What would happen...


PDA






bogie
July 13, 2008, 01:41 PM
...if we tossed all 20,000 gun laws out the windows... No 4473s, no ATF, nothing... Went back to selling machine guns mail order, etc., etc...

I suspect there would be a wee bit of criminal upon criminal violence, a few folks with mullets would darwin each other, and that'd be pretty much it...

If you enjoyed reading about "What would happen..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SaxonPig
July 13, 2008, 01:45 PM
I really don't think there would be any difference at all. Any criminal who wants a gun now can get one. Laws only hinder the law-abiding.

chaim
July 13, 2008, 01:51 PM
Like Saxon Pig, I'm not sure much would happen. Criminals can already get stolen guns easier than we can get legal guns. Most law abiding citizens who want guns already have them (if they can afford them).

On the other hand, there would be a small impact on crime. No more CCW restrictions, there would be a lot more people carrying. I'd get to carry here in MD and I know of quite a few other people who would as well. As the statistics show, when a state goes CCW violent crime usually goes down (while non-violent property crimes like car theft go up a bit- the criminals pick safer targets). So, violent crime would probably go down somewhat in those states that don't already have shall issue (or VT style) CCW laws.

There would be more full-auto guns in circulation since new full-autos would be legal again making them cheaper, and even for old ones we would no longer need to pay the $200 tax. How many more, I'm not sure. I don't know how much demand there is for full-auto (what percentage of gun owners had them before the 1934 registry, or before the 1986 ban on registering new full-autos).

Zoogster
July 13, 2008, 02:04 PM
Would be a few problems initialy as people not used to having such responsibilities had to learn.

Within a short time things would not be much different than now.


You cannot stop criminal on criminal violence.

The best ways that was dealt with in American history was legalized duels. All hotheads that would likely pose a danger to others killed themselves off as young adults. Those who could swallow thier pride and reserved the use of deadly force for self defense or dealing with tyrants lived longer.
Only those who mutualy agreed participate in them, so if you don't like duels, then don't agree to one.

Just imagine if you suddenly allowed all gang members to legaly kill eachother, but in a way that posed no danger to innocent people.


Further drugs were legal. As a result they were cheap. Many of what would have been society's trouble makers simply spent thier free time high on laudanum, opium etc and didn't have to commit crimes on a regular basis to afford that habit.
They cared very little about guns, crimes, or even politics. They were not out funding massive criminal organizations, gangs, or the reason for a police state and changes in laws to facilitate it.
Sure you wouldn't want many around, but the equivalent of a few more drunk alcoholics sure beats all the violence we have now instead.
Of course people rode horses then too, so the horse did some of the driving.



Combine those two things with widespread legal possession and carry of firearms and the criminal element practicly disappears.
There is still a few that attempt the major robberies, the train robbers of the day, but for the most part most violent crime and the factors behind it go away.

They didn't need restrictions on the types of firearms people could have, who could own cannons or the latest in small arms technology. They didn't even need prohibited persons. As a result they didn't need background checks or other hassles.
Guess what? The crime per capita was much lower than it is today.
You hear a lot about the "wild west" but it was actualy less wild per capita than today, go figure.

jerkface11
July 13, 2008, 02:26 PM
I suspect my ammo budget would go thru the roof.

GlowinPontiac
July 13, 2008, 02:28 PM
I dont think much would change. maybe a few more ranges would open to cater to the larger amount of gun owners.

Big45
July 13, 2008, 02:39 PM
My inventory would change significantly.

PotatoJudge
July 13, 2008, 03:05 PM
Most guns would go down in price. We'd see both improved high end and junk suppressors on the market, from dirt cheap toys to expensive quality. More guns would be made with threaded barrels. Ammo prices would be up as people burn through it with autos, hopefully offset by an influx of surplus ammo when importation bans are lifted. The overall firearms industry would see a large upswing, which would be countered somewhat by civil lawsuits when people with full-auto pistols shoot themselves and all the other stupid stuff people will do until they learn how to handle their new toys. Hopefully the surplus market would go nuts with an influx of assault weapons and ammo. We may see harsher regulation on hunting methods and equipment to keep it "traditional" or make things more "fair" for the animals (as if they knew it was a "sport" they're participating in).The market would see an upswing in WWII autos as people are able to take them out of hiding and do something with them. The Thompson Contender would see a resurgence as people take all those 8-14 in barrels and turn them into SBRs.

El Tejon
July 13, 2008, 03:16 PM
Criminals can already kill each other regardless of the law. The mullets will always do stupid things regardless of the law.

No impact on any crime rate. Crime in certain areas would decrease (large urban areas).

