NationStates Jolt Archive

Lets say we all live in Hypotheticalstan. It is a nice nation, much like America or Canada or the UK in that the people are generally well-educated and there is a pretty good standard of living. It is about the size of France, and it is a Democracy and does a pretty good job of being nice to its people. It is also a pretty good military power, not the best, but its nothing to overlook.

Now, one day, the legislatures pass a bill that completely eliminates weapon control short of nukes and nerve gas and anthrax and the like. Planes, tanks, APCs, Ak-47s with flash suppressors, grenades, you name it, you can buy it *if* you can afford it.

What would happen? Would the population all rush out and buy M-16s and rob liquor stores? Would a hypothetical Bill Gates start his own army and take over? Would the Democrats and Republicans arm themselves and "contest" election results? Would the nation descend into anarchy, or would it be beneficial to the people? What would be some advantages and disadvantages to this scenario?

I think that things would continue along much the same path. Everyone would be armed, but not much more would happen, because if you rob a liquor store, the clerks got his own M4 and all the workers in the back do too. Larger factions run by billionaires would probably check themselves in much the same manner, and couldn't take on the government unless they all united, which would probably mean that theres a good reason. Or the country would destroy itself. One of the two.

So, NSG, what do you think of Hypotheticalstan's decision?

The country would split into several factions, with seperate amounts of armaments, and civil war would take over, and then a dictator might take control, that or the whole country would be demolished.
If that didn't happen then there would be a rise in gun crime, gang culture would spread further, and the economy would suffer as half the population would up and leave, there would be no military, and in past cases of large amounts of soldiers with nothing to do, they back some loony so they can have their share of power (see Mussolini black shirts, Hitlers SA brownshirts).
bad idea in short.

Criminals would shoot people in the back and take the money off their corpses instead of robbing them.

So, no one thinks that a sort of uneasy truce would take hold of the population?

France would be pretty fucked, due to all of the bored and increasingly pissed off youths in the cités having access to AK47s (which are, after all, cheap enough for them to buy on benefits) and the like, which would change the situation from "yearly burning cars" to "let's go on a massive, automatic weapons-tastic rampage".

Which would be rubbish.

Britain, probably a bit more violent in the cities. Bit more crime, perhaps. Lots more people getting killed.

As long as the government had the most tanks and guns, then I guess nothing would happen. Well, everybody would probably be more polite to each other. Most people have no use for guns anyway.

Optimistic: Nobody except a few bothers to buy any guns. Life goes on as usual, with the occasional amusing pie bombing run from a B-52 equipped with LG pies.

Pessimistic: Everybody buys guns and we descend into viking-style anarchy, where people end up in clan wars or maybe an XCOM, Apocalypse, based anarchy, where there are numerous factions armed to the teeth and ready to fight each other as well as defend their bases. Against aliens, of course.

Eh, it's hard to say, really, isn't it?

If you mean total removal of any and all forms of arms control except specifically what you mentioned...

then violence would skyrocket at the start since no background checks would be required allowing people with violent history as well as those with mental problems to own weapons. those nearest them would purchase such weapons to protect themselves.

without proper education of those weapons, you would have an increase of accidental deaths

add to that mix, the conditions of substance abuse such as alcohol and drugs and you can expect even higher body count.

then add to that the condition of instant gratification. where people are more and more impatient and less tolarant...

and the police would be armed similarly like the army.


of course I am taking the pessimistic form of view... so I might be wrong. :p

I would build a fortified castle and then become the lord of a fiefdom as I use gun armed followers to take over the country side.

So, no one thinks that a sort of uneasy truce would take hold of the population?

in order for there to be a truce, there has to be a compromise.

neighborhoods can band together, and slowly expand.

however it gets difficult when you get to city and state sized groups.

in order for there to be a truce, there has to be a compromise.

neighborhoods can band together, and slowly expand.

however it gets difficult when you get to city and state sized groups.

Good point. I was thinking along the lines of like an unspoken assumed truce but i guess not many people would think of that all on their own, and when it got big, no one would care. I suppose it would become an anarchy with several factions vying for power.

I would build a fortified castle and then become the lord of a fiefdom as I use gun armed followers to take over the country side.

I guess that's why it wouldn't work very well. Way to ruin Hypotheticalstan. :(

I guess that's why it wouldn't work very well. Way to ruin Hypotheticalstan. :(

Let's gather our own followers and collect enough cash to send a bunch of cluster bombs at his castle!

Don't think that there would be much difference. Criminals don't care about guns being illeagal anyway, so the only difference I could forsee are better armed citizens. Plus, an RPG-29 isn't going to do much good unless your hobbies are collecting (harmless) or tank-hunting (the military would stop you). An armed populace isn't necessarily a lawless one. Look at Switzerland.

Good point. I was thinking along the lines of like an unspoken assumed truce but i guess not many people would think of that all on their own, and when it got big, no one would care. I suppose it would become an anarchy with several factions vying for power.

it's difficult with the situation given.

I could be fine with a neighborhood armed to the teeth, but if Mr Miyagi is suffereing from Paranoid delusions and is prone to violence, how would one protect themselves from that person if there is nothing legally barring him from getting a gun or worse?

add to that the violent prone Smith family across the street that only months before the bill was passed were visted by the cops no less than 12 times for disturbing the peace?

if the neighborhood is stable with no violent element among them, then yes, I can see the neighborhood jelling together to become one communal unit. however should a new person be added...

Enjoy getting shot in the face.

Most of the ideas here are under the assumption that simpling possesing a gun makes people super violent. guess what. They don't. I think crime would decrease. Look at this way, in the US before 1968( or 78 don't rmember which) there was very little gun control. A five year old could buy a rifle from the local hardware store if said five year old had enough money. Crime rates were very low. After 1968 crime rates climbed steady before hitting a drop off in the 90s. In the 20s murder rates were actualy down, because of the "An armed soceity is a polite soceity" reasoning. You didn't insult someone because everyone and their grandma had a pistol stashed in their coat, dress, or purse. If everyone's armed, everyone is too scared too commit crimes against that person because they're armed too.

