Gun Political Issues Megathread. (Control for or Against?)

[LordsFire]

You do realise that there's more than just one guy, and the rich people are very rich indeed? If say, Bezos, Musk and Gates wanted to, they could outspend Russian defence expenditure. Now, they're among the richest for sure but they're not the only ones. Add in the rest of the mega rich elite, and a few corporations and you can easily beat India for third largest military budget globally, possibly even beat China for second place.

Now, sure they're not going to beat American spending without ruining themselves, but they don't need to defeat the US armed forces in battle to have a very powerful impact on policy.

No, they can't. They could probably get into the top 20, but not the top 5 or 3. An enormous part of their worth (the clear majority, though the % varies by individual) is the value of the stock they hold, not liquid cash sitting around to be spent.

Let's take the second most recent Supercarrier class, the Nimitz-class. They cost 9.55 Billion dollars to build according to Wikipedia. You're not going to get a Billionaire paying for the design, development, and production of a Supercarrier when they can buy a proven one for used instead.

Let's assume the 'sale' price is discounted to 8 Billion dollars.

Nimitz-class Carriers 80-90 choppers and fixed-wing aircraft, principally the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. Looking at an article on pricing, we get a per-unit price of 79.8 million.

The Nimitz itself is currently flying 3 squadrons of Super Hornets (and one more of regular Hornets). I didn't easily find specific numbers on how large a given squadron on the Nimitz is (probably for security reasons), but Squadron strength supposedly averages 12-24, so if we assume 18 for all 3, that's 54 total birds. 54 super bugs puts up another 4.3 billion to the cost.

The regular Hornet runs ~34.1 million per a 2018 number I found, so 18 of those adds another 614 million to your bill.

A squadron of EA-18 Growlers, assuming it's a smaller squadron because our carrier is running low on room, at 74.8 million a pop for 6 would run you 449 million.

6 E-2 Hawkeyes will run you somewhere around another 130 million.

Since SH-60 Seahawks were apparently sold at a price of 24 for 2.6 billion to India, it's reasonable to estimate 6 of them would cost ~650 million.

I couldn't find a good price on the C-2 Greyhound that does supply runs to Carriers, but at this point, it's pretty much gravy.

All combined, just your purchase cost, not the cost for operating, repairing, or supplying all of these things, runs you to about 14.1 billion. Yes, there's a decent number of Billionares who could pay for that, but only a handful who could do so without liquidating most of their shares in the various companies that earn them their money.

Now, for operating costs, a quick search found this article which says it's about 400 million a year to operate a Supercarrier.

That's a pretty damned big investment that's not going to be turning you any profit.

Let's say there's about five or six Billionares in the world who could actually afford that ( A list of filthy rich people) without losing the ability to pay to keep supporting it, and let's say Gates, Bezos, and Musk can each afford two of them.
So now what do these people do with them? To what purpose do they set them? How do they ensure loyalty among the crew, without patriotism or national ethos? Where do they recruit the highly-skill specialists to operate the hardware, and how do they retain them?

In a world where the US allowed defense manufacturers to sell any weapon to any US citizen (which amusingly all but 2 of the top 11 billionares are), what actual utility would they get out of something like a Supercarrier and its full complement?

 

[ShieldWife]

A lot of Bezos, Musk and gates wealth is tied up in investments, property and other things.

bill gates has around 150 billion dollars, Russia spends 69 billion dollars a year on their milatary.

running a milatary is expensive and going to be honest here countries have the advantage of patrotism that means they can get people to die for them more cheaply mercs are more expensive.

Lets use bill gates as the example.

He's not going to spend a billion dollars a year on his milatary not enough liquid assets to do that every year lets be generous and say he can afford half a billion dollars.

Thats about how much the armenian milatary costs. They have a fighting force of around 800,000 people.

Mercs cost more and you have to factor in getting bases, supplies and other things and the support personal which the general rule tends to be each fighting man needs around 10 support personal. So lets say he is able to get 100 thousand mercs because yes they are more expensive. Once you split off the support personal he's got 10,000 fighting men.

That's enough to knock over a small island country but in the grand sceem of things its not that impressive.

Even accepting the strange premise that the above scenario is only possible because of the 2nd Amendment, this also means that private citizens are going to be heavily armed too and that Bill Gates’ force of 10,000 mercenaries are going to encounter “a rifle behind each blade of grass” which would probably make most military operations unprofitable.

That is why when billionaires get tax payers to foot the bill when they want a place invaded.

 

[LindyAF]

You do realise that there's more than just one guy, and the rich people are very rich indeed? If say, Bezos, Musk and Gates wanted to, they could outspend Russian defence expenditure. Now, they're among the richest for sure but they're not the only ones. Add in the rest of the mega rich elite, and a few corporations and you can easily beat India for third largest military budget globally, possibly even beat China for second place.

Now, sure they're not going to beat American spending without ruining themselves, but they don't need to defeat the US armed forces in battle to have a very powerful impact on policy.

