How much lethality should a society entrust to members of the public?

You know the answer of those who are so inclined, will be that there should be no limit. Of course they should have access to all of the above, because they have this fantasy that they will one day use them to overthrow an oppressive government.

(When in reality, of course, as we have seen on Jan 6th, where they were storming the capitol, trying to overturn the election, they would be very much on the side of such an oppressive government, as long as it oppresses those they want to be oppressed.)

@ragingloli Where would you draw the line and why?

At a loading-gate style revolver.

It requires little imagination to predict the outcome in this country of an armed for combat population loose in the streets. We lived through it when the weapons of the time were comparatively primitive. Even today it is remembered as “the wild wild West”. And that monicker has nothing to do with the wildlife of the time.

@HP The question isn’t specific to the US. It’s just trying to discuss where that threshold ought to be in any society and why. I do think the “Wild West” is worth considering as an example of when justice is decentralized and everyone is heavily armed. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. In your utopian society, where do you draw the line and why?

Here goes utopia: were the society itself ideal, anyone might be allowed access to any weapon. Hell, your 3rd grader might be entrusted with the nuclear codes in the IDEAL society. Now this at bottom is the problem in this stupid country. Gun proponents argue from the assumption that this IS the ideal country based on this statement “I myself am responsible and can be trusted with a gun.” Now everyone here recognizes that no matter what we believe indivdually regarding our competence with weapons, not all of us are qualified to own a weapon. So the killings rise, and the truly asinine chant goes up that kids riddled with bullets aren’t killed with guns “people kill people”. The bottom line is that it doesn’t matter how small the percentage of people is who cannot be trusted with a gun. What matters is the ease with which they can acquire a weapon. It takes a minimum of comprehension to understand than in a land glutted with guns, draconian registration laws merely lead to outlandish ratios of illegal guns to those registered. And who here supposes that these killers prior to their adventures ask themselves “where can I find a REGISTERED gun to take to the playground”, or better yet, “must I stay home because my assault rifle isn’t registered?” I have no idea what the limit in weaponry is for the ideal society. I do know that whatever that limit is, we have exceded it—decades ago, and are now once again the model for the world as for what not to do. And the carnage to come will unquestionably be ghastly, but we will soon adapt to it as normal. There is now no other choice.

Simple :Everyone that wants to own a firearm of any kind must pass a firearms safety course, have a criminal back ground check,and must have a license saying they had that done with them when buying a gun new, or privately .
With your samples ,you do know they are extremely costly,and the average person couldn’t buy one if they wanted to.
As for full automatic weapons your country passed a law a bunch of years ago civilians could NOT own a full auto weapon made passed a certain date,I can’t remember the exact date but it was well over 50 years ago.
You will never be able to disarm the public,just make it that people that do want a firearm are safe to have it.
Now go to your prospective corners and continue to scream at each other,until you learn to come out and meet and really try to come to a safe out come NOTHING will ever get done and these shootings will just keep going.

Right or wrong, whatever they can handle. Society/humanity is not a perfect thing and there are many people, too many to continue producing, and there will be, at some point, a (at least one) means to control the population.
Contrary to what some people may think, shit DOES happen.

I believe the limit should be kitchen knives. That’s it. No more.

@SQUEEKY2 ”:Everyone that wants to own a firearm of any kind must pass a firearms safety course, have a criminal back ground check,and must have a license saying they had that done with them when buying a gun new, or privately .”

So anyone can own any firearm as long as they pass those requirements? So if someone wanted to buy one of these things and mount it to a vehicle, you’re cool with it as long as they pass the background check and take the safety course? I’m just trying to see where the line is for you.

@kritiper So no ceiling whatsoever? If people wanted to buy javelins, iskanders, howitzers, etc. they’re welcome to?

@HP You’ve been watching too many westerns! The old west was never really like that.

@gorillapaws Did you not read my whole answer?
Civilians CAN NOT own that type of firearm,and the cost of it alone would prevent a great deal from owning one.
I will give you if you want ,that certain types should stay in the military at all times.

@SQUEEKY2 I wasn’t asking what is/isn’t allowed, I was trying to understand where you think the line should be and why. It sounds like you think the current limits in the US are about right (I don’t want to put words in your mouth)?

Wikipedia says that in 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, 30,296 deadly, killing 32,999, and injuring 2,239,000. About 2,000 children under 16 die every year in traffic collisions.

We must immediately ban all motor vehicles!! For the children.

We should consider banning nuclear warheads… especially concealed ones.

My limits would be attack high capacity magazines, nobody needs a 50 round mag for hunting or target shooting.
I am ok with people that pass the background checks owning full auto firearms,they wouldn’t want to risk losing it by not following the laws.
As for real assault weapons they should always stay in the hands of the military.
Bump stocks must be fully banned.
AND anyone that wants to own a firearm of any kind must be vetted to prove they are safe to have it for themselves and everyone else.

The ceiling should be knives, saws, axes. There are legitimate needs for these tools. Banning them would have a large societal cost.

@SQUEEKY2 I appreciate the response and how you define the boundary. Would you limit the types of ammunition at all? Like preventing armor-piercing or explosive rounds? or limit the muzzle energy/caliber?

@hat Are you ok with archery?

I would not limit caliber at all there are some clubs that do excellent long range shooting with 50cals, like a 1000metres.
And as for armor-piercing,or explosive those again are military and should stay in the military,although I think it would be cool to hit a gopher with an explosive round.

@SQUEEKY2: “And as for armor-piercing,or explosive those again are military and should stay in the military”

But why? What if I were to form a club that did long-range armor piercing shooting for fun?

What about a long-range ballistic missile club with a cute name and matching jackets?