See, the kind of gun control most sane conservatives want is mostly limited to regulating true destructive devices (i.e. explosives) while not regulating machine/automatic guns (most are too expensive for the common man to afford anyhow) and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals/the insane (at least thats what GOAL's statements are). As it is, criminals already have guns that citizens can't have (such as in, say, NYC). So yea, I see violent crime (i.e. robbery, muggings, etc.) going down as the risk associated with petty crimes goes up, with gang-on-gang crime rates holding relativley steady.

A complete lack of gun control? Was that not how the "Old West" was?

I've always subscribed to the adage that an armed society is a polite society. We don't have to look much further than Kennesaw, Georgia to see an example of what happens when every household is REQUIRED to own a firearm. The net result has been an near total absence of violent crime. It's a much safer place to live than downtown Washington DC, where guns are strictly controlled.

Everyone would be forced to carry a weapon. Everyone, even those who otherwise wouldn't. Why? Because they'd assume that everyone else carried a weapon and the only way to defend themselves would be to carry their own. People would become increasingly suspicious of each other, which inevitably leads to conflict, which, when the opposing parties are both armed, results in death.

It'd be a culture of absolute fear.

Lets say we all live in Hypotheticalstan. It is a nice nation, much like America or Canada or the UK in that the people are generally well-educated and there is a pretty good standard of living. It is about the size of France, and it is a Democracy and does a pretty good job of being nice to its people. It is also a pretty good military power, not the best, but its nothing to overlook.

Now, one day, the legislatures pass a bill that completely eliminates weapon control short of nukes and nerve gas and anthrax and the like. Planes, tanks, APCs, Ak-47s with flash suppressors, grenades, you name it, you can buy it *if* you can afford it.

What would happen? Would the population all rush out and buy M-16s and rob liquor stores? Would a hypothetical Bill Gates start his own army and take over? Would the Democrats and Republicans arm themselves and "contest" election results? Would the nation descend into anarchy, or would it be beneficial to the people? What would be some advantages and disadvantages to this scenario?

I think that things would continue along much the same path. Everyone would be armed, but not much more would happen, because if you rob a liquor store, the clerks got his own M4 and all the workers in the back do too. Larger factions run by billionaires would probably check themselves in much the same manner, and couldn't take on the government unless they all united, which would probably mean that theres a good reason. Or the country would destroy itself. One of the two.

So, NSG, what do you think of Hypotheticalstan's decision?

I don't think a lot would change in reality. Criminals aren't affected by gun laws as it is, only citizens who don't break the law to begin with are affected by them. The criminal could no longer assume there was not a shotgun under the car seat or a pistol in my purse. His risk would increase greatly, and quite possibly his logic.

One thing I think would have to change too though would be much harsher penalties for crimes involving guns.

A complete lack of gun control? Was that not how the "Old West" was?

Yes, but modern weapons are far more potent and diversified, and the wild west was not a "civilized" area....it more or less was an anarchy with little areas controlled by the Army and towns would band together, which is what several posters here have said and would most likely be the result.

I am reading everyone comments, I'm just not posting because i am thinking. This is a very interesting question to me, more about how society functions than gun control.

I don't think a lot would change in reality. Criminals aren't affected by gun laws as it is, only citizens who don't break the law to begin with are affected by them. The criminal could no longer assume there was not a shotgun under the car seat or a pistol in my purse. His risk would increase greatly, and quite possibly his logic.


And the logical response to this increased risk? To use greater force. If a criminal assumes you have a gun he's not going to try and mug you by confronting you and threatening to hit you, he's going to shoot you before you know what is happening.

And the logical response to this increased risk? To use greater force. If a criminal assumes you have a gun he's not going to try and mug you by confronting you and threatening to hit you, he's going to shoot you before you know what is happening.

If that were true, states with concealed carry laws should see an increase in crime. That's not the way it has developed. Look at my post about two or three up. That's what happens when more law-abiding citizens are armed. Crime decreases.

If that were true, states with concealed carry laws should see an increase in crime. That's not the way it has developed. Look at my post about two or three up. That's what happens when more law-abiding citizens are armed. Crime decreases.

I don't think that in concealed carry states you can assume that any given person walking in the street is carrying a weapon.

I don't think that in concealed carry states you can assume that any given person walking in the street is carrying a weapon.
The point is that you don't know who has the gun. Wouldn't a prudent criminal (if there is such) plan for any one of his prey to be armed?

Optimistic: Nobody except a few bothers to buy any guns. Life goes on as usual, with the occasional amusing pie bombing run from a B-52 equipped with LG pies.

Pessimistic: Everybody buys guns and we descend into viking-style anarchy, where people end up in clan wars or maybe an XCOM, Apocalypse, based anarchy, where there are numerous factions armed to the teeth and ready to fight each other as well as defend their bases. Against aliens, of course.

Eh, it's hard to say, really, isn't it?

WHOO!!! Forget courts and debates and lawyers...TRIAL BY COMBAT!!!! :p

The point is that you don't know who has the gun. Wouldn't a prudent criminal (if there is such) plan for any one of his prey to be armed?

No, because it doesn't work that way. You go with the odds. If you've got an all-encompassing gun culture ala this hypothetical then that's an entirely different prospect to Vermont.

No, because it doesn't work that way. You go with the odds. If you've got an all-encompassing gun culture ala this hypothetical then that's an entirely different prospect to Vermont.
Okay, then let's go back to Kennesaw. Everyone is required to own a gun. I figure there's a little non-compliance, but no one really presses the point. But, in a city that has near 100 percent gun ownership by household, what keeps criminals from escalating their efforts?

