Topic: Gun freedom advocates - what weapons shouldn't be legally available? - page 4. (Read 10869 times)

It's really not like that for me--I think you're reading into what I said.  I believe you should be allowed to own as many guns as you want and use them for whatever you want as long as you don't break the law.  I do however think there should be reasonable limits on the type of gun you own which is the focus of this thread.  RodeoX uses the phrase "military style guns" which is very subjective.  A semi-automatic AR-15, for example, is functionally almost no different than many .223 "traditional" hunting rifles. (Let's leave the magazine capacity argument aside for the sake of discussion since it's a different can of worms.)  For some reason, apparently for no other reason than because the AR-15 looks more menacing, some people believe it should be restricted.  I don't agree with them since you can reasonably use that AR-15 for hunting.  But if you argue anyone should be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon or a Barrett .50 then you've lost me.  That's not to say no one should be allowed to own them, just that most people shouldn't be allowed to own them.

As I mentioned, my opinion is ever-evolving.  The hunting justification is not an absolute line in the sand here but in my mind a rough guideine of what might be considered reasonable.  I use it as reasonable because where I live most top level predators have been destroyed and management of game populations falls on humans since we created the problem.  I realize that even that is not cut-and-dried but it's a starting point.  Of course, if you believe the world is on the verge of ERL (Excessive Rule of Law) or WRL (Without Rule of Law), which I don't, then we are starting from a different set of assumptions and I don't see much room for compromise.  On the other end of the firepower spectrum we have handguns. Since I think the usual self-defense justification is quite weak I fall back again to the hunting guideline.  If it can't reasonably be used as a hunting weapon most people shouldn't be allowed to have it.  Again, if you disagree with me on the self-defense argument then here again there's little room for compromise.

It's really not nearly as complicated as you're making it. tcp, have you examined why you would rather not let other people have weapons except for hunting? I'd wager it boils down to something along the lines of "I don't want them to shoot me."

The problem is, even a little .22 varmint gun, if aimed well, can kill a human. And if you're hunting large game, that gun can easily kill a human. And it's not like a "hunting gun" can't be pointed at a human. So, even your restriction of "only firearms for hunting" is no more effective than "No big scary black guns."

Howabout this restriction:

"Own whatever weapon you like, but don't use it to kill people."

Simple, yeah?

I also find this complicated. But I don't understand the hunting exception. I own guns, including military type guns, but I don't use them to kill animals. Why should I be disallowed from having a gun just because I don't want to kill an innocent animal with it?

Against my better judgement I'll weigh in here as it's a topic that fascinates me.  I don't consider myself a "gun freedom advocate" as the subject says, though I do believe there's a legitimate place for limited gun ownership in most societies.

I thought long and hard about the question last night and came to the conclusion I can't answer it as worded.  It's easier to answer the question, "what weapons should be legally available?"  The short answer is hunting weapons of sufficient caliber to humanely kill the game being hunted.  That's it, with few exceptions.  But even that's problematic because there's very wide room for interpretation in that statement. I have a much longer answer, but I'll spare you unless there's interest.

Full disclosure:  I own several weapons, including a handgun.  I don't hunt and I don't own them for self-protection.  I take them out of their safe about a dozen times per year and fire them at the range because it's an activity I enjoy.  Even I'm a walking contradiction to my own statement, so yes, it's quite complicated in my mind.

I assume those who want to limit guns in our society also want to disarm the police? They are, after all, just people with guns. They might go nuts and kill you. Without any recourse for your own defense, it will more important than ever to limit the mag capacity of police and limit the types of weapons they may posses.
If you don't think the police should also disarm, I'm curious as to your logic.
It's time for the cops to trade in their glocks and ARs for revolvers and double barrel shotguns.

I take it you are a healthy male, age 18-(say)55 then? If so, congratulations, you similar or better offensive/defensive capabilities of all but the most skilled/strongest unarmed opponent.

However, large segments of the population are not. Consider them before you clamor for disarmament. Also consider the capabilities of a potential opponent should they trivially arm themselves with a knife or some kind of club (If only those darn bad guys wouldn't seek to provide themselves advantage, eh?).

How is this relevant?