ergo we must all surrender it to dear leader who shalt make it pure once more

all praise to dear leader

and any who failest to "surrender" all lands unto Dear Leader, shalt be declared Kulaks and slaughtered.

That's not an example of unregulated capitalism. Money is regulated.

who implied money?

no one did, but you even managed to mess that one up - as not all monies are regulated.

What are we pricing you at then?

or would you need a bag over your head and we need a few too many drinks first?

sometimes zero is still too high a bid.

And you have choices;

you can ignore the mafia, and they'll ignore you

you can choose which mob to use for each particular job - you don't have to wait for an election to see which bunch of clowns you are stuck with for the next x years.

and a mafioso knows - if he doesn't deliver on his promises, his rivals will gain and he'll become a joke.

Satism is mob rule, as in "the" mob, but with the assumption of total impunity.

If they can afford them, why not?

There was a very nice private tank collection auctioned off in the united state a couple of months back (The Littlefield collection, auctioned by Auctions America in July 2014). I don't see any problem with that.

"Weapon" is a concept, there is nothing intrinsic in any object or substance which somehow defines it as "weapon", whether that object is a stone on the ground, a fork in a restaurant, a tracked vehicle or an explosive charge.

A nuke is just a particularly size and weight efficeint explosive charge, for when you want a big blast.

Assuming that a civil engineering contractor or a mining contractor had a potentially proffitable use for a big bang in a small and very expensive package (for example one shot to fracture a whole porphry copper deposit ahead of insitu leaching) - why shouldn't they do it, subject to all of the usual tort claims if others suffered a loss?

If those guns are only in the hands of bad people then they are being used to do the things that bad people use guns to do

The usual statist response is "oh, but that's why we have cops" remember, when your future depends on seconds - the chubby boys and girls in blue are only minutes away...

are Chicago and DC cities without cops?
they have lots and lots of gun use by bad people doing what bad people use guns to do

they are also cities with a great number of onerous restrictions which are piled onto good people who want to own guns.

When that is pointed out, the usual response goes something along the lines of "but those restrictions are needed - things would be even worse without them" this is usually embellished with one or more of the following:
but think about the children,
Wild west shoot outs,
gunfights breaking out over parking spaces / roadrage incidents / school sports.

Whether you take things empirically, as john R Lott has done with county level data as gun posession and carry laws have gradually been relaxed over the past 30 years or so accross the united state.

Or whether you apply Misesian praxaeological reasoning.

The conclusion is the same; ordinary people are remarkably resistant to ever killing another human (this is well known in military circles too).

The possibility of meeting an armed (and hence potentially highly dangerous) target, acts as a significant deterrent on interpersonal agressors.

In answer to your question
so, what are the guns killing now?
I offer the observation that homicide rates, allong with other crime rates associated with an aggressor confronting a victim - have decreased in association with increased access to defensive guns.

Those guns in the hands of ordinary descent people are not killing, they are deterring the killings now.

Only if legal tender laws are used, and in very small areas, legal tender laws are almost impossible to enforce.

With free choice in currencies, individuals are free to use whatever non aggressive means they want to receive payment in their preferred currency, or to price their goods and services according to how easily the currency being offered can be exchanged for the amount sought in the currency which is preferred.

In one of Selgin's lectures, he cites a journal entry from an English circuit judge, complaining that his coins of the realm were only accepted at a heavy discount, compared to privately produced token coinage.

To a limited extent, that freedom actually applies now.

as an example, If you can have your borrowings denominated in a currency which is undergoing rapid debasement, and is expected to continue to do so for some time.

Let's say for example, your mortgage denominated in Japanese Yen, then you can have the poor suckers who are forced to use Yen every day, subsidizing your house purchase.

While you can seek currencies or assets which are better able to hold their exchange value, for any savings.

The house in the speculative Yen denominated mortgage would be an example of that.

Mises is Brilliant, but he does have limitations; he'd spent his first day job career in Austria as a policy adviser. Stuck with contemplating the fail of statist policies day after day, he really had not considered the possibilities of anarchy. He had enough on his plate without looking at anarchy. That said, he probably achieved more with what he did look at, than any other twentieth century economist achieved.

The later generations of the school have significantly built on the firm foundations laid by Menger, Bohm Barwerke and Mises, and exploring a fully free market is one of those areas of building.

Great as he was, sound economics neither started nor finished with Mises.

The original Lord Keynes, when refuted, would casually state "Oh that, I haven't believed that for quite a while"

The general theory is written in a very ambiguous manner, so there have been many interpretations amongst the followers of what Keynes might have meant.

The blogger calling himself "Lord Keynes" appears to operate in a simillar fashion. If you can come up with some unambiguous statements from him, rather than his usual unsuported "Austerians are wrong" I might have a go at it.

as for empirical refutations, how?

By definition, someone printing new paper base money, prints themselves purchasing power - they can exchange the new (next to nothing) for real goods and services, thus bidding them away from their most urgent uses on the market, and diluting the purchasing power of those who exchange on the market from actual production.

further expansion of that new base money by fractional reserving results in a lowering of the interest rate which had arisen by the interactions of savers of real resources, and tthe borrowers of those real resources.

On an undistorted market, forgoing present consumption in order to save for greater consumption later, allows resources freed up by lower present consumption to be used in the earlier stages of production, as longer more productive processes of production are created.

The savings are then used to buy the products of those longer processes.

Enter the distortions, and the lower rate of interest discourages saving, and encourages borrowing and present consumption.

No resources are freed up because present consumption is not being reduced - hence prices rise as borrowers bid those resources away from their most preferred uses - this is the overheating of the boom.

eventually when the monetary expansion slows, the market re-asserts, the borrowers can no longer afford to bid resources away from present consumption, it becomes apparent that there are no savings to pay for the products of the longer production systems, and that the projects will never make a profit - and must be liquidated.

People who had been enticed into working on these failed investments must find new jobs in line with what consumers are willing to pay for.

If you think that that can somehow be refuted, for example lower interest rates would somehow encourage more saving than ceteris paribus higher rates would

or that additional fiat money would somehow increase the purchasing power of existing holders of money, rather than diluting it

or that people would ceteris paribus, be more inclined to borrow with higher interest rates than they would at low interest rates

please fire away.

The "free rider problem "

What, you mean those evil, self serving, profit seeking capitalist pigs are providing excess service, and community benefits over and beyond what they are getting paid for?