Okay, then let's go back to Kennesaw. Everyone is required to own a gun. I figure there's a little non-compliance, but no one really presses the point. But, in a city that has near 100 percent gun ownership by household, what keeps criminals from escalating their efforts?

Again, nowhere near the same. It's simply a symbolic law in a small town.

Forget the violence thing for a second. This would open up some really cool sports opportunities. Imagine racing fighter jets for fun instead of skiing.

Forget the violence thing for a second. This would open up some really cool sports opportunities. Imagine racing fighter jets for fun instead of skiing.

forget that. can you imagine a demolition derby with tanks!

We would live in a Republican utopia ruled over forever by benevolent, but commie-hating dictator, Zombie Reagan.

:rolleyes:

We would live in a Republican utopia ruled over forever by benevolent, but commie-hating dictator, Zombie Reagan.

:rolleyes:

If only he could rember why he hated them other than that he wants their brains and they're so very far away.

It would greatly depend on the nation, its population, its cultural attitudes towards violence, its attitudes towards law, and a hostof otherfactors that are not discussed in the OP.

For example: Canada and the US, two countries that are almost identical in many wys, would have sharply different reactions to such a situation. Sorry, my USian friends, but I would rather be on this side of the 49th if this were to pass.

I don't think there would be cataclysmic changes to any western democracy, but I could see major changes in the rate of gun deaths and other crimes in many of them. To be clear: some countries would improve, while some would get worse.

Not a single benefit, and many negatives.

Not a single benefit, and many negatives.

given the situation that was presented? yeah.

people have proven that they cannot act responsibly with their freedoms.

given the situation that was presented? yeah.

people have proven that they cannot act responsibly with their freedoms.

Don't make stupid generalisations.

Would the Democrats and Republicans arm themselves and "contest" election results?

I would LOVE to see that. We need some bloody politics, not muddy.

given the situation that was presented? yeah.

people have proven that they cannot act responsibly with their freedoms.

So we should take away everyone's right no execptions?

Lets say we all live in Hypotheticalstan. It is a nice nation, much like America or Canada or the UK in that the people are generally well-educated and there is a pretty good standard of living. It is about the size of France, and it is a Democracy and does a pretty good job of being nice to its people. It is also a pretty good military power, not the best, but its nothing to overlook.

Now, one day, the legislatures pass a bill that completely eliminates weapon control short of nukes and nerve gas and anthrax and the like. Planes, tanks, APCs, Ak-47s with flash suppressors, grenades, you name it, you can buy it *if* you can afford it.

What would happen? Would the population all rush out and buy M-16s and rob liquor stores? Would a hypothetical Bill Gates start his own army and take over? Would the Democrats and Republicans arm themselves and "contest" election results? Would the nation descend into anarchy, or would it be beneficial to the people? What would be some advantages and disadvantages to this scenario?

I think that things would continue along much the same path. Everyone would be armed, but not much more would happen, because if you rob a liquor store, the clerks got his own M4 and all the workers in the back do too. Larger factions run by billionaires would probably check themselves in much the same manner, and couldn't take on the government unless they all united, which would probably mean that theres a good reason. Or the country would destroy itself. One of the two.

So, NSG, what do you think of Hypotheticalstan's decision?

I'm thinking it'd be SSDD for the most part. Some things would get worse (my bank balance), but some things would get better (my aim, for one thing).

I've always subscribed to the adage that an armed society is a polite society.
Florida has some of the least restrictions on gun ownership, and recently enacted the Castle Doctrine. Net result?

2006 vs. 2005:

Murder rate up 28%. Murder rate by firearms up 42%

Robbery rate up 13.4%. Robbery rate with firearms up 20.2%

Aggravated assault rate up .1%. Aggravated assault rate with firearms up 5.8%

Forced entry burglary up 4.1%, despite new Castle Doctrine.

Gun crimes show sharp increase in Florida as overall crime rate dips (http://tallahassee.com/legacy/special/blogs/2007/06/gun-crimes-show-sharp-increase-in.html)

We don't have to look much further than Kennesaw, Georgia to see an example of what happens when every household is REQUIRED to own a firearm. The net result has been an near total absence of violent crime. It's a much safer place to live than downtown Washington DC, where guns are strictly controlled.
Why do you gun freaks keep trotting out this bogus story? The sampling is too small, and all households are NOT required to own a firearm.

See, the kind of gun control most sane conservatives want is mostly limited to regulating true destructive devices (i.e. explosives) while not regulating machine/automatic guns (most are too expensive for the common man to afford anyhow) and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals/the insane (at least thats what GOAL's statements are). As it is, criminals already have guns that citizens can't have (such as in, say, NYC). So yea, I see violent crime (i.e. robbery, muggings, etc.) going down as the risk associated with petty crimes goes up, with gang-on-gang crime rates holding relativley steady.

The only reason full/select fire weapons are so expensive is due to the '86 ban on future importation and domestic manufacture of such weapons. If the weapon was made before '86, then anyone that could legally own a firearm could own a full/select fire weapon (as long as the state allows it). If the weapon was made after '86, then it is considered a post dealer sample, and the only ones that can own it are Class III dealers, law enforcement, and military agencies. If somehow the '86 ban were thrown out, the price for full/select fire weapons would drop like a stone, since there would be more availability for the average consumer.

Don't make stupid generalisations.

is it a stupid generalization?

Think about how gun control laws have evolved through out the years.
Think about new regulations on non-prescription drugs that have been passed.
Think about new anti-smoking regulations each state is passing.
Think about new legislation on dealing with many forms of crime.
What's the first thing most people do when they come of age (if not before), they consume alcohol as a right of passage. I know people who, when they turn legal, say "YAY!, now I can get drunk!" and they do so immediately.

Because some parents can't monitor what their kids see and play with, you got the MPAA and ESRB formed and people crying out for more legislation on Video Games, music lyrics, and porn with even talks on how to legislate the internet.

