Minority Rights

[Michael McMahon]

A helmet is not bullet proof anyway. If a helmet was thick enough to defeat a bullet, it would probably break the wearer's neck with the weight.

True but if you've a 30% chance with a helmet then you'll have a guaranteed 0.1% chance of surviving a headshot without one. A civilian under threat might be able to conceal body armour under their clothes but for aesthetic and weight-bearing reasons there's no way an everyday citizen could wear a helmet to town.

A helmet might save you from smaller or lower-speed bullets:


You'd have to be careful not to take it off if you're admiring your luck while still exposed:


"There is really no such thing as bulletproof helmets or any armor for that matter. There are bullet-resistant helmets and armor, but helmets that are positively bulletproof, meaning they will stop every single bullet fired into them is a misuse of the term bulletproof." (hardheadveterans com)

 

[Michael McMahon]

Anti-tank rifles were already obsolescent at the start of WWII
However it wasn't their accuracy that made them so, but their inability to cause enough damage to armored vehicles

However, heavy man-portable rifles still exist in the world's armories, indeed there's a Hungarian anti-material rifle that the British army is reportedly buying

A tank could have a crew of four and so to make a fair comparison you'd need a four-man team; each with anti-tank rifles. Now the damage will be multiplied. This should be sufficient to immobilise the tank even if they don't destroy it completely. However you'd need a specially selected anti-tank squad to achieve a knock-out blow with additional close-range submachine gunners and long-range rifleman to neutralise any infantry surrounding the enemy tanks. These tactics are unavailable to lone individuals which undermines arguments for civilian gun ownership outside of gun clubs and militias. A tank is too heavy to be towed away in the middle of a battle. The crew will eventually have to expose themselves and abandon ship:


Saving Private Ryan - Meeting Ryan

 

[Michael McMahon]

Er, the inability to build one stops the VAST majority of people
You included.

To construct an illegal gatling gun you merely need to stack a few legal guns on top of each other and twist them around without even needing to dissassemble the barrels.



6 barrel AR15 Gatling Gun vs Propanes

 

[Michael McMahon]

Not a nuclear device.

Terror groups can contain highly-educated members to construct explosives. Just because the average criminal tends to be undereducated doesn't mean there aren't intelligent criminals. Education alone isn't proof that you're a good person and anyone can be corrupted. A criminal could have the same IQ as a terrorist bomb-maker and evil individuals can come from every economic class and education level. In fiction there's the stereotype of the evil genius as much as there is the poor thief. Therefore society shouldn't underestimate the lengths that murderers and mass shooters will go to in order to inflict mayhem. If it's physically possible to build gatling guns then any college graduate could probably find the tools to piece it together if the constituent barrels are legal.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Wildly dual wielding AR15s is possible when either the victims are unarmed or the target group is so densely packed that accuracy isn't an issue.

I think I finally found a thread topic you can I can agree upon.

(2:51-3:25 for dual wielded shotguns)

 

[Michael McMahon]

Actually, in my last example I used .51 caliber, as that was the caliber used by the big game hunting air rifles in the Field and Stream article.

Umarex AirSaber: Range Time With the All-New Bolt-Action Arrow Rifle

"It's a high pressure airgun that shoots arrows... That's going to produce over 450fps right out of the muzzle... Somewhere between 25 and 40 foot pounds... You can get almost 40 shots at over 3000psi (pound per square inch)."

I've never even heard of an airbow before now but it shows that less dangerous weaponry than guns can still be effective against body armour when it has the momentum of an arrow behind its tip.

"The accuracy of the airbow is far better than the crossbow or any compound bow. It shoots arrows like shooting a bullet so you can shoot accurately in greater distance."
https://dayoutgear.com/airbow-vs-crossbow/

 

[Michael McMahon]

You can ban people carrying them by insisting that they must have a reasonable reason for carrying one.

A challenge with enforcing bans on blunt weapons is that they can be hidden in cars. The police might have some chance frisking people on the street but it'd be very time-consuming to stop and search cars. Also a sly criminal could invent an alibi* such as having a baseball bat in the boot for a sporting practice session even if they meant it as a weapon.

*I'd originally written lullaby which is a soothing song for a baby. I hope no one else gets confused by these terms! It reminds me of when I was a child and said I got stung by a jellyfish's testicles rather than tentacles.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Any projectile(s) that can defeat modern body armor, are definitely not non-lethal, or less-than-lethal.

A consideration is that a criminal who surrenders after being hit with a flechette or an arrow could get immediate medical aid to stop the bleeding. A soldier in a battle would be at mucher greater risk of dying from the same wound due to a lack of assistance.