactly what weapon do you suppose the nutjob has, then?

OK:

But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others quickly and in a short period of time before they can be killed, why wouldn't a disturbed individual use such weapons/armour?

Isn't that exactly what happens now? Nutjob gets a gun, and proceeds to go someplace where they can use it to kill a lot of people before they are stopped? A tactical vest is not going to stop a headshot from killing them, nor a leg/arm shot from disabling or killing them, and anything more protective is really going to stand out at the mall. So the risk of an armored nutcase going on a rampage is pretty low, I'd even venture to say negligible. And even if he does, somebody might have loaded AP this morning, "just in case." (the likelihood of that happening goes up with more armored nutjobs)

[organofcorti]

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

In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others at once, why wouldn't they use it?

Are we back to nukes, then? Suicide bombers happen now, you know. (might want to ask yourself why they do that, too)

Not necessarily. Kevlar and something that spits out lots of lead all at once will also do the trick I imagine.

Doesn't really fit the "a weapon that will kill them and many others at once" though, does it?

Let me rephrase to something a little less explosive:

...... In the case of guns, sure. But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others quickly and in a short period of time before they can be killed, why wouldn't a disturbed individual use such weapons/armour?

A kevlar vest could enable an individual to last longer before either he is killed by someone else or he runs out of targets and turns his weapon on himself. "At once" was very poor phrasing on my part and does sound very bombish. I was thinking more that the event would be over quickly, but in that time many could die before the killer could be stopped.

"In the case of guns, sure," indicates that you accept that citizens armed with guns will stop a rampage shooter armed with a gun. So, we can rule out firearms. You're now ruling out bombs. Exactly what weapon do you suppose the nutjob has, then?

OK:

But if a disturbed individual wants to go on a suicidal rampage and they have a weapon that will kill them and many others quickly and in a short period of time before they can be killed, why wouldn't a disturbed individual use such weapons/armour?

Isn't that exactly what happens now? Nutjob gets a gun, and proceeds to go someplace where they can use it to kill a lot of people before they are stopped? A tactical vest is not going to stop a headshot from killing them, nor a leg/arm shot from disabling or killing them, and anything more protective is really going to stand out at the mall. So the risk of an armored nutcase going on a rampage is pretty low, I'd even venture to say negligible. And even if he does, somebody might have loaded AP this morning, "just in case." (the likelihood of that happening goes up with more armored nutjobs)

So getting back to your original point, this won't happen where weapons are allowed? Or is it more like an inverse relationship with gun freedom?

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?

So how does this stop block market arms dealers from selling weapons in a way of which the local community would disapprove?

[myrkul]

So getting back to your original point, this won't happen where weapons are allowed? Or is it more like an inverse relationship with gun freedom?

It's an inverse relationship, as John Lott points out.

So how does this stop black market arms dealers from selling weapons in a way of which the local community would disapprove?

Care to explain to me, first, exactly what "black market" means in a society where there are no laws limiting what one can buy or sell?

[organofcorti]

So getting back to your original point, this won't happen where weapons are allowed? Or is it more like an inverse relationship with gun freedom?

It's an inverse relationship, as John Lott points out.

Interesting, thanks. Could you post a link for me? I'm at work, not being lazy. Well, not really

So how does this stop black market arms dealers from selling weapons in a way of which the local community would disapprove?

Care to explain to me, first, exactly what "black market" means in a society where there are no laws limiting what one can buy or sell?
[/quote]

Any arms dealer who sells weapons in  a way of which the local community would disapprove.

[myrkul]

So getting back to your original point, this won't happen where weapons are allowed? Or is it more like an inverse relationship with gun freedom?

It's an inverse relationship, as John Lott points out.

Interesting, thanks. Could you post a link for me? I'm at work, not being lazy. Well, not really

If you'll notice, I already did. Click on Sv. Lott's name. It leads to the Google Books version of the book, which, as near as I can tell, is the entire third edition.

So how does this stop black market arms dealers from selling weapons in a way of which the local community would disapprove?

Care to explain to me, first, exactly what "black market" means in a society where there are no laws limiting what one can buy or sell?

Any arms dealer who sells weapons in  a way of which the local community would disapprove.

They don't buy from him, or - and this is important - sell to him.

[organofcorti]

So getting back to your original point, this won't happen where weapons are allowed? Or is it more like an inverse relationship with gun freedom?

It's an inverse relationship, as John Lott points out.

Interesting, thanks. Could you post a link for me? I'm at work, not being lazy. Well, not really

If you'll notice, I already did. Click on Sv. Lott's name. It leads to the Google Books version of the book, which, as near as I can tell, is the entire third edition.

Cheers. I'm a dope and didn't notice.

So how does this stop black market arms dealers from selling weapons in a way of which the local community would disapprove?

Care to explain to me, first, exactly what "black market" means in a society where there are no laws limiting what one can buy or sell?

Any arms dealer who sells weapons in  a way of which the local community would disapprove.

They don't buy from him, or - and this is important - sell to him.

There will always be criminals in a community. A successful criminal may remain hidden. While the majority of the community may shun the vendor - if they know he or she exists - that won't stop criminals. Also, if the dealer is not located locally, not selling to them won't matter.

[organofcorti]

If you'll notice, I already did. Click on Sv. Lott's name. It leads to the Google Books version of the book, which, as near as I can tell, is the entire third edition.

Unfortunately it's missing the data analyses, and a bunch of other pages. Maybe there's some sort of publishing restriction for Australia, wouldn't be the first time.

There are some things I find odd about the book, like page 315 and 320 that deal with the DC gun ban not having any effect on firearm murder rates, but since the other pages are missing I'm probably misinterpreting what the author intends to explain.

[myrkul]

So how does this stop black market arms dealers from selling weapons in a way of which the local community would disapprove?

Care to explain to me, first, exactly what "black market" means in a society where there are no laws limiting what one can buy or sell?

Any arms dealer who sells weapons in  a way of which the local community would disapprove.

They don't buy from him, or - and this is important - sell to him.

There will always be criminals in a community. A successful criminal may remain hidden. While the majority of the community may shun the vendor - if they know he or she exists - that won't stop criminals. Also, if the dealer is not located locally, not selling to them won't matter.

So, what you're saying is that criminals will be forced to deal with criminals, and that locals won't be able to affect what is done far off. The first is a good thing, from the perspective of the community - criminals are not known for honest dealings, so the "black market" dealer is likely to get screwed on the regular, and/or have to occasionally kill his customers. The second is just a fact of life. No matter what I do, I can't stop those kids in Afghanistan from churning out AKs like hotcakes, and neither can you.

[myrkul]

If you'll notice, I already did. Click on Sv. Lott's name. It leads to the Google Books version of the book, which, as near as I can tell, is the entire third edition.

Unfortunately it's missing the data analyses, and a bunch of other pages. Maybe there's some sort of publishing restriction for Australia, wouldn't be the first time.

There are some things I find odd about the book, like page 315 and 320 that deal with the DC gun ban not having any effect on firearm murder rates, but since the other pages are missing I'm probably misinterpreting what the author intends to explain.

Well, it's free. You get what you pay for. I'm sure Amazon will gladly ship you a complete one. (I sprung for the Kindle version)

[Grant]

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.

Imposing limits on others is itself a WMD.

I consider private citizens, people.
Corporations, people.
Nonprofits, people.
Governments, also just people.

You can't have limits, for the simple reason that when you do it, only thing it does is dumb down a lot of naive people to believe that something isn't being developed or doesn't exist. (like the Manhattan Project doesn't exist, Anders Breivik didn't use firearms in his terror act in norway because norway forbids firearm possession).