The Death Penalty was once reserved for the harshest and most vilest of criminals, but nowdays?

Is that the sign of being responsible with our freedom? fighting for more regulations and legislations?

is that really a stupid generalization?

So we should take away everyone's right no execptions?

aren't we already working on that already in every level of Government?

In Hypotheticalstan, conflicts with the Police are far bloodier and deal in greater amounts of collateral damage then elsewhere.


I don't believe it would split in to warring factions, as even Bill Gates could not pay for one carrier battle group or one armoured division for any sustained period of time, the Government would keep control as an army paid for by all taxpayers and recruited with the national identity of the nation behind it will still be more powerful then local forces, but the need to use things like the 1-inch Gatling Gun on the A-10 Warthogs, tank-busting rocket launchers and missiles, heavy arteilery and laser guided bombs would cause innocent bystanders to be slaughtered by the dozens, especially in major cities like New York and Los Angeles where there is more crime and violence to begin with.

More then anything else, you prevent people from acquiring heavy weapons to prevent the inadvertent massacre, ala Iraq, of innocent civilians by the police. The police would still win, but the cost would be tremendous.

As for the claims about other kinds of gun ownership, however, I remain very suspect of claims that gun laws actually reduce crime by any significant amount, as it is more then easy enough to commit those exact same offenses with knives, swords, electric tools, automobiles, or alternatively, to buy your firearm illegally.

Any gain made in terms of making that firearm harder to acquire will be made up for by a combination of decreased resistance to your use of firearms from those who own guns and an increased value in terms of monetary cost of your firearm making that gun that much more valuable and lucrative on sale.

As for the Florida example, those increases in crime may have more to do with the fact that Florida, like most Southeastern states, is increasing in size rapidly, both increasing the number of people to commit crimes, and declining the ability of city law enforcement to deal with it.

Personally, I think America has a high crime rate because America is violent, and always will be, as it was settled by those who took risks. If you have two people with steam in their blood and hot visions in their head come together in matrimony and breed, the offspring are likely to be just as they are. You could ban all the guns in the world but it won't change the crimes, just the methods used to execute them.

The country would split into several factions, with seperate amounts of armaments, and civil war would take over, and then a dictator might take control, that or the whole country would be demolished.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?! America has fairly lax gun regulations but that hasn't happened here. Well it did happen just the once but that wasn't because of gun laws, it was because of slavery, strength of centralized government, and hot, spicy racism.

If that didn't happen then there would be a rise in gun crime, gang culture would spread further, and the economy would suffer as half the population would up and leave, there would be no military, and in past cases of large amounts of soldiers with nothing to do, they back some loony so they can have their share of power (see Mussolini black shirts, Hitlers SA brownshirts).
bad idea in short.
Honestly, every time a CCW law is passed in a state the gun control advocates come out of the woodwork saying that every Mac 'n' Don's'll turn into a shootout at the OK Corral but it never seems to happen. Sometimes I wonder what we Minnesotans are doing wrong, we have guns, Minneapolis has gangs, and we've got plenty of burger joints run by retarded clowns so where the fuck are my chaotic gunsfights? And since when is America's economy not the envy of the world? I thought people dreamt of coming here just for a slice of the economic pie. And to argue that lax gun laws would eliminate the military (for reasons unspecified) is just plain silly.

I sincerely hope this is a joke and that no one could be so fucking stupid as to hold belief that lax gun control laws would be the end of civilization but sadly I think you're being serious (business, it's what the internet is for).

Tanks and planes are a bit much, but I can already buy an Ak-47 or an AR-15 if I want to, and probably wrangle a flash supressor with a little winking and nudging at a gun show. The gangs already have that stuff, besides tanks and planes, which I don't think are too practical for them at any rate, so long as law enforcement isn't completely out to lunch. Al Capone's limo was basically a tank back in the day anyway - a modern gangleader could probably pull that off while looking inconspicuous (tanks are pretty conspicuous, yeah?) as it is. :p

Tanks cost millions and are too easy to sabotage. Same with aircraft - easy target if the owner seeks violence.

I see little reason to prohibit firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens. "An armed society is a polite society" - criminals can currently act with impunity since the law-abiding citizen is often restricted from owning weapons. In Washington, D.C., citizens are almost entirely forbidden to even OWN a gun, and the crime rate there is extremely high. Every state that has passed a concealed-carry law has seen a decline in violent crime.

Fully-automatic firearms ought not be restricted to the military and SWAT teams. If I want the option of putting a lot of bullets downrange in one burst, is that going to make me morph into a cop-killing murderer? No. Will it give me, as a law-abiding citizen, equal footing with the gangs and thugs of the inner cities? Yes. They can already get whatever weaponry they want. Why not even the odds?

The second amendment of the Constitution was written so We The People could protect ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic. Foreign invasion, federal tyrants, and criminals all must face a dangerous foe in an armed citizenry. Let's make DEATH the chief job risk for rapists, thieves, and murderers.

as I've said before, if you don't like the freedoms we have in the united States, there are a lot of other counties that offer higher degrees of control. If you don't like it here, please don't try to force me to adopt your socialist agenda. Move to a country that better matches your ideology. I'll not fault you for it. Liberty requires great courage and a little risk. I'm willing to accept that risk.

Tanks cost millions and are too easy to sabotage.

Reporter: Why would anyone want to own a Sherman tank?
Zack: Because it's very hard to shoot yourself while you're cleaning it.
:D

Tanks and planes are a bit much, but I can already buy an Ak-47 or an AR-15 if I want to, and probably wrangle a flash supressor with a little winking and nudging at a gun show. The gangs already have that stuff, besides tanks and planes, which I don't think are too practical for them at any rate, so long as law enforcement isn't completely out to lunch. Al Capone's limo was basically a tank back in the day anyway - a modern gangleader could probably pull that off while looking inconspicuous (tanks are pretty conspicuous, yeah?) as it is. :p

Flash supressors are not banned or restricted.

