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.

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).

So no limits at all - no limits on ownership, no limits on access to said weapon, no weapon safety skills courses? Just buy, own and use anything you want, any time or anywhere you want?

That's pretty ballsy.

[myrkul]

So no limits at all - no limits on ownership, no limits on access to said weapon, no weapon safety skills courses? Just buy, own and use anything you want, any time or anywhere you want?

That's pretty ballsy.

It's the only way to do it without coercion. And coercing armed people is notably difficult...

[Rassah]

So no limits at all - no limits on ownership, no limits on access to said weapon, no weapon safety skills courses? Just buy, own and use anything you want, any time or anywhere you want?

Don't forget, that part right there implies someone actually has to work, and probably quite a bit, to obtain whatever it is they want. A simple pistol will cost them ~$300, a rifle probably $1k to $3k, and a nuke probably $8mil. They will likely have a damn good reason for whatever they are buying if it's expensive enough.
(I can't see a random unstable nutcase coming up with $8mil for a nuke. It's even hard to imagine someone like that coming up with $1,000 for a machine gun.

[organofcorti]

So no limits at all - no limits on ownership, no limits on access to said weapon, no weapon safety skills courses? Just buy, own and use anything you want, any time or anywhere you want?

Don't forget, that part right there implies someone actually has to work, and probably quite a bit, to obtain whatever it is they want. A simple pistol will cost them ~$300, a rifle probably $1k to $3k, and a nuke probably $8mil. They will likely have a damn good reason for whatever they are buying if it's expensive enough.
(I can't see a random unstable nutcase coming up with $8mil for a nuke. It's even hard to imagine someone like that coming up with $1,000 for a machine gun.

Crazy rich trust fund kids? Lots of dollars, not much sense.

With no restriction on weapon type or use, something bad only has to happen once and a whole country will suffer.

[myrkul]

So no limits at all - no limits on ownership, no limits on access to said weapon, no weapon safety skills courses? Just buy, own and use anything you want, any time or anywhere you want?

Don't forget, that part right there implies someone actually has to work, and probably quite a bit, to obtain whatever it is they want. A simple pistol will cost them ~$300, a rifle probably $1k to $3k, and a nuke probably $8mil. They will likely have a damn good reason for whatever they are buying if it's expensive enough.
(I can't see a random unstable nutcase coming up with $8mil for a nuke. It's even hard to imagine someone like that coming up with $1,000 for a machine gun.

Crazy rich trust fund kids? Lots of dollars, not much sense.

With no restriction on weapon type or use, something bad only has to happen once and a whole country will suffer.

So, instead, we entrust them to violent monopolies with genocidal track records.

Good plan.

[Lethn]

Crazy rich trust fund kids? Lots of dollars, not much sense. 

It's ironic that you don't seem to trust these kind of people yet they're the very people who are running the governments that you support in the first place.

[organofcorti]

Crazy rich trust fund kids? Lots of dollars, not much sense. 

It's ironic that you don't seem to trust these kind of people yet they're the very people who are running the governments that you support in the first place.

The governments I support?

[Lethn]

Sorry, should re-phrase that, the governments you seem to support lol

[myrkul]

Crazy rich trust fund kids? Lots of dollars, not much sense. 

It's ironic that you don't seem to trust these kind of people yet they're the very people who are running the governments that you support in the first place.

The governments I support?

Well, by definition, if you're not an anarchist, you support some sort of government. Anything you restrict from the citizens, you entrust to the government.

[organofcorti]

Crazy rich trust fund kids? Lots of dollars, not much sense. 

It's ironic that you don't seem to trust these kind of people yet they're the very people who are running the governments that you support in the first place.

The governments I support?

Well, by definition, if you're not an anarchist, you support some sort of government. Anything you restrict from the citizens, you entrust to the government.

I'm not an anarchist? I don't believe I've ever mentioned my affiliation, and I've made clear to you previously what my preferred type of community would be.

As usual, I want to know what others think. If something someone says surprises me, I question it. How else am I to learn?

If I already had my mind made up I wouldn't bother conversing on this board - everyone has entrenched opinions, no one (apart from me it seems) is capable of changing their minds about their political beliefs.

[myrkul]

Crazy rich trust fund kids? Lots of dollars, not much sense. 

It's ironic that you don't seem to trust these kind of people yet they're the very people who are running the governments that you support in the first place.

The governments I support?

Well, by definition, if you're not an anarchist, you support some sort of government. Anything you restrict from the citizens, you entrust to the government.

I'm not an anarchist? I don't believe I've ever mentioned my affiliation, and I've made clear to you previously what my preferred type of community would be.

As usual, I want to know what others think. If something someone says surprises me, I question it. How else am I to learn?

If I already had my mind made up I wouldn't bother conversing on this board - everyone has entrenched opinions, no one (apart from me it seems) is capable of changing their minds about their political beliefs.

You may not be a statist, but you do have the unusual habit of defending their positions.

I don't know about the rest, but I am indeed capable, and willing, to change my political views. That's a hard row to plow, though, since it will require convincing me that some people do have the right to initiate force on others. It's not that I'm unwilling, it's just that no one yet has been able to poke any holes in the foundations of my beliefs, and so, the walls hold.

It is fun to watch them beat their heads against them, though.

[organofcorti]

Crazy rich trust fund kids? Lots of dollars, not much sense. 

It's ironic that you don't seem to trust these kind of people yet they're the very people who are running the governments that you support in the first place.

The governments I support?

Well, by definition, if you're not an anarchist, you support some sort of government. Anything you restrict from the citizens, you entrust to the government.

