What "if"

remember, it is one thing to lift all regulation, but another to see people flocking toward guns as if the deregulation changed their, largely, ignorant opinions.

Good point, Funder B.

I'll go further.

Practically everyone in this country who wants a gun, already has one -- whether he's supposed to have one or not. Removing restrictions would not encourage many new purchases -- unless gun coupons were distributed to stimulate the economy.

I was talking just last night with a friend disqualified from gun ownership. He was listening in to a conversation between me and a fellow marksmanship enthusiast. He commented that he couldn't have any, which I already knew, but the fact didn't seem to bother him much -- even though he has reason to fear for his life. And I'm pretty sure he doesn't own any illegal guns. If someone is disqualified but wants one, he'll get one. If not, not. Removing the restrictions would let a few honest guys who now can't and don't have one get one, but they are few and far between.

Would you really want to have your 'hood turn into places like that?

Click to expand...

Oh... I guess it was you who created the notion of our society turning into that of a war torn wasteland like Somalia.

Johnny, I dont know if your being sarcastic but I know people who have farms out in the middle of no where and their children can carry on their property for essentially the same reason as you did.

Now I would still say 18-21 to carry. Of course, there would be exceptions like what you were doing on a private farm.

Honestly, I think it wouldn't be near as positive as you think. Sure some of us responsible folks would be able to own some pretty neat guns. But, let's look at some other doors opened by this.....

what do you think would happen if the whole world dropped their firearm ownership / carry restrictions?

With an age restriction as the ONLY barrier, you're opening the door to felons, repeat offenders, rapists, terrorists, loose cannons, mentally warped, clinically insane, and other folks who might not necessarily need guns. Not only would they have access to guns, they'd have access to very formidable guns. I can think of some 6 year olds I'd trust more with a loaded gun than some of the previously mentioned folks.

The idea that "gangbangers will kill themselves off" is not only off base, but doesn't take into account the collateral damage from something like that transpiring. A decent portion of people killed in gang shootouts are by-standers, not gang bangers. With the drug laws the way they are today, "gang banging" will not just go away. That's like assuming fraud and embezzlement will go away. Someone will replace them. When you have something on the black market that you can sell at 1000% markup, and make in day what you'd normally make in a month, you think people won't jump in to replace them? While all well and good, catching drug dealers isn't eliminating the problem, it's just eliminating THAT problem. A new problem takes that guy's place.

Would I love to own a full auto? Of course. That's like asking a sports car owner if he'd be interested in driving a Lamborghini. Of course he would. But would I be willing to allow everyone over 18 access to Class 3 weapons just so I can have one? Not so much.

Take this case and apply it to something closer to home. Do I believe we should remove all rules and requirements at the shooting range? Would that make things better or worse? How about removing speed limits and traffic lights? Sure some responsible folks like us could have a little more flexibility and fun, but the down side could be much more serious.

I'm not for more legislation, regulation and all that mess, but I don't believe total anarchy is the answer either. Am I in favor of a proposed AWB? No. Am I in favor limiting magazine capacity? No. Do I believe that everyone should be allowed access to everything they want just because they want it? No.

People here and elsewhere would still complain about the price of guns they wanted being 'gouging' and extol the virtue of thrift over getting what they truly wanted.

The same 'why would I buy that' mentality would persist, the whole 'what do you need that for' wouldn't go away.

Suppressors, the fun switch, destructive devices, and their ilk would still be exceedingly rare.

depends on what country, the USA, some south American countrys, the few Eu countrys, the middle east and some Asian countrys that allready allowed there citizens to own guns and the few that even allow the carry of handguns would probably not see mutch of a change.
as it was allready said, the ones that want guns have guns on those countrys.

however, then we have the many many countrys that make it very very hard or nearly impossible for there people to own or carry guns and ofcourse the few that outright outlaw it.
in those countrys there is no concept of firearm safety and the "knowlage" about guns comes from the TV and Computer games where guns are glorified as cool and often violence as a way of solving a problem (rightfully or not).
on those countrys there would be a enormous increase of accidental firearm deaths and the homicide rate would skyrocket as well for several years before it would settle down again.

removing all restictions on firearms over night would be bad, removing them step-by-step over a period of several years would be better.

From post by sernv99;

"if you want to know the answer to this, just look at parts of the world where this is already happening: Somalia, Pakistan FATA, most of Afghanistan, etc. Would you really want to have your 'hood turn into places like that? Somalia would be a prime example. Anyone can carry anything they want there....when you put things into perspective, I hardly think a "polite" society will be created from the OP's scenario."

Click to expand...

I must respectfully disagree completely, the poster is confusing the ignorant and uneducated tribal cultures centuries old fixation with vendetta and revenge rather than the availability of firearms with the cause of the violence.

Really bad analogy! Not even apples and oranges, more like apples and coal!

Less problems in the U.S before GCA68 than after, by a huge margin!

I was there at the time it passed and well before.

Our current mess isn't about gun control ... it's about total Control!

Guns are merely the excuse!

What would happen? Most places would be like living in the fifties.

As most of the more onerous gun laws have been enacted since then.

Regards,

The BATFE would no longer exist!

With an age restriction as the ONLY barrier, you're opening the door to felons, repeat offenders, rapists, terrorists, loose cannons, mentally warped, clinically insane.

Click to expand...

Can't we just give them New York City?

if you want to know the answer to this, just look at parts of the world where this is already happening: Somalia, Pakistan FATA, most of Afghanistan, etc.

Click to expand...