Flash supressors are not banned or restricted.

Some states still have an AWB (unfortunately, the state I live in is one of them, so I can't have a flash suppressor or flash hider on my AR-15).

Flash supressors are not banned or restricted.

Isn't everything banned in California? Us and Massachusetts. :p Maybe I assumed too quick.

Don't think that there would be much difference. Criminals don't care about guns being illeagal anyway, so the only difference I could forsee are better armed citizens. Plus, an RPG-29 isn't going to do much good unless your hobbies are collecting (harmless) or tank-hunting (the military would stop you). An armed populace isn't necessarily a lawless one. Look at Switzerland.

Armor piercing rocket launchers are also good against concrete buildings, some types of bank vaults, cars, vans, and anything that needs more than a few bullets to stop for those in a hurry.

But, in a city that has near 100 percent gun ownership by household, what keeps criminals from escalating their efforts?

Any number of factors. Population density, economic affluence, access to jobs, effectiveness of police, etc, etc.

It's daft to just use one aspect and go "See? No violent crime."

Armor piercing rocket launchers are also good against concrete buildings, some types of bank vaults, cars, vans, and anything that needs more than a few bullets to stop for those in a hurry.

Using an RPG against a bank vault would either do absolutly nothing, or would flash fry anything inside.

Again, nowhere near the same. It's simply a symbolic law in a small town.


Kennesaw is 21k people crammed in 8.5 miles, part of Cobb county which is part of Atlanta. I don't think of it as a 'small town' as it certainly isn't a rural area like it once was. There really is no demarcation between Kennesaw, Marietta, Atlanta anymore, it is all one big happy world in reality. The thing is the crime rate is much lower in Kennesaw than the others, and that goes for every burb around Atlanta. Yet Kennesaw is the only one with such a gun ownership law.

Their crime rate is one of the lowest in the nation. Every household is required to own a gun and participate in a gun safety program. The handicapped and mentally disabled are not required.

Mandatory gun ownership has not increased the crime rate, nor has it made crime more violent.

This Kennesaw gun law that everyone harps about excludes anyone that objects to owning a gun.

This Kennesaw gun law that everyone harps about excludes anyone that objects to owning a gun.

"With exceptions duly made for convicted felons, the disabled, and those with religious objections, the council passed (unanimously) an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun."



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634

"With exceptions duly made for convicted felons, the disabled, and those with religious objections, the council passed (unanimously) an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun."



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634

Religious exemptions could litterally mean anything. I could claim that because Jesus didn't eat cottage cheese, I can't eat cottage cheese.

That, and no one has ever been prosecuted under this "law".

Religious exemptions could litterally mean anything. I could claim that because Jesus didn't eat cottage cheese, I can't eat cottage cheese.

That, and no one has ever been prosecuted under this "law".

Of course you could claim that and no you wouldn't be prosecuted I suppose. The point is the crime rates did not go up putting guns in citizens hands.

Criminals already have guns. They don't care if even looking at a picture of a water pistol is a capital offence. They're criminals. They break laws. Sometimes, regulations hurt more than help. Perhaps, we should abandon this "think of the children" thing and really research the issues.

On the one hand, more guns could easily mean more gun crimes. On the other hand, an unarmed society is a vulnerable society. Most cirminals go after the vulnerable. Burglers often strike when nobody's home. Rapists usually don't go after large, aggressive, armed women. And your average nutjob isn't going to attack a military base with guns a-blazing, unless they plan on going out in style. Once you increase the risk, your more cowardly criminals will think twice before commiting a crime.

"With exceptions duly made for convicted felons, the disabled, and those with religious objections, the council passed (unanimously) an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634
And that rule was passed 25 years ago. If it is so overwhelmingly successful, why haven't other jurisdictions passed the same rule?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?! America has fairly lax gun regulations but that hasn't happened here. Well it did happen just the once but that wasn't because of gun laws, it was because of slavery, strength of centralized government, and hot, spicy racism.


Honestly, every time a CCW law is passed in a state the gun control advocates come out of the woodwork saying that every Mac 'n' Don's'll turn into a shootout at the OK Corral but it never seems to happen. Sometimes I wonder what we Minnesotans are doing wrong, we have guns, Minneapolis has gangs, and we've got plenty of burger joints run by retarded clowns so where the fuck are my chaotic gunsfights? And since when is America's economy not the envy of the world? I thought people dreamt of coming here just for a slice of the economic pie. And to argue that lax gun laws would eliminate the military (for reasons unspecified) is just plain silly.

I sincerely hope this is a joke and that no one could be so fucking stupid as to hold belief that lax gun control laws would be the end of civilization but sadly I think you're being serious (business, it's what the internet is for).

*sighs*
The OP said all weapons tanks and guns etc.. are open to markets, which i assumed would mean there would be no military, where there is no military there is less control.
So wasn't talking about lax gun laws specifically, they would help crime but they wouldn't start a civil war(so in that respect yes my post would be meaningless). I was pointing out in the past where the military where put out of jobs thing's go bad fairly fast.
Nor was i bashing the US as i don't know an awful lot about it. The OP stated that all weapons are free for market sales, which i assumed would mean there would be no military.
Does that make my point any clearer?
Now back to topic if what the OP was saying was that there was no gun control, then there might be an increase in crime, or the guns would be shipped abroad to start other bizzare regimes with newly found weapons from this gun-law free hypotheticalistan.

Lets say we all live in Hypotheticalstan. It is a nice nation, much like America or Canada or the UK in that the people are generally well-educated and there is a pretty good standard of living. It is about the size of France, and it is a Democracy and does a pretty good job of being nice to its people. It is also a pretty good military power, not the best, but its nothing to overlook.