@kritiper Here’s what the wild West REALLY was like. Things were “wild” enough that communities competed with one another in passing retrictions on firearms in the attempt to attract would be settlers terrified by the gunplay associated with the “wild” West. Here’s an idea if you want to see gun control laws passed overnite. People are probably unaware as to why California has such stringent laws regarding firearms. Everyone figures it’s just the typical liberal attitude of wimpy liberals. But I was here in the 70s when it was perfectly legal to openly tote a gun in the golden state. You wanna know what changed all that? It was the day the Black Panthers showed up in Sacramento at a legislative session. They were legally armed to the teeth. Believe me, there was no drawn out debate regarding the second amendment THAT day. You want to see gun laws quickly enacted? Just let black civic leaders start advocating their constituents to join the gun craze. You broadcast a single national news program of a black community sponsored gun show, and you will overnight have the strictest gun laws this world will ever see, along with the quadrupuling of illegal gun sales nationwide.

@hat You mean like the ‘Hello Kitty Ballistic Missile Club” How do I join?

You know what this question superficially amounts to is what level of control can a society exert on its “deplorables”?

Individual members of a civilised society shouldn’t require any lethality. Saying it’s OK to possess lethal weapons goes half way to saying it is OK to use lethal weapons. When members of the public have lethal weapons you can bet they will be used, and not often in the sort of situations you imagine.

@flutherother Do you think hunting is important in a civilized society?

@gorillapaws Hunting is a pre civilisation activity.

IMO, what we have now is the appropriate line. What is not appropriate is the ease of access some have to certain things. After all, we don’t let just anyone even set foot in a nuclear power plant. You can’t buy explosives without a special license under controlled access. This is something that can be done, it’s wishful thinking about trying to ban guns. It’s not going to happen.

We do something worse than hunting, we factory farm sentient animals. Hunting has actually become necessary considering we have wiped out most of the apex predators and allowed invasive species to take over. Hunting licenses and fees are the primary source of income keeping wildlife conservation programs funded too.

@gorillapaws EVERYBODY should have and know how to use a pistol, and wear it AT ALL TIMES!!! This is the one single best answer to the problem.
@HP You really have no idea. Kids took guns to school with them to protect themselves from natives. Also to protect themselves from wild animals. The same reason adults all had guns. People in general had guns to procure food. EVERYBODY knew better than to start blasting away at their neighbor for any little infraction. (Because HE could shoot back!) If a person really wanted to kill someone, they would bushwhack them out in the sticks with a shotgun or a rifle, not call them out in the middle of town for a .45 drawdown.

@Blackwater_Park I have a crazy idea on how to protect endangered animals…
Eat Them! We eat chickens… they’re not in danger. We eat cows… they’re not in danger!

I’m struggling a bit with the question. I guess the amount of lethality needed would be dictated by the conditions of the society. If you have a violent society, you would need lethality to survive or you would become a slave/victim/pick your description. If you have an authoritarian government they would want no lethality to block their power. If you have a society where people are treated well you can have the people having much lethality since they will likely not use it inappropriately. In that situation you don’t have a need for society to “entrust” its members with anything.

The question rightly points out that not all lethality is created equal. But it misses the aspect that not all societies are created equally either.

Society must spend more time and resource to the very close second to lethal…
1… Toxic Masculinity
2… Micro Aggression
3… Improper Pronouns
The dead are gone but trying to live after suffering an attack of the above… For Instance…
Seeing someone wearing a MAGA cap can be so damaging…

@seawulf575 I appreciate your perspective on this. When you say:

“If you have a society where people are treated well you can have the people having much lethality since they will likely not use it inappropriately.”

Wouldn’t you still expect some percent of people to “snap” even under the best of circumstances? People have traumatic brain injuries, strokes etc. Also a tiny percentage of people just seem to be born misanthropic psychos right?

@gorillapaws I actually have a theory on a lot of this. As population in an area increases, I believe there is something in our DNA that triggers mental breakdowns. People do destructive things to themselves and others in an unconscious effort to reduce population. Right now the population of the Earth is larger than it has ever been and continues to grow so we are seeing mental breakdowns everywhere. Add to that the extra stresses of economy and you find people tripping off line at an alarming rate.

But you can see where, even in the USA, we areas (some relatively small, some larger) where the people are treated well and the incidence of dreadful violence are basically non-existent. Yet I’d lay good money that there are a number of people in those areas that have very lethal weapons. What you see in areas like this is usually very limited efforts at violence…spousal abuse, suicide, the occasional bar fights…things on a very limited basis.

I want to say it this way, you wouldn’t tell newly enlisted man ,we want you to jump in this F-14 and fly a mission.
It takes training, to see if he is capable of flying the jet safely.
Same should be considered for owning a firearm,to see if the person is capable of safe usage and handling of a firearm.
And before anyone gets smart ass, I know it’s not the same training , but it is done to see if the person can do the job safely.
And if they can’t pass the training then they shouldn’t own a gun or fly the F-14.

Indeed not all societies are equal. But you can pretend yourself as obtuse as you choose, and dance around the single issue which overwhelmingly sets OUR society apart from ALL others. Now what exactly would you care to claim that factor is?

@SQUEEKY2 Especially with concealed carry permits, you are required to attend close to 8 hours of class followed by a shooting “exam” to show you can hit a target. But requiring training still wouldn’t stop those that want to go on shooting sprees, nor would it stop those in gangs and other criminal elements that don’t obtain their guns legally nor are they known for their frequency of following laws.

I was raised in a family where guns were taught from parents or grandparents to children. They were shown how to safely handle the guns as well as how to take care of the guns. Most people I know that have a gun were like that.