What? Most of Bezos, Musk, and Gates wealth is in the fact that they own significant portions of very valuable companies, it's not like they have a Scrooge-McDuck style room of gold or something. So I'm pretty sure most of that money isn't actually easily liquidateable. Especially Musk, because Tesla being worth more than Ford, Toyota, and VW combined or w/e it is right now is not... intuitive, and selling a substantial portion of his own stock risks reducing the value of what he doesn't sell.

Also, I really don't think you ran the numbers here. Each of the guys you listed is worth ~100 billion. Russian defense expenditure is ~65 million. So they could spend that for five years and be penniless at the end, (maybe 6-7 assuming they also take in income, but aren't going to be close to breaking even here). But Russia's paying for maintenance and updates, for the most part, on a military they already have, whereas your Bezos/Musk/Gates junta is going to have to be paying to build up.

Also, it isn't really a spending pissing match. An aircraft carrier wouldn't really help anyone enforce anything domestically. And on the individual level, it's not like what the military actually uses is that much more expensive than what we do. Sans restrictions, an M4 is an AR15 with an extra hole and a shorter barrel. Spending extra money on guns gives diminishing returns pretty fast. If Bill Gates has got a Daniel Defense, and everyone else's only got a DPMS, he might have a bit of an advantage but it's not really anything to write home about. Sure there are going to be some stuff that is useful in domestic conflicts that's a bit beyond the average person, but not much that's above the level of what a upper middle class could afford- e.g. a local well off doctor, not restricted to people on Wall Street.

 

[LindyAF]

Also, just occurred to me that in this scenario apparently the only thing stopping Bill Gates' social justice aircraft carrier from carpet bombing middle america or w/e... is laws against ownership of destructive devices or something. Really? You can't think of any other laws that might break?

 

[ShieldWife]

Another thing to consider is that if Bill Gates builds this naval fleet, if he wants to use it for anything more than sailing around the world selling PCs, he is going to have to probably match or exceed the value of his carrier in providing for his defense. If he actually uses his small private military to kill people, he will put himself in serious danger of retaliation.

 

[PsihoKekec]

This is starting to remind me of the backstory for Strike Commander. Unrealistic, but fun.
BTW

 

[Captain X]

Because the importation of guns from other countries are limited by the U.S. government to keep international manufactures from driving domestic weapons manufactures out of business?

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with the right to block imports delegated to the government by the constitution.

Yeah, well it's driven up the price on SKS's to a ridiculous amount. Even Mosin Nagant's are well over $300 for a good one now.

 

[Megadeath]

Jeez, cbf to argue the same hyperbolic point with the nth autistic nitpicker making the same point. So, let's bring the argument back:

People think they should be allowed more unfettered access to arms, so they can exert influence on the government/resist government influence. Unfettered access to more advanced weaponry favours those who can afford the best weapons. The people with the most money do not agree with your views and beliefs.

Ergo, loosening arms restrictions inherently does more to strengthen the ability of people you disagree with to influence the government.

 

[LindyAF]

Except, as I mentioned earlier, the world doesn't work like some retarded video game, dude. The gun you get per dollar tapers off pretty fairly quickly. A $4000 dollar AR is slightly more accurate than a $500 dollar one, but the difference is minor and they're practically interchangeable.

When people are in favor of dramatically loosening restrictions in America, what we are generally talking about most is the Hughes Amendment. The Hughes Amendment artificial restrictions the supply of machine guns (by preventing more from being created), driving up the price. Paying to "step up" from a modern semiauto rifle to a pre-1986 fully automatic one, you are actually paying for significant functionality that you do not have.

However, full autos are still available. They're just much more expensive, pricing most people out of them, but the people with the most money can get them easily right now if they want to, whereas someone like me wouldn't have the money to do so realistically. But the price is reflective of the restriction, not anything about the materials or the manufacturing, so loosening this restriction would actually dramatically reduce the price difference, in effect leveling the playing field.

 

[Megadeath]

@LindyAF Uh huh... Except my posts initially are in response to people talking about making armed tanks, cruise missiles, destroyers, or even nuclear weapons legal. So, none of what you said was actually relevant to that.

 

[LindyAF]

@LindyAF Uh huh... Except my posts initially are in response to people talking about making armed tanks, cruise missiles, destroyers, or even nuclear weapons legal. So, none of what you said was actually relevant to that.

This is the post your first comment in this vein was responding to

Pretty much every single time any kind of "reasonable" restriction has been implemented or proposed it has always been taken further then people expected and very, very rarely rolled back. No restrictions, they never end.

Doesn't appear to say anything about armed tanks, cruise missiles, destroyers, or nuclear weapons?

So, you'd be happy with the silicon valley varsity and Hollywood elite enforcing their ideas of social justice with their carrier task force? Bill Gates operating his own private army doesn't bother you? Have you considered at all who can afford the best equipment if all restrictions are lifted?