Now, one day, the legislatures pass a bill that completely eliminates weapon control short of nukes and nerve gas and anthrax and the like. Planes, tanks, APCs, Ak-47s with flash suppressors, grenades, you name it, you can buy it *if* you can afford it.

What would happen? Would the population all rush out and buy M-16s and rob liquor stores? Would a hypothetical Bill Gates start his own army and take over? Would the Democrats and Republicans arm themselves and "contest" election results? Would the nation descend into anarchy, or would it be beneficial to the people? What would be some advantages and disadvantages to this scenario?

I think that things would continue along much the same path. Everyone would be armed, but not much more would happen, because if you rob a liquor store, the clerks got his own M4 and all the workers in the back do too. Larger factions run by billionaires would probably check themselves in much the same manner, and couldn't take on the government unless they all united, which would probably mean that theres a good reason. Or the country would destroy itself. One of the two.

So, NSG, what do you think of Hypotheticalstan's decision?

Things would go to shitty town. *nods*

Armor piercing rocket launchers are also good against... some types of bank vaults
If you like setting the bank's money on fire, then yes. Otherwise, no.

Using an RPG against a bank vault would either do absolutly nothing, or would flash fry anything inside.

Good point. I forgot they use HEAT rounds for the most part.

Well, I imagine an RPG would be quite effective against most law enforcement vehicles, which will probably be among the prime targets of the criminal gangs with unrestricted weapons ownership.

Good point. I forgot they use HEAT rounds for the most part.

Well, I imagine an RPG would be quite effective against most law enforcement vehicles, which will probably be among the prime targets of the criminal gangs with unrestricted weapons ownership.

Perhaps. But I don't think gangs specifically target Law Enforcement anyway. Think about it. If you kill a few police men, you just get them really really pissed. And they don't go away. They just bring out the big guns and go after you.

Anyway, if these things were legalized (ie, no backround checks), I don't think gangs would use these that much. The primary reason would be cost. The market value of these things has to be at least 5000 for the launcher, and 2000 per rocket. You could buy a small arsonal with that money, which would be collectively more effective then a single RPG.

Also, gangs can get them right now. RPG rockets and launchers are pretty compact, and could easily be smuggled across the border.

And that rule was passed 25 years ago. If it is so overwhelmingly successful, why haven't other jurisdictions passed the same rule?

Because it's silly. It was passed in response to Cleveland's gun bad. Just as silly as that, in fact.

Well, I wouldn't want to see it.
The majority of people getting guns would do so with criminal intent, the majority of the population would be well aware that having a gun in the house would in essence only increase the danger of accidentally seriously hurting themselves or a family member. Assuming that nothing else changes, the police would be too fatally understaffed to deal with the sudden increase in seriously violent crime, and taking into account that the majority of regular police here are unarmed, they'd be just as helpless as the civilian population.

It would result in total anarchy, and not of the good kind, either.

is it a stupid generalization?

Yes.

Think about how gun control laws have evolved through out the years.

I have. I have found that history teaches us that the relationships between guns, laws, civil rights, and safety are complex. Are you really going to tell me that every single instance of lax gun controls laws has inevitably led to negative results?

Think about new regulations on non-prescription drugs that have been passed.
Think about new anti-smoking regulations each state is passing.
Think about new legislation on dealing with many forms of crime.
What's the first thing most people do when they come of age (if not before), they consume alcohol as a right of passage. I know people who, when they turn legal, say "YAY!, now I can get drunk!" and they do so immediately.

Because some parents can't monitor what their kids see and play with, you got the MPAA and ESRB formed and people crying out for more legislation on Video Games, music lyrics, and porn with even talks on how to legislate the internet.

The Death Penalty was once reserved for the harshest and most vilest of criminals, but nowdays?

Is that the sign of being responsible with our freedom? fighting for more regulations and legislations?

Wait. Let me get this straight. Are you claiming that because some people are trying to limit freedoms, those freedoms necessarily need to be limited?

If so, that makes no sense. A quick example should be enough to suffice: Pro-slavery movements have existed throughout history. According to your logic, the fact that these people have tried to limit the freedom of others (by enslaving them) implies that those freedoms should be taken away.

If not, please explain to me what you mean, as I have misunderstood.

is that really a stupid generalization?

Yes. You only have to look at your own USian history to see that having an armed populace was part of the reason you are no longer a colony of Britain. Your founding fathers, who were part of that struggle, apparently agreed with me, according to your Constitution.

Actually, I think crime would DECREASE. Let's say that you're a mugger, you use the lack of gun control to b uy a gun and you go off to mug somone. BUT you don't know who has, and who dosen't have a gun, you would either:
A. Follow everyone around with a metal detecter, get noticed by police, and sent to jail.
B. Find somone who looks poor and mug them for all their 10 cents.
C. Try to mug a random person, find out they have a gun and end up in jail or dead.
D. Decide to become a normal productive citizen.
E. Mug a random person who dosen't have a gun and find out that most people have guns. Try to live the rest of your life off of 60$.

Think about it. And about there being a 'Civil war' it would be more along the lines of "I don't like*Insert group here* but their all armed and I would probably get my head blown off if I tried." The nutjobs might try something but the normal person would probably have at least a handgun, and the police would probably be better armed. Thus eliminating the amount of nutjobs AND increasing safety! So why haven't we released gun controls yet?

Plus, an RPG-29 launcher is heavy, extremely long and expensive. The rocket would likely pass through a police cruiser or van without exploding

Actually, I think crime would DECREASE. Let's say that you're a mugger, you use the lack of gun control to b uy a gun and you go off to mug somone. BUT you don't know who has, and who dosen't have a gun, you would either:
A. Follow everyone around with a metal detecter, get noticed by police, and sent to jail.
B. Find somone who looks poor and mug them for all their 10 cents.
C. Try to mug a random person, find out they have a gun and end up in jail or dead.
D. Decide to become a normal productive citizen.
E. Mug a random person who dosen't have a gun and find out that most people have guns. Try to live the rest of your life off of 60$.

