Of course, we know already that the HL-7 and considerably more advanced weapons like the Prometheus (fully-out-of-phase bolts!?) and Kayser laugh this kind of crap off, thus invalidating your argument. You also seem to be confusing your desktop computer with something built to military standards of shock resistance.
The FS1 tech description seems to indicate that, aside from the "fully out of phase" thing (whatever the hell that means, and it might not even be present on the R), the Prometheus works in pretty much the same way as the ML-16--it's just an argon laser with more power. Also, the Kayser does not factor into this discussion at all. The Subach is an expensive weapon. The Kayser is an
incredibly expensive, limited-production "superweapon" that's in a class all its own (and a civilian would have a higher chance of owning a unicorn than a UD-8 Kayser). Also, shock is not the only thing that can damage electronics--EMPs (and with nuclear missiles and antimatter bombs flying around, there
will be EMPs in the combat zone), short circuits, and simple software gremlins can all turn your advanced weapon into a piece of junk. It's like saying an F-35 is cheap and easy to acquire because it's less than a tenth the cost of a B-2.
Citation needed. Technology does not sit still; the Avenger could quite easily be constructed out of very exotic materials and be an utter ***** to maintain even be the standards of the 2100s. It is, after all, a 45mm single barrel weapon firing 1600 rounds a minute (from plotholespace) for periods that are apparently indefinite. The materials science in designing such a thing is a step beyond modern technology easily, whereas we have the knowhow to build an HL-7 right now, we simply lack a power source.
Assuming, if we did get the power source, the HL-7 would not destroy itself (and everything within a kilometer or so) because we don't have anything like the sort of materials required for a terawatt-grade energy weapon. The Avenger is beyond modern technology, but the HL-7 is even further beyond modern technology, to the point where we could not build anything of that power that could survive being fired
once.
The HL-7 is over a decade old, they were in use in Operation Templar, and is no longer expensive, as it's been in active production for that decade. Economy of scale and the need for anti-shielding firepower long ago killed that argument. That they are in active service with the GTVA and their distribution is (possibly) controlled proves absolutely nothing about how uneconomical it is for civilians to use them. There are a lot of HL-7s about and they can be found wherever the GTVA is operating, thus it's relatively easy to locate a source of supply
A decade is new in terms of military designs. 40-50 years is old. The F-22A is 12 years old (the YF-22 is 18). Also, do you think civilians can just walk up to a GTVA armory and steal large spacecraft-mounted weapons from it? Are you
crazy? They won't even clap eyes upon them before being arrested or killed. Civilians will only have HL-7s if the GTVA lets them have them. Considering that it is a currently active service weapon using modern technology which may be partially classified, it won't. Try taking your pickup truck to an American air force base and making off with an M61 Vulcan. It will make for a very interesting obituary to say the least.
The ML-16 by contrast has been out of active production for whole units or parts for over two decades. This is not an assault rifle; it's a fighter gun. There are not tens of millions of them (and as already noted they used argon gas, apparently in short supply). Existing stocks of weapons and spare parts have long since been used up.
Assuming other suppliers are not building spare parts for them or the original manufacturers supplying parts for weapons not controlled by military contracts. Many Third World nations keep retired equipment like F-4s, F-5s, MiG-23s, Su-25s, and T-72s flying long after other nations abandon them. The technology is old and well understood.
You also fail to address the point that the HL-7 is not even remotely the GTVA's top weapon anymore. In comparison to things like the Kayser it's more or less obselete.
Irrelevant. The Kayser is not a mainstream service weapon and never will be. It's a toy for elite units and special ops. It will eventually be replaced by a similar, upgraded toy like the Banshee was. Just because it's not better than every other weapon doesn't mean the GTVA will sell them to anyone who wants them or, worse, let people take them. Ask Boeing if you can buy one of their F-15s (outclassed by the F-22 but still in service). I don't think they'll say yes. Hell, you can't even borrow F-15s for a movie without the DoD's approval, which is why a lot of movies without the budget for lots of CG planes use F-5s and other craft the USAF no longer uses.
Comparing modern social and law structures to FreeSpace is the height of lunacy. I really don't know how else to put it. We can talk science, just a little, because that's not anything like as mutable.
What else are we to compare them to? Something you pulled out of your ass? Utopian Marxism? Objectivism? Anarcho-syndicalism? How about the fact that the GTVA's government is pretty much a copy of the United Nations, a modern-day international legal institution? And if the rather disturbing hints of militarism of the GTA in FS1 is any indication (the GTA seems synonymous with its own military, military officers can summarily revoke your citizenship, etc.), the FreeSpace factions are, like all militarist, authoritarian states, even
more concerned about preventing military-grade weapons so as to preserve their military's supremacy over any potential uprisings.
I also suggest you look up the term "economy of scale" and find out what it means.
I also suggest you look up the term "government contract" and find out what it means. Military contractors don't just sell military equipment, the people they can legally sell to is strictly limited and the distribution of military products is controlled
very tightly. There is no reason why this should change in the future, not if governments have any sense.