Mark K. C.
July 13, 2008, 03:59 PM
First thing to happen would be getting a bigger safe.

neviander
July 13, 2008, 04:02 PM
Laws only hinder the law-abiding.
Aye, laws are for the lawless.

In the first month there would probably be a lot of accidental shootings from every Tom, Dick and Harry that would buy a gun with NO prior gun experience and no intention of learning from someone that does...after the first month they'd probably wise up :)

Mark K.C. nice sig line!

ceetee
July 13, 2008, 04:31 PM
I'd imagine there are thousands of people now that are both not legally allowed to purchase a firearm, and not well connected enough into the criminal element to obtain one on the black market. These people would then be able to buy guns, and you would see a sharp rise in criminal and non-criminal use of the guns they bought.

"Thousands" being a statistically insignificant number in a population of three hundred million, these incidents would prompt a spate of "See? We told ya so..." news stories, but little else would change.

VARifleman
July 13, 2008, 04:34 PM
If they aren't connected well enough with the criminal element, they would likely be part of the group that is barred from use by an arbitrary law despite them having no real risk factor of violence.

TallPine
July 13, 2008, 04:38 PM
The NRA would have to lay off a bunch of people.

VARifleman
July 13, 2008, 05:06 PM
It would be fewer people than GOA or the Bradys would have us believe, as the NRA does do much more than just fight bad legislation. That is assuming they keep their staff for the NRA the same size and cut their NRA-ILA staff. This is not likely as with a larger number of people more easily getting involved in shooting and shooting sports, the size of the NRA would have to grow, employing former NRA-ILA staff if they wished.

TAB
July 13, 2008, 05:08 PM
best guess 5-10 years of increased violance, then back to same old same old.

Kind of Blued
July 13, 2008, 05:22 PM
It would solve our over-crowded prison problem.

It would fix our economy, then probably bring it to the strongest it has ever been.

There would be a rise in violence for a period of time and most of the people who respect neither life, liberty, nor happiness would either expire or learn to respect their fellow man.

Americans would become Americans again, free from a powerful and possibly tyrannical government.

People would be more polite to each other.

Anti-gun folks would say the same thing they always say, and be wrong again, just like every other time.

And last, but not least, while the economy thrived, I would remain on the precipice of poverty.

yesit'sloaded
July 13, 2008, 06:35 PM
The NRA would become the sanctioning body of most if not all shooting sports. More criminals would die. Drug gangs would become private armies (as if they are not already on the southern border). Stupid people would die. Immature kids would shoot each other more. Reloading supplies would be sold everywhere. The antis might actually leave the country. That's about it.

Ric
July 14, 2008, 11:24 AM
If everybody shot back, noone would get robbed.

ZeSpectre
July 14, 2008, 12:34 PM
I suspect there would be a brief period of INCREASED violence and crime as the criminals engaged in a last orgy of looting and such before the laws vanished with a -poof-.

Then we'd have a brief spike in deaths as the slow-to-learn segment of the criminal population caught up with current events.

Then things would probably settle down considerably with the vast majority of folks remaining unarmed or armed as they currently are.

fatelk
July 14, 2008, 01:12 PM
I'm not sure I agree with the general consensus in this thread, as much as I would like to.

I've come to realize that every society needs strong governmental control to function well. Before you all get too excited, I mean either internal or external government. By internal I mean within each person: conscience, morals, whatever it is inside you that tells you to do right instead of wrong no matter who is watching. By external of course I mean a strong government/police presence coming down hard on lawbreakers, sending them to Siberia or whatever.

I believe that earlier in the history of our nation, the whole idea was to have weak external government because most of the population had a much stronger internal government. Freedom doesn't mean you just do what you feel like whenever you want. That's anarchy, and it's not good.

A truly free people have some decency and self control. They know you don't rob, rape, and steal because it's wrong. They know substance abuse, prostitution, etc. is wrong because of what it does to your mind, body, family, and society as a whole.

They also know that if you own a gun you need to be responsible with it, learn how to use it and store it properly, because it's the right thing to do, not because big brother tells you to. Way too many people nowdays wait for big brother to tell them what to do, instead of knowing right from wrong on their own. Take away big brother and they just go nuts.

Like most here, I believe that ideally the only gun laws should concern the misuse, not ownership, of firearms. In the real world in our nation today, I suspect we have deteriorated past that. Certain parts of the country would be little affected by the sudden repeal of all gun laws, whereas for others it would be disasterous.

P.S. I suppose I'll be flamed for "moralism", but I think that would just illustrate my point.

