What types of weapons should not be legal?

If I had my way, anything that placed the assailant out of arm’s reach of the victim would be done away with.

If you want to kill someone, you should have to be put at equal danger of being killed yourself.

See Darkover Compact

Anything that is more advanced than a musket.

@ragingloli, I’m for making it anything more advanced than a fist.

~Well I would not want any grade one students having a redeemer from unreal tournament.

@ragingloli you misspelled it, it is spelled “mullet” (think monty python).

If you need weapons to protect your self form tyrannical governments then you need nukes. They have nukes so you need nukes. Mutually assured destruction and all that.

However given that most countries with nukes have governments elected by the people anyway then really should the people who voted in the tyrannical government in the first place be trusted with nukes.

I agree with Seek and the Pachyderm.

I think pump-action shotguns, revolvers and certain types of low-tech bolt action rifles are probably reasonable. The caliber/muzzle velocity should have some reasonable cap.

People can hunt, defend themselves from reasonable threats but if they want to go on a rampage, they’re going to have to expose themselves to potential police surveillance by trying to illegally buy something more powerful, or use what’s legally available, and be greatly slowed down with windows of opportunity for victims to retaliate/escape. These restrictions would greatly hamper potential terrorist operations as well.

If people want to defend against a tyrannical government, then they should join their local “well regulated militia” i.e. the national guard where they’ll be armed with the latest in modern firepower.