Bettina wrote:for Drakona to say that it should be legal to purchase/own/use military assault rifles, machine guns, tanks, and other military hardware is nothing short of insanity.
What's insane about it? Serious question.
In writing my previous post, I wound up asking myself what hardware I was comfortable with civilians owning, and as I went down the list of systems, I asked myself, "What would be the worst that could happen if people could own this privately?" In most cases, I found that the answer was, "Not much." I was surprised at myself -- I too have been conditioned to think such a thing is crazy. But upon self-examination, I can find no intellectual basis for that opinion. Out it goes.
Just a quick couple examples: Killarin said civilians with air to air missiles made him nervous. Me, too, when I first started thinking about it. The thing is, though, what's a fighter really good for? Shooting down other fighters. At first blush, it might seem like you could use it for other destructive things -- say, downing airliners. The thing is, though, it's a pretty expensive and complicated solution to that problem. The folks who like to down airliners don't use it. I suspect that has as much to do with expense and logistics as legality. No, a fighter with air-to-air missiles is pretty much only good for one thing--opposing an air force. And that's what we're trying to give people the right to do here, right?
Tanks. Tanks can do a lot of damage with that main gun, no doubt; driving down main street with one shouldn't be allowed for the same reason as pointing a drawn gun at people isn't allowed: it's murder on the pavement.
Er, I mean, it's a threat. But I don't think it takes much in the way of regulation for people to establish a lack of hostile intent. Keep your tanks several miles outside of city limits, train with them on your own property, coordinate with the authorities when you need to transport them, things of that nature. I think it'd be pretty safe. You might think you could use them to do a lot of damage to society at large, but they're a complicated, overt, and expensive solution to that problem. Will Robinson illustrates a better one. I seriously doubt criminals would use them.
And on and on down the list. The thing about military hardware is that it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Most systems exist to counter and destroy other systems, and are designed to do damage in
combat. They're not really designed to do damage to
society, and consequently are just plain not the best tool for that job. They're not great for criminal activity, either, because they're so expensive, specialized, and--in particular--overt. I mean, the observation scales right down to assault rifles: the folks who like to make attacks looking for nothing but publicity and body count, in the part of the world where assault rifles are readily and commonly available . . . don't generally use them for that purpose. Because they're not the best tool for the job. They're great for actual combat. Not so much for mass murder.
What other problems could there be? People raising private armies? You can't do that now. It's not the level of weapons involved that would constitute a problem, but the fact that you're raising a private army, loyal to you. Well-equipped organized crime? Organized crime isn't a big problem now. Scaling the available weapons up or down won't change the degree of a problem that it is or isn't, just the selection of tools. You might lose control of military secrets, people might export things they shouldn't? There are rules now to stop individuals and corporations from causing problems on that front; I don't see why they should be particularly ineffective under the new scenario.
I've been thinking about it for a day or two now, and I just can't come up with much. I could only come up with two classes of weapons I was uncomfortable with civilians owning, both for the same reason: weapons that let you harm society directly. The first class is WMDs. Duh. The second is the one that lets you hit high value targets in a way that's hard to see coming or defend against. So, artillery. Certain SAMs. Things of that nature. And even there I'm not totally sure where the line goes. For example, I don't mind civilians with sniper rifles.
My point with the long rambling response is simply this:
You think it'd be bad for civilians to have access to "military assault rifles, machine guns, tanks, and other military hardware." Yeah, I know, it sounds crazy. But humor me. If not publicly, just as an exercise in intellectual honesty: state explicitly, exactly
why you think it's crazy.
I'd bet you dollars to donuts you'll find the fear arises from ignorance of what military hardware is and isn't capable of and the ways that exist to handle it safely . . . or a general fear of people capable of opposing the government.
-------------------------------
Foil wrote:As someone still learning about gun issues, I've been semi-following this thread for a while now. Frankly, I'm disappointed by some of the statements on both sides.
From my perspective, the irrational fear surrounding this issue is just insane.
One side is paranoid about stores gladly arming terrorists with missile launchers... and the other side is possibly even more paranoid about government conspiracies to take away their self-defense.
No they aren't. No one has said those things. Seriously, I went back in the thread and looked.
Bettina has expressed a fear of citizens with "assault weapons" committing mass murder and of armor-piercing rounds killing cops. She's not picturing missile launchers. She's not mentioned terrorists. Other folks have talked about degrees of government control and "chipping away at" liberties. People have speculated about the motives of politicians and the historical effects of disarming the population. No one has implied a conspiracy, or indeed a present threat of any sort.
In short, I don't know what you're reacting to, but it's not us.
Foil wrote:Drakona doesn't believe it will help law-enforcement, it's just a poor excuse for government arms tracking... Will Robinson believes it's a way to hinder citizens from purchasing guns... Duper believes it's part of a progressive anti-gun movement...
...are you guys/gal really serious? I never took any of you for conspiracy-theory types before, but that's how it's beginning to look.
Heh. So who you gonna trust? Your own intuition on a topic you don't yet fully get, or the judgement of three folks you normally respect? For all you know, we're
right.
Seriously, how is any of what you mentioned is conspiracy-theory stuff? I mean, regulation pretty provably increases cost and lowers availability, so what Will said is by definition true to some degree. And if you don't think there's a progressive anti-gun movement, you're reeeeeeeally not paying attention. Because that's not a secret. There are people who openly campaign on that platform.
In my own defense, I
don't think ammo registration will meaningfully help law enforcement. I think that's the sort of suggestion that a politician makes to sell a law, and that people find plausible because they don't know anything about guns and don't care enough to give the issue five minutes of critical thought. I mean, seriously. Do we have a major problem with unresolved shootings in this country or something? Has it reached a point where it warrants national attention, where it's worth the creation of national databases and manufacturing regulations to resolve? Have some sense of proportion. I submit that this is a costly, non-effective solution to a small and tolerable problem. It is clearly an excuse for a law. I don't know how it could be clearer.
Look at this thread alone. No one is arguing that ammo registration is a good idea. No one is saying, "Oh yeah, anonymous shootings are a big problem, and the statistics point to ammo registration as being the best solution." No one is arguing
for the law at all. All we have are a couple people saying, "What's your problem? You can trust the government in this day and age; I'm sure whoever proposed this did their homework. And anyway, something's a little wrong with you if you care so much about guns. I think they're dangerous, and anyone who wants to try a little something to keep us safer from them is fine by me." That's not someone trying to solve a problem. That's just a simple argument from ignorance, apathy, and credulity.
What do you find unreasonable enough about that opinion to warrant the charge of "conspiracy-theory type" that you've so recklessly leveled at me?
Guess they need to put a trigger lock on these things.