Rokyudai
July 14, 2008, 01:16 PM
The "Legal" section of THR would look like church on Super Bowl Sunday?

Seancass
July 14, 2008, 01:38 PM
Almost every lawful citizen who willingly doesn't own a gun right now(the anti's?) would still not own a gun. All the small time criminals would go out and buy guns and would increase their business, preying on the anti's with relative ease. The anti's still refusing to buy a gun, which is now even more hated. Some criminals would be killed in the line of work, but mostly by other criminals or police who are now more trigger happy. Big time criminals would go out and buy machine guns or boxes of Glock fotays because they can already aford them. Gangs would feel more threatened by eachother and have wars in city streets, but those would only last so long. They would then take on the next thing between them and power, the police. The gangs and thugs would see a power-vacuum and think they where the ones that could fill it, if everybody has a gun, it's all equal. Somebody would start making missle launchers, because they're just fun. I would buy a suppressor and a machine gun once prices settled down. Ammo would go through the roof as demand increased.

I don't think it would be happy days. There are bad people in this world. The worst of them in this country do already have access to guns, but they don't need them when other people do all the work for them. There are others who just need a window or a tipping point for them to take an opportunity. Things would settle down eventually, but i don't think it would be as nice and easy as many of you suggest.

Gordon Fink
July 14, 2008, 02:16 PM
Very little would change on the surface. Legal ownership of firearms would increase slightly as those who couldn’t be bothered before ordered their handguns and shotguns from Amazon, but criminal violence would change very little (other than a minor downward adjustment) as the criminal element has never been much bothered by gun-control laws.

Politically, we could have a sea change. With the gun issue resolved favorably, we could push for freedom in other areas, and that could have a real impact on quality of life in the United States. Of course, “gun violence” is only a symptom of these underlying problems.

~G. Fink

Old Grump
July 14, 2008, 02:25 PM
NRA would grow as demand for shooting ranges and shooting classes soared. ER's would be busier for awhile while the accident prone weeded themselves out of the gene pool and violent crime would drop like a rock when muggers and burglars started developing leaks in their formerly watertight carcasses. Drive by shootings would become a thing of the past when 10 people drew on and fired at the shooters car as it passed them. Hard to concentrate on who you are shooting at if everybody within gun range is shooting at you. Would be hard to find drivers who would subject their cars and themselves to that kind of treatment. No more school, church, mall and day care center mass shootings if the masses all shoot at the shooter. No more flying airplanes into tall buildings. No more road rage. Colt really does make everybody equal.

Rachen
July 14, 2008, 02:52 PM
We would see lesser and lesser criminal activity, finally to a point of where there is almost no crimes anymore? Why? because every time a criminal attempts to assault or hurt someone, they would face armed response. Within a few years, most criminals would be most likely killed or wounded by armed citizens, or rounded up and thrown into prison.

If we are to legalize all guns, remember, we better crack down on gun CRIME. I want to be able to own any weapon I want. HOWEVER, if anybody decides to commit evil with these weapons, the law better come down on the criminals themselves as hard as an axe. That means prison, NO PAROLE, and Bubba in the next cell. Simple as that.

In the present day, it is completely the opposite:barf: Guns are restricted, while criminals who commit crimes with guns are walking the streets as freely as you and me and any other normal person.:barf:

BruceB
July 14, 2008, 04:04 PM
Fatelk is right, we DO need some control mechanisms, and most posters are missing a huge point.

The original post referred specifically to the "20,000 GUN laws". Removing all the gun laws would not remove laws on murder, rape, assault, terrorism or legions of other evils.

In two different communities, I have seen the results when the police went on strike, which amounted to suspending ALL the laws for a short time...just 24 hours in one case, and a couple of days in the other. It was mayhem, and no sane person would take a vehicle out of his driveway. 80 or 90 mph speeders on residential streets, booze parties on (ON!) major intersections, traffic lights shot out or blown up, break-ins and beatings galore, the "bar scene" totally out of control with knifings and gang fights, you name it. All this started-up INSTANTLY with the beginning of the strikes.

If the gun laws were voided, we'd still have the police presence, but we also have the barely-restrained nut fringes of society just waiting for their opportunity. "It'll die down soon", say some. Maybe so, but who's going to explain to the families of the victims that are harmed or killed as we wait for it "die down"?

Personally, I'd much prefer to see a good, simple, CONSISTENT set of sane gun laws country-wide in our land, which would ease the legal uses for the good folks and REALLY smack-down the evil and crooked.

