Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What would happen...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by bogie, Jul 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,569
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    ...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...
     
  2. SaxonPig

    SaxonPig Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    4,787
    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.
     
  3. chaim

    chaim Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,312
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    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).
     
  4. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,074
    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.
     
  5. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,498
    Location:
    Arkansas
    I suspect my ammo budget would go thru the roof.
     
  6. GlowinPontiac

    GlowinPontiac Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    585
    Location:
    Central CT
    I dont think much would change. maybe a few more ranges would open to cater to the larger amount of gun owners.
     
  7. Big45

    Big45 member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    behind enemy lines...NO MORE. Made it to Free Ari
    My inventory would change significantly.
     
  8. PotatoJudge

    PotatoJudge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,332
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  9. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,083
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    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).
     
  10. Mark K. C.

    Mark K. C. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    155
    Location:
    Yacolt , Washington
    First thing to happen would be getting a bigger safe.
     
  11. neviander

    neviander Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    547
    Location:
    Kilgore, TX
    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!
     
  12. ceetee

    ceetee Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,998
    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.
     
  13. VARifleman

    VARifleman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,533
    Location:
    Northern VA
    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.
     
  14. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    The NRA would have to lay off a bunch of people.
     
  15. VARifleman

    VARifleman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,533
    Location:
    Northern VA
    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.
     
  16. TAB

    TAB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,475
    best guess 5-10 years of increased violance, then back to same old same old.
     
  17. Kind of Blued

    Kind of Blued Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,676
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    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.
     
  18. yesit'sloaded

    yesit'sloaded Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,662
    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.
     
  19. Ric

    Ric Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    759
    Location:
    Northern Indiana
    If everybody shot back, noone would get robbed.
     
  20. ZeSpectre

    ZeSpectre Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    5,503
    Location:
    Deep in the valley
    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.
     
  21. fatelk

    fatelk Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Location:
    Oregon
    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.
     
  22. Rokyudai

    Rokyudai Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    686
    Location:
    Texas
    The "Legal" section of THR would look like church on Super Bowl Sunday?
     
  23. Seancass

    Seancass Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Location:
    purdue, indiana
    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.
     
  24. Gordon Fink

    Gordon Fink Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,322
    Location:
    California
    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
     
  25. Old Grump

    Old Grump Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    410
    Location:
    Blue River Wisconsin
    weeding out

    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page