I'm not an anarchist? I don't believe I've ever mentioned my affiliation, and I've made clear to you previously what my preferred type of community would be.

As usual, I want to know what others think. If something someone says surprises me, I question it. How else am I to learn?

If I already had my mind made up I wouldn't bother conversing on this board - everyone has entrenched opinions, no one (apart from me it seems) is capable of changing their minds about their political beliefs.

You may not be a statist, but you do have the unusual habit of defending their positions.

I'm not really defending any position, just pointing things out that seem to me to be odd or illogical. Those things might or might not be illogical, which is why it's sometimes nice to have a discussion with someone who can explain the position without resorting to ad hominem arguments.

I don't know about the rest, but I am indeed capable, and willing, to change my political views. That's a hard row to plow, though, since it will require convincing me that some people do have the right to initiate force on others.

I just had a thought - how do you define "initiate"? Only instant retaliation (for example defending yourself or your property), or an ongoing feud that you know you didn't start but by god you'll finish?

It's not that I'm unwilling, it's just that no one yet has been able to poke any holes in the foundations of my beliefs, and so, the walls hold.

It is fun to watch them beat their heads against them, though.

I hope to have similar fun when I too have some beliefs.

[KWH]

Shouldn't the question really be: What "weapons" can't a criminal get?

[organofcorti]

Shouldn't the question really be: What "weapons" can't a criminal get?

Why? How is that an interesting question, and how does it help one understand another's political motivations?

[KWH]

Shouldn't the question really be: What "weapons" can't a criminal get?

Why? How is that an interesting question, and how does it help one understand another's political motivations?

Because it doesn't matter what weapons law abiding citizens have, it's the criminals we need to worry about. They don't follow the law. No laws made will change this fact. Another fact is we are guaranteed the right to bear arms, that right shall not be infringed. This was not put in there for hunting purposes either.

[myrkul]

I don't know about the rest, but I am indeed capable, and willing, to change my political views. That's a hard row to plow, though, since it will require convincing me that some people do have the right to initiate force on others.

I just had a thought - how do you define "initiate"? Only instant retaliation (for example defending yourself or your property), or an ongoing feud that you know you didn't start but by god you'll finish?

Well, leaving aside the fact that what is and what is not defense has been rigorously defined, both by case law and by the good folks at Webster, here's how I would break it down:

The beginning state is either peaceful interaction, or non-interaction (which by it's very nature is peaceful).

Then one party uses violence in the interaction, either starting off the interaction with an attack, or escalating from verbal interaction to physical violence. This is initiatory force.

The other party responds with force, acting to end the threat posed by the first party. This is defensive force.

The first party, seeing that he is overmatched, flees. The second party, seeking to end the threat once and for all, strikes him down. This is retaliatory force.

To sum up:
Initiatory force: Violence committed upon someone who is not committing violence. Never moral.
Defensive force: Violence committed upon someone who is committing initiatory violence. Always moral.
Retaliatory force: Violence committed upon someone who is not committing violence any more. Usually immoral. (opinions differ on this one)

Adding in a third party complicates the issue, adding the possibilities of:
Choosing the wrong side: Violence committed against someone who is committing defensive violence. Never moral, honest mistake or not.
Keeping the Peace: Non-lethal violence committed upon both someone who is committing defensive violence and upon someone who is committing initiatory violence, so as to stop or prevent further violence. Always moral, and thus the best option when you're not sure who's in the wrong.

Note that defensive and retaliatory force are still options for a third party, but adding that third party adds these options to the scenario.

[Rassah]

Crazy rich trust fund kids? Lots of dollars, not much sense.

That may be true, but crazy rich trust fund kids are usually not looking to go to jail or kill themselves. The ones that have no sense are too spoiled for it. The ones that do have sense are usually too busy working and expanding their family empire.

[Dalkore]

A nuke probably $8mil. They will likely have a damn good reason for whatever they are buying if it's expensive enough.
(I can't see a random unstable nutcase coming up with $8mil for a nuke. It's even hard to imagine someone like that coming up with $1,000 for a machine gun.

You have no imagination or common sense.   You think there are not unstable people that are rich or have vendetta or agenda.   You're as naive as they come.  You must just be a troll to say this utter nonsense.

[myrkul]

A nuke probably $8mil. They will likely have a damn good reason for whatever they are buying if it's expensive enough.
(I can't see a random unstable nutcase coming up with $8mil for a nuke. It's even hard to imagine someone like that coming up with $1,000 for a machine gun.

You have no imagination or common sense.   You think there are not unstable people that are rich or have vendetta or agenda.   You're as naive as they come.  You must just be a troll to say this utter nonsense.

I'm really disappointed in you, Dalkore. You're not even trying to present rational arguments, anymore. You can do better.

[Rassah]

A nuke probably $8mil. They will likely have a damn good reason for whatever they are buying if it's expensive enough.
(I can't see a random unstable nutcase coming up with $8mil for a nuke. It's even hard to imagine someone like that coming up with $1,000 for a machine gun.

You have no imagination or common sense.   You think there are not unstable people that are rich or have vendetta or agenda.   You're as naive as they come.  You must just be a troll to say this utter nonsense.

Sure, there are rich people with agendas, but they typically want to keep their money and power. Nuking people tends to go in the opposite direction for them, both financially and health-wise.
I guess maybe some old fuck who failed near the end of their life and just about lost all his money, but still owns a nuke, may want to go out with a bang... I guess I would have to hope that whoever comes to try to repossess his items will start with the nuke though.