On the issue of bringing back dueling, "There is no honor among thieves", which lets-out the crooks as far as the "Code Duello" goes, and it could lead to those who simply want to kill developing higher-than-average abilities just for killing purposes, and embarking on a career of semi-"legal" murder. This situation has already occurred in history, and I have no doubt it would arise again.

After my fifty years of living in Canada, believe me, we here in the USA have it better than many are aware.......MUCH better, even with the current mish-mash of wildly-varying gun laws. Would I like it better with some good changes? You betcha. As it is, I'm in shooter heaven compared to that socialistic country to our North.

Brian Dale
July 14, 2008, 09:04 PM
Ammo prices would increase for a while, until manufacturing capacity caught up with demand.

It would be worth it.

neviander
July 14, 2008, 09:30 PM
The "Legal" section of THR would look like church on Super Bowl Sunday?
Now that's funny.

Crunker1337
July 14, 2008, 10:02 PM
I think that there would be a brief (five years, tops, no more) period of dramatically increased violence along the border, among gangsters, and in dangerous parts of the country.
After that though, things would either level out or get better as people start to take a stand against crime.

Hopefully, things would get better in schools as well.

TexasRifleman
July 14, 2008, 10:04 PM
Well the deadliest school murder was in 1928, back when you could buy all the guns you want through mail order.

Oh.... wait..... that crime didn't involve any guns........

KiltedClaymore
July 14, 2008, 10:25 PM
id go broke

strat81
July 14, 2008, 10:38 PM
The sky would fall. ;)

Neo-Luddite
July 14, 2008, 11:20 PM
What would happen...

The NRA could cease wasting money on lobbying and could return to it's former occupation as a promotor and sanctioning body for the shooting sports.

-and-

Mayors Fenty and Daley could go ommmph off somewhere else with lil' gov. Blago sucking his thumb behind
them. Oh, wait--they all seem to be doing that already since Heller came down...

--and--

The 'Million Moms' that remain active could learn bridge to keep busy *IF* they could find a fourth person to play with them.



The non-gun people would never notice or care as they are largly convinced that everyone can just buy class III's at some mystical 'gun store' or 'gun show' or 'easily convert' any non machine gun into one with a popsicle stick anyway.



And the gun nuts would quickly find out that full-auto isn't all that big of a mystical deal. Fun, but burns ammo like a big block v8 with dual quads eats gas.

Brian Dale
July 15, 2008, 01:23 AM
The 'Million Moms' that remain active could learn bridge to keep busy *IF* they could find a fourth person to play with them.{...after a while, Brian gets up and climbs back into his chair, gasping for breath}

siglite
July 15, 2008, 01:24 AM
Of course, the black panthers would arm themselves with M240s and open fire on cities wholesale. And politicians would be executed left and right. (GCA68 anyone?)

:rolleyes:

It all goes back to racist fear.

Golden Hound
July 15, 2008, 01:47 AM
The NRA would become the sanctioning body of most if not all shooting sports. More criminals would die. Drug gangs would become private armies (as if they are not already on the southern border). Stupid people would die. Immature kids would shoot each other more. Reloading supplies would be sold everywhere. The antis might actually leave the country. That's about it.

Gah, "private armies." Send in the Marines and we'll see how tough the Mexican drug gangs' "private armies" are.

If we actually got the balls to DO something about it, we could shut down every drug running operation on the border within a week. Ditto for any gang-army that might form in this hypothetical future.

Caimlas
July 15, 2008, 02:09 AM
Aside from a slight uptick in gang violence, as well as previously-mostly-benign gangs getting into the violence gig, I suspect there'd be a marked decrease in crime.

RP88
July 15, 2008, 02:43 AM
the petty crimes committed to steal the guns would disappear. The violence would increase mildly at the worst, before you start seeing old granny out on the porch with her AK making sure the skateboard punks don't throw fireworks at her mailbox ever again. Then, it would be a very awkward time of the same ol' 'guns are bad HUUUUUR!!!' versus 'state and individual rights, and we have more money than you HUUUUURR!!!" debates.

Wildfire
July 15, 2008, 03:10 AM
Hey there:
Zoogster may have a good idea. Why not ? lets make a place near each large city and put up signs, (I make signs) That say leagal killing fields for gang bangers. Let them weed them selves out. We could even offer free grave sites. May the best shooters win.

They do not want to buy guns anyway . They would rather steal them.
Not much of a gang banger if ya had to go "buy" a gun. Oh well they are gonna do what they are gonna do. Our government has never even try'd to put an end to that type of thing. They are too busy keeping you and I in line.

Smith
July 15, 2008, 03:20 AM
I'd be living off bread and water.

If you enjoyed reading about "What would happen..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!