Ya...gun control is what sets us apart from the third world. If we get rid of gun control, we'll start beheading women for going to school, and start raping 2 yr olds as an aids cure. Got that grey matter firing on all cylinders, doncha Sparky

the poster is confusing the ignorant and uneducated tribal cultures centuries old fixation with vendetta and revenge rather than the availability of firearms with the cause of the violence.

and you didnt read the post, did he say what would happpen only in 1st world societies? and you are naive to think "vendetta" and "revenge" only happens in "tribal" cultures. Gee, I guess those stalker laws they pass here in the US are for something else Yeah revenge doesn't happen in first world countries, I forgot

gun control is what sets us apart from the third world. If we get rid of gun control, we'll start beheading women for going to school, and start raping 2 yr olds as an aids cure. Got that grey matter firing on all cylinders, doncha Sparky

translation: I can't come up with a good counter argument so I'll just say some ignorant statements to boost my ego

I'll type real slow this time, should make it easier to read.

Less problems in the U.S before GCA68 than after, by a huge margin!

I was there at the time it passed and well before.

Our current mess isn't about gun control ... it's about total Control!

Guns are merely the excuse!

What would happen? Most places would be like living in the fifties.

As most of the more onerous gun laws have been enacted since then.

Click to expand...

Cheerleaders for the Universal Nanny State will of course have trouble deciphering my cryptic remarks no matter how slow I type, so I'll fall back on an appeal to Authority.

President Ronald Regan said; "Government isn't the solution to the problem, government IS the problem!"

(possibly an all purpose universal Truth?)

Regards,

President Ronald Regan said; "Government isn't the solution to the problem, government IS the problem!"

(possibly an all purpose universal Truth?)

ok boys and girls, seems some have not had a history class on 20th century American presidents.

Reagan expanded gov't spending to a great degree during his presidency. That would equate bigger govt.

ummm, you left that out....and you can google for dozens and dozens of references, from both liberal and conservative sources.

regards

sernv99 said:

Reagan expanded gov't spending to a great degree during his presidency. That would equate bigger govt.

ummm, you left that out....and you can google for dozens and dozens of references, from both liberal and conservative sourcesresident Ronald Regan said; "Government isn't the solution to the problem, government IS the problem!"(possibly an all purpose universal Truth?)

ok boys and girls, seems some have not had a history class on 20th century American presidents.

Click to expand...

As someone who lived through the Reagan era, and recall him in office not just from old TV footage, let me add a bit of perspective.
Yes, sernv99, Reagan did increase the "size" of government.
But he was atleast honest with the public about it. I still recall one of his addresses to the nation; he stated quite plainly that he decreased the rate of government growth, but that he had been unable to actually decrease the size of spending.
Keep in mind he had a Democrat congress who fought him tooth and nails. The media was against him as well. In all my life only George Walker Bush was more thoroughly vilified than Reagan.
So, yea, what you say is true.
But, if that's a complaint you're issuing -- that Reagan was a "hypocrite," or another "big government spender," then you're paddling your canoe the wrong way down the river, my friend.

Yes, sernv99, Reagan did increase the "size" of government.
But he was atleast honest with the public about it. I still recall one of his addresses to the nation; he stated quite plainly that he decreased the rate of government growth, but that he had been unable to actually decrease the size of spending

sorry my friend, but you state that you take at face value what Reagan said on one of his addresses to the nation as the gospel.

as I said before, you can google liberal and conserative think tanks and politicos, they will tell you Reagan was a hypocrite and he expanded gov't but not at the behest of Congress. The only good thing he did was facilitate the demise of the Soviet Union. As far as domestic issues, he is as worthless as Carter before him and Bush Sr. after him.

as I said before, you can google liberal and conserative think tanks and politicos

Click to expand...

Or you could provide your own data to back up your arguments, but that's not your style. You just throw out a bunch of garbage, and wait for the bait to be hit. Then instead of backing up your claims, you resort to "Google it", throw in a couple of personal attacks, and jump for cover. You are a professional troll.

as I said before, you can google liberal and conserative think tanks and politicos, they will tell you Reagan was a hypocrite and he expanded gov't but not at the behest of Congress. The only good thing he did was facilitate the demise of the Soviet Union. As far as domestic issues, he is as worthless as Carter before him and Bush Sr. after him.

Click to expand...

As such this is nothing more than a gratuitous statement of your opinion.
If you go through life only wishing to see the bad in humanity, you'll surely see it, for it's there in spades.
If you want to only see the good you can manage that, too, because as corrupt as humanity is, there is some good, and you can see it and blind yourself to the rest.
Whatever "think tanks" say about Reagan will likely depend upon whether they're liberal or conservative think tanks. Most people I've read on who knew or worked with Reagan believe he was honestly trying to cut government, but was unable to do much. How he dealt with the Air Traffic Contollers strike, IMHO, speaks for itself. While it was not an attempt to "cut" government, the controllers engaged in an illegal activity, and Reagan fired them for it. This seems quite consistant to me as an action taken by a serious leader who intends to contol government.
Say what you will about the action; if you believe the controllers should have had the right to strike the pallative is to change the law. The action had a serendipitous result; it showed the Soviet leaders Reagan meant what he said -- which told them he played it straight in dealings with the dealings he had with the USSR.
Too bad some people in this country missed the message.


I'm not saying Reagan was perfect; no human is. But to refer to him as a hypocrite, without (as pith43 pointed out) providing a scintilla of evidence, is just pure black-heartedness on your part.

Hates would start getting cold. Shortly after that a layer of ice would begin to form, and he!!would be officially frozen over.

Wyman

moooose102 said:

anything your back and wallet could support

Click to expand...

AWWWW you ruined the fun!

I was GOING to say I would buy an AH-64 Apache Longbow with some sort of leasing payment plan and MAYBE MAYBE some piloting lessons from an online video game

We can all dream!