Think about it. And about there being a 'Civil war' it would be more along the lines of "I don't like*Insert group here* but their all armed and I would probably get my head blown off if I tried." The nutjobs might try something but the normal person would probably have at least a handgun, and the police would probably be better armed. Thus eliminating the amount of nutjobs AND increasing safety! So why haven't we released gun controls yet?

Er, no. You don't take into account that Europeans for the most part are not used to nor in any way prepared to kill for a small amount of money.
I sincerely doubt that many civilians would get guns straight away, and once they do they most likely would be very reluctant to use them and rather give the mugger the money.

And as for a decrease in crime, well... just compare current statistics. It's not so difficult.

One definite prediction is that body armor would become a major industry. Armored cars would become the norm. A race between gun manufacturers and armorers would ensue. As a result, Hypotheticstan's infantry would be nigh-invincible.

As for crimes, murders with knives or other weapons would collapse, as the gun became the universal weapon of choice. Total murders would probably increase. However, spree shootings would be rarer, as any would be spree killer would be shot very shortly. The biggest spike would be in self-defense crimes. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that convictions for murder and armed robbery would DROP, since few murderers or armed robbers would survive.

On the downside, bystander deaths would increase in many cases. Domestic fights would end in fatalities more often. "Man shoots wife, children" could become a sadly common headline.

Eventually, organized criminals would seek to upgrade to rocket-propelled grenades. This could be answered with the development of civilian anti-missile systems.

The biggest problem would be civil unrest. Even developed western nations have major protests occasionally. Imagine if the rioters in France a few years ago had been armed. The chance of civil unrest exploding into civil war would go up by a lot.

*sighs*
The OP said all weapons tanks and guns etc.. are open to markets, which i assumed would mean there would be no military, where there is no military there is less control.
When you assume you make an ass out of "u" and me. But I'm already a dick so I'm not too concerned. You still haven't convinced me that the local/national military would disolve.

So wasn't talking about lax gun laws specifically, they would help crime but they wouldn't start a civil war(so in that respect yes my post would be meaningless).
How does lax gun control help crime? Have you seen D.C.'s crime stats? Notice any large spikes in crime? Around the time guns were illegally outlawed in the capital of the United States? Doesn't that say more about excessive gun control than it does about lax gun control?

I was pointing out in the past where the military where put out of jobs thing's go bad fairly fast.
But failed to explain how lax gun control would cause this. And no, "just because it would" is not an acceptable answer.

Nor was i bashing the US as i don't know an awful lot about it. The OP stated that all weapons are free for market sales, which i assumed would mean there would be no military.
But why? Why would there be no military?

Does that make my point any clearer?
It makes you look confused and doesn't really address why you think the military would disband.

Now back to topic if what the OP was saying was that there was no gun control, then there might be an increase in crime, or the guns would be shipped abroad to start other bizzare regimes with newly found weapons from this gun-law free hypotheticalistan.
Again, cities in the US with excessive gun control have seen increases in crime. And why would lack of gun control lead to nation building and exotic forms of government? This makes no sense. You have to explain your hypotheses.

i think there would be a lot more "hunting accidents" and law enforcement would have to drive arround in armoured vehicules and wear balistic resistent armour constantly while on dutiy.

yet i do oppose outlawing the mere possession of any artifact or substance.

as i've mentioned repeatedly the only logical approach to gun control is to not mass produce them and limit their production entirely to hobbiests making one offs, and not allowing them to make more then three identical.

i mean the vast majority of guns, whoever there in the hands of, simply would not exist if they weren't manufactured, and i personally believe, that would be a very good thing.

=^^=
.../\...

i think there would be a lot more "hunting accidents" and law enforcement would have to drive arround in armoured vehicules and wear balistic resistent armour constantly while on dutiy.
There are rounds available on the civilian market which can penetrate 1/4 inch steel or ceramic plates. They're used for hunting and target shooting. A lot of body armor consists of 1/4 inch steel or ceramic plates in kevlar vests and cops already wear those when on duty.

yet i do oppose outlawing the mere possession of any artifact or substance.
Good to know. :)

as i've mentioned repeatedly the only logical approach to gun control is to not mass produce them and limit their production entirely to hobbiests making one offs, and not allowing them to make more then three identical.
Now you've lost me. I understand your idea, I just disagree.

i mean the vast majority of guns, whoever there in the hands of, simply would not exist if they weren't manufactured, and i personally believe, that would be a very good thing.
Well sure, if you don't make something it won't exist, but I again must disagree. It's fine to not like guns, really. You don't need to get one and you can even protest against them and try to get other people to give up their weapons but it's wrong to tell someone they can't do something that isn't harming anyone and making uns doesn't. Using them improperly does.

[/QUOTE]=^^=
.../\...[/QUOTE]
What is this?

No one (and I haven't read all of the response, so I may well be wrong here) has considered that because everyone would have guns, and guns would be everywhere that it might actually be less of a problem. Who's gonna rob a store if the guy behind the counter might be sitting on a high-power gas rifle?

What if that old lady (you know the one, she always gets her purse stolen by the thug with the five o'clock shadow on busy city streets) pulls out a 9(mm) and busts a cap in her assailant. Yeah, maybe people will just shoot each other in the back, but if everyone has a gun what stops a bystander from blowing a thieves brains out as well?

Gun ownership would most likely skyrocket, gun-related crimes would no doubt increase, but I do not necessarily think that they would spiral out of control, after all, who can make (or buy) an army to contend with the gov'ts? "Oh gee, these twenty-thousand citizens are trying to carve their own state, let's cruise missile them."

