JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
376
Reactions
181
What if all guns disappeared?

Take the politics out of it. By the numbers, what would we gain – and lose – if all firearms suddenly were wiped off the face of the planet?

**Warning**

Not a balanced article at all so please tone down the OMGoodness rhetoric about the psychiatrist and sociologist are full of do do.

Consider a world without ANY explosive firearms whatsoever?
 
Last Edited:
Consider a world without ANY explosive firearms whatsoever?
I was unaware that firearms exploded. I have always thought that explosives exploded. Firearms burn the powder in the cartridges. An explosion is more or less an uncontrolled release of energy. The burning of powder is a controlled release of the energy contained in the propellant's chemical composition.

Per a world with no guns, we already have that. Go to any super-max prison in America, and you'll see it up close & personal. We just had a seven-hour melee at a prison on Louisiana (or wherever it was); seven inmates were killed. In a world with no firearms, we'd have that on our streets every day. Look at Mexico: No law-abiding citizen owns a gun. The drug cartels own a ton. It's so safe in Mexico, Guatemala, Bolivia and Venezuela, et cetera that people from there have to come here