No gun control in US
- Thread starter Straha
- Start date
luakel said:
Now I'm conflicted.
WeaponM would make a great POTUS.
I don't know enough about Wendell to judge him, which is why I'm conflicted.
Thanks, Bud!!!! I can't run for president because I am a postal employee....
But:
I am sorry, I thought we were talking about gun control, not chemistry control. The most horrible terrorist attacks in The USA were done with airplanes, box cutters, and fertilizer and a rental truck. Gun control does not prevent chemistry. Gun control does not stop fertilizer sales. Gun control does not make box cutters less sharp.
But:
I am sorry, I thought we were talking about gun control, not chemistry control. The most horrible terrorist attacks in The USA were done with airplanes, box cutters, and fertilizer and a rental truck. Gun control does not prevent chemistry. Gun control does not stop fertilizer sales. Gun control does not make box cutters less sharp.
No Prohibition. Prohibition was the trigger that gave the Organized Crime groups the money to expand from little violence needed (mostly a good beating) crimes to fairly large powerful organizations that had every reason to kill. The profits from sales of illegal booze were so great that it made street fighting worthwhile (much like drugs today).
No wild violence in the cities means no need for Federal regulation of weapons.
No wild violence in the cities means no need for Federal regulation of weapons.
blysas
Banned
In my view we could have a POD where let's say at the end of the 19th century, we have no banning of alchlol and we have no gun control, we fast forward a 100 years and we fins that there is crime. However, with people allowed to hold automatic and heavy weapons we don't have crazy problems.
Have a POD where the Constitutional convention produces some sort of compulsory gun ownership. After all, one of the proposed amendments was to exempt persons of certain religious scruples from being forced to own guns, as long as they paid for someone else to do so in their stead.
So instead of lax gun control, have some kind of harsh compulsory gun ownership requirement.
So instead of lax gun control, have some kind of harsh compulsory gun ownership requirement.
CalBear said:
Agreed. I've got a couple ads for BARs and Thompson subguns in old magazines.
The possibility that I am armed could in itself serve as a deterrent to would-be thugs.Cloudy Vortex said:
Not necessarily. Wounding an assailant will often suffice.
Sadly, my scenario merely improves the odds of a victim's life being saved, and increases the risk that an assailant will be injured or killed.
Here (embolded portion) we agree.If you up against an armed criminal, your luck's already run out. Gun laws, to me, are irrelevent. I just make it a point to never be in neighborhoods where criminals are known to be, appear poorer than I am, and keep my home shabby. It's cheaper than owning a gun and less nerve wracking.
probably true... if there were no gun control, the only people who would own machine guns/whatever would be the same type of people who own firearms now... it probably wouldn't change much on handguns, or hunting rifles, or shotguns, etc.... collectors, 'gun nuts', etc. would be the ones owning most of them..Wendell said:If drugs were legal, many people would still decide not to smoke marijuana. Alcohol is legal, yet many abstain from drinking. Why again would "no gun control" lead to everyone owning assault rifles?
Weapon M said:Thanks, Bud!!!! I can't run for president because I am a postal employee....
Is that serious? What's the connection?
No gun control...so would kids and the obviously insane get guns? People with neurological conditions which make it difficult for them to handle anything safely, including guns?
Is it only guns, or can people have bazookas, missiles, grenade launchers, ICBMs?
Never mind who the "obviously insane" are. Some of the "obviously insane" might not want to go anywhere near a gun, but some of them might simply throw the gun at you.
I find myself unable to take sides in this arguement, in case you wondered.
NapoleonXIV's idea might happen, unfortunately.
"Laws Rockets"? What are those?
Wendell said:If drugs were legal, many people would still decide not to smoke marijuana. Alcohol is legal, yet many abstain from drinking. Why again would "no gun control" lead to everyone owning assault rifles?
Not everybody would. Only the violent thugs and those who think their safer being armed to the tooth. [Which under that scenario might be the case]. Just you would have a very unstable and violent society.
Steve
NapoleonXIV
Banned
stevep said:
Precisely, thank you, also please peruse again the original scenario I proposed.
The breakup would start when most criminals had tommyguns, and gangs started to equip themselves with BAR, M1919 machine guns etc. Police would very quickly demand the same, armored vehicles and light artillery. Gangs would respond in kind.
Gun manufacturers, responding to public rather than military demand, would supply this market with smaller and smaller weapons, evolving very quickly towards something like the most modern assault rifles. These would be very light and effectively usable even by children.
The bazooka, giving gangs and individuals the equivalent of heavy artillery, would accelerate the process, again, gun manufacturers and public demand would speed up the development of such extensively over OTL. Grenade launchers and shoulder fired missiles would become de rigueur in a very short time. At this point or before the police would quit in favor of the military. Once that happens the breakup is inevitable.
This is a worst case scenario and it does require that absolutely no gun control be established before the breakup goes to full development and there is no US. (perhaps there is a Constitutional provision which very clearly prohibits ANY gun control)
NapoleonXIV said:
That's the result if there's absolutely no gun control, but in reality, some measures would be taken before it got that bad. Without Prohibition, you don't see real pressure to restrict weaponry until the 1970s, and not really until the 1980s.
Obviously no one's going to be selling bazookas or heavy weaponry on the open market. It simply isn't economical. The only private individuals who would be interested in purchasing a functioning artillery piece would be the ones you wouldn't want to have one. And their numbers are far too small to create a market, anyway.
You might see the beginnings of gun control in the early '70s, as the antiwar groups that grew during the Vietnam War lose their moderate members, who see the mission as accomplished, as in OTL. With cheap automatic weapons making their way to the US, and into the hands of these groups, you'll see both sides of the aisle voting to prohibit the importation of fully-automatic foreign firearms.
It's a step in the right direction for those who want to prevent gun violence, and American gun manufacturers will be pleased, since it allows them to sell more merchandise. As you get the urban decay of the 1980s, and see more gang violence, you'll probably see further restrictions in the weapons available to the public. These laws will probably stay in effect until the mid-'90s, when they'll be rolled back.
The major effect of this is that automatic weapons can still be purchased by the general public until 1985, and that there are far more on the open market.