There would still be police, and a legal system, and there would still be people who think that committing violent crime is wrong, it's not like they would legalize (almost) all weapon control, disband the military, and tear down the whole legal system, the gov't would still be able to defeat anything except probably a coalition of every citizen (or a very strong majority), and because there is no way that a majority the citizens would risk their lives to cooperate with people they don't like jsut to overthrow a gov't that isn't that bad, the gov't would really be able to defeat any ciivlian force thrown against it.

I think the country would be a bit darker, but I could buy a cool tank and cruise around (well, probably not, I doubt they are street legal....) Umm, well I could buy a cool hummer (military version, not an ugly civilian one) with a big gun mounted on top (for cool factor really, I don't feel the need to shoot anything in the country that I'm currently in).

i think having to be careful to step over the bleeding and dying corpses while wearing body armour every time i wanted to walk down the street might be a slight problem.

even if it did reduce other crime, because everybody was too bussy killing each other to commit it.

the only good side i can think of is that it MIGHT make politicians very very careful. (not to mention damd scared, which is of course, why it won't likely ever happen)

=^^=
.../\...

Honestly, every time a CCW law is passed in a state the gun control advocates come out of the woodwork saying that every Mac 'n' Don's'll turn into a shootout at the OK Corral but it never seems to happen. Sometimes I wonder what we Minnesotans are doing wrong, we have guns, Minneapolis has gangs, and we've got plenty of burger joints run by retarded clowns so where the fuck are my chaotic gunsfights? And since when is America's economy not the envy of the world? I thought people dreamt of coming here just for a slice of the economic pie. And to argue that lax gun laws would eliminate the military (for reasons unspecified) is just plain silly.

I'm in MN too, and I supported the CCW legislation as it was going through. It's not like it makes it legal for anyone to carry concealed weaponry... in fact getting a permit is prbably one of the most rigorous things one can go through in terms of background checks and stuff.

I like the saying "If we outlaw guns, then only outlaws have guns." and excepting military/law enforcement, this is true. I have no problem with an upstanding citizen who has no criminal record (except maybe a speeding ticket or two) to carry a concealed wepon for his own safety, I'm not worried that he is going to pull his gun out randomly and shoot me, in fact most people who commit violent crimes (unless I'm mistaken) exhibit signs of violence from an early age, making it very unlikely that they could restrain themselves long enough to get a conceal and carry permit. Even then the laws are ridiculously (it's a good thing, though) strict for people who do commit gun crimes with their legally concealed gun (in fact, ever since that passed in MN I don't think there has been one case of a gun-related crime initiated by someone who had a legally concealed firearm).

People who are going to commit crimes don't typically lead upstanding lives, then pay huge fees, and undergo intense scrutiny, and wait a few months to get a permit that they are just going to immediately violate. A person with criminal intent can just find a black-market gun, stuff it in his pocket, and hope not to get caught, after all, what qualms would they have about illegally carrying a gun if they plan on illegally shooting it?

I'm all for looser gun laws, so long as we maintain the permit idea, I have no criminal history at all (except once, me and some friends had the cops called on us for peeping even though we weren't, but that didn't go on my record), I've gotten a fix-it ticket, and a citation for not having proof of incurance (I didn't have my card on me), I fixed the problem with my car, and went to the court house to show my proof of insurance immediately. Why shouldn't I be trusted with a concealed gun if I haven't even gotten a speeding ticket before? I avoid fighting when I can, but understand that sometimes it can be a necessity, and I would honestly probably find more use with a gun protecting others instead of myself. Regardless I have been an upstanding citizen in every way, and don't see why the crimes of others should stain my clear legal record.

i think having to be careful to step over the bleeding and dying corpses while wearing body armour every time i wanted to walk down the street might be a slight problem.

Yeah, except that that is a very unlikely possibility.

Perhaps. But I don't think gangs specifically target Law Enforcement anyway. Think about it. If you kill a few police men, you just get them really really pissed. And they don't go away. They just bring out the big guns and go after you.

Not in the sense of random targets no. But more along the lines of expediency in higher risk situations, like bank robberies gone south wherein the police have arrived and one needs an opening.

Or perhaps in one of the never ending turf wars between gangs. Why bother throwing a lot of people, guns with a higher risk, into a known stronghold/hangout of a gang when a rocket or two from a car will do the same thing for less risk?


Anyway, if these things were legalized (ie, no backround checks), I don't think gangs would use these that much. The primary reason would be cost. The market value of these things has to be at least 5000 for the launcher, and 2000 per rocket. You could buy a small arsonal with that money, which would be collectively more effective then a single RPG.

I imagine the costs, especially for the ubiquitous RPG-7, are quite small these days.


Also, gangs can get them right now. RPG rockets and launchers are pretty compact, and could easily be smuggled across the border.

Compact yes, but I imagine the amount of attention that gets put into destructive arms like that make them impractical at the moment for the average street gang and semi-organized criminal group. If they become widespread, perhaps it will be otherwise.

And oddly, this conversation evokes a strong sense of deja vu. A long ago dream I think. On a similar topic, with the same direction. Very strange.

A. Follow everyone around with a metal detecter, get noticed by police, and sent to jail.
B. Find somone who looks poor and mug them for all their 10 cents.
C. Try to mug a random person, find out they have a gun and end up in jail or dead.
D. Decide to become a normal productive citizen.
E. Mug a random person who dosen't have a gun and find out that most people have guns. Try to live the rest of your life off of 60$.


I think you will find that for the most part, muggers rely on speed and surprise to intimidate their would be victims before their fight reflex can kick in. Having a gun is useless if it's in your holster while someone already has one drawn and digging against your back.

Also, having a gun does not instantly transform you into some sort of adrenaline fueled fighting machine. It simply expands the available options, but is utterly pointless if the mind is not conditioned to retaliate, or is caught in a state of shock.

What will happen is that those to whom violence is a first resort will have greater avenues of destruction, while at the same time those who shy from it will be, as they already are, be easy victims.