Arms control spectrum

[Citizen James]

I've included extreme positions for those who have a major libertarian/authoritarian bent.

[Bono]

I've included extreme positions for those who have a major libertarian/authoritarian bent.

First one, though it contains the falacy that there is a market for nuclear weapons in the absense of government. If there are in fact governments, then I'd have to say option 2.

[Hatman 🍁]

option nine of course. Weapons should only be in the posession of the police, the military and olympic shooting teams.

[Bono]

option nine of course. Weapons should only be in the posession of the police, the military and olympic shooting teams.

How are people suposed to aquire enough markmenship to get into the olympics, if they can only have acess to the fireamrs after they are qualified for the olympics?

[Hatman 🍁]

option nine of course. Weapons should only be in the posession of the police, the military and olympic shooting teams.

How are people suposed to aquire enough markmenship to get into the olympics, if they can only have acess to the fireamrs after they are qualified for the olympics?

Well, I meant the sport of shooting in general, as they have in the olympics.

[Emsworth]

Option 5

[WiseGuy]

Option Five.

[Frodo]

Option 5...from the top-down. 

[Gabu]

5 sounds good to me.

First one, though it contains the falacy that there is a market for nuclear weapons in the absense of government. If there are in fact governments, then I'd have to say option 2.

Why couldn't there be one?  I would imagine that if there was some slightly mentally unstable rich guy who got annoyed to no end by the children in a neighborhood, he could shell out some pocket change for a nuclear bomb, move far away from the neighborhood, and then obliterate the whole neighborhood with it to get back at the people who had tormented him.

I really cannot see how you could possibly feel that citizens owning nuclear weapons could benefit society.

[Everett]

OPTION ONE, LOL.

[MaC]

option 1-4 anywhere, just to piss off the anti-gun people.

Provincial Rights, how am I supposed to shoot border jumping Canucks down if I don't have a gun?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Option 6. Definitely no more than option 5.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Somewhere between 7 and 8.

[Ebowed]

Option 4.

[John Dibble]

Provincial Rights, how am I supposed to shoot border jumping Canucks down if I don't have a gun?

Place pictures of George Bush along the border with the caption "Yes, he's still President here" - problem solved.

[opebo]

No guns, except hunting rifles, and those strictly licensed.  Just emulate Europe, as in so many things.

[Gabu]

Provincial Rights, how am I supposed to shoot border jumping Canucks down if I don't have a gun?

Place pictures of George Bush along the border with the caption "Yes, he's still President here" - problem solved.

See?  See!?  You don't need guns!

[jokerman]

Option 4

[Hatman 🍁]

option 1-4 anywhere, just to piss off the anti-gun people.

Provincial Rights, how am I supposed to shoot border jumping Canucks down if I don't have a gun?

Does such a thing exist?

[??????????]

option 1-4 anywhere, just to piss off the anti-gun people.

Provincial Rights, how am I supposed to shoot border jumping Canucks down if I don't have a gun?

Does such a thing exist?

No, such things do not exist, prude.

[Hatman 🍁]

option 1-4 anywhere, just to piss off the anti-gun people.

Provincial Rights, how am I supposed to shoot border jumping Canucks down if I don't have a gun?

Does such a thing exist?

No, such things do not exist, prude.

Didn't think so. See, you dont need a gun to kill non existant illegal Canadian aliens.

[Bono]

5 sounds good to me.

First one, though it contains the falacy that there is a market for nuclear weapons in the absense of government. If there are in fact governments, then I'd have to say option 2.

Why couldn't there be one?  I would imagine that if there was some slightly mentally unstable rich guy who got annoyed to no end by the children in a neighborhood, he could shell out some pocket change for a nuclear bomb, move far away from the neighborhood, and then obliterate the whole neighborhood with it to get back at the people who had tormented him.

I really cannot see how you could possibly feel that citizens owning nuclear weapons could benefit society.

A nuclear bomb is very expensive to make, and it wouldn't be profitable, as production of it to be actually profitable you'd need the economies of scale provided by massive government orders.
If the only market atomic bonb producers would be the ocasional crazy millionaire once a year, which is praxeologically insignificant, I doubt they could survive.
Aditionaly, the rich guy would be liable for the damage he did, which I don't think he'd be interested in.

[Rob]

Option 3.

[minionofmidas]

5 sounds good to me.

First one, though it contains the falacy that there is a market for nuclear weapons in the absense of government. If there are in fact governments, then I'd have to say option 2.

Why couldn't there be one?  I would imagine that if there was some slightly mentally unstable rich guy who got annoyed to no end by the children in a neighborhood, he could shell out some pocket change for a nuclear bomb, move far away from the neighborhood, and then obliterate the whole neighborhood with it to get back at the people who had tormented him.

The fewer people like that, the higher the price. In the absence of governments, this guy would have had to pay the entire development cost of nukes, since nukes wouldn't have been invented without (competing) government in the first place.
Like 99% of imaginable products, nukes would not exist in a free market. Nor would the internet. Nor would telephones.

[Democratic Hawk]

Option 7

Dave