You're the one that started talking about planes, trains, and automobiles. Then when it was pointed out to you that the logistic concerns of the elites owning carriers would make it a totally non-viable option for them, and this became "a hyperbolic point." Then when I try to take it out of the realm of hyperbole, and show that your original objection doesn't really make any sense there either, now you were only discussing the hyperbolic scenario? Goalposts moving so quick I'm not sure whose are whose anymore.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

"PLEASE STAND BY"

Okay everyone! Do not reply to @Megadeath for 24 hours as he's threadbanned for throwing an insult and acting inciting in one or two post.

That being said. The man has a point about excessive replying to his post, and I ask other posters remember not to dogpile, even if they aren't saying something you agree with.

I ask that if another posters comments have already been replied to by at least three other members in a row, or in any meaningful amount to the point that you feel it's starting to dominate the thread, that you not add to that line of conversation any further until a reply has been made.

When Megadeath returns to this discussion keep that in mind.

Thank you.

***STATIC***

 

[Bear Ribs]

Were I wealthy I couldn't see buying an aircraft carrier but if I lost a few cargo ships to, say, the Somalian pirates, I wold most likely be down with buying a couple of machine guns and maybe something like a 76mm cannon as a deck gun for my freighters, throwing a weapons locker of rifles in and paying for a couple of weeks of range time for my sailors to learn to use them, and adding a couple extra guys to the crew as security who are trained for anti-boarding operations. This would mostly likely be* less expensive than replacing another lost ship (and ransoming the crew/paying death benefits) even counting insurance.

I mean, the store I was working in until COVID fired me had "must concealed carry" as a job requirement due to how often we'd faced armed robbers. It was just taken as a given, everybody was armed and the company payed for your CCW and a little range time to make sure you weren't a danger to your co-workers.

I could totally see extra-wealthy me buying a tank to tool around in for fun once in a while but I'd probably go for a boat instead since I'm very fond of water, and it's hard to find a warship that doesn't need half the population of Nebraska to run so I'd probably skip military hardware just for fun.

*Source: Complete conjecture as I'm not sure how much refitting a cargo ship might need to reinforce a gun mount for a light cannon, nor how I could figure that out.

 

[Zachowon]

I again just wanna own a fully working tank

 

[bullethead]

When people are in favor of dramatically loosening restrictions in America, what we are generally talking about most is the Hughes Amendment. The Hughes Amendment artificial restrictions the supply of machine guns (by preventing more from being created), driving up the price. Paying to "step up" from a modern semiauto rifle to a pre-1986 fully automatic one, you are actually paying for significant functionality that you do not have.

Well, yes, but also no. The real thing gun people want gone is the National Firearms Act of 1934, which is what inflicts the restrictions on suppressors, barrel length, overall length, and machine guns (besides the Hughes Amendment).

Sure, repealing the Hughes Amendment will drop the price on machine guns, but getting rid of the bureaucratic hurdles imposed by the NFA would have a much bigger net positive benefit.

 

[Doomsought]

Please don’t strawman me when I say mentally ill I refer to school shooter types not people with ocd. I mean we don’t wait until after a terrorist attacks before we stop them we would ideally catch them before they enter the country and if not that before build the bomb. Why not take the same option with serial killers?

School shooters are mostly sane. They are just bullied and their bullying is condoned by the school to the extent that they come to the logical conclusion that the whole school is out to torture them and their only path to justice is killing the people whom have conspired to torture them.

 

[BlackDragon98]

Should a veteran diagnosed with PTSD be banned from owning a gun?

I dunno, but Chris Kyle's death stands out as an example of why people would want to ban people with PTSD from having guns.

 

[LindyAF]

Well, yes, but also no. The real thing gun people want gone is the National Firearms Act of 1934, which is what inflicts the restrictions on suppressors, barrel length, overall length, and machine guns (besides the Hughes Amendment).

Sure, repealing the Hughes Amendment will drop the price on machine guns, but getting rid of the bureaucratic hurdles imposed by the NFA would have a much bigger net positive benefit.

Yes, this is a good point. I was using loosening restrictions on machine guns as an example of a dramatic loosening of restrictions and sort of the outer edge of what's realistic in the short to medium term (absent massive political change/upheaval). I think if at any point we have the political capital that we can be pushing for eliminating the restrictions on machine guns, we'll have already gotten as many suppressors and SBRs as we want.

Notably, though, I think all the things you mention have the same property that machine guns do for the purposes of my argument- they're things that are currently available, just at inflated price due to restrictions and special taxes placed upon them. Making it so you don't need a tax stamp for a suppressor or an SBR doesn't really make it any easier for Bill Gates to get one, since $200 is pocket change to him, but it does make it so the average American has an easier time getting one.

 

[Captain X]

So apparently the House Democrats recently managed to pass a couple of their gun control bills, one of which was basically about creating a registry under the guise of a "universal background check" and also increases wait time, and they even got some RINOs on board with it. Figures.

 

[PsihoKekec]

I dunno, but Chris Kyle's death stands out as an example of why people would want to ban people with PTSD from having guns.

That's like saying that anyone who doesn't have 20/20 vision should be banned from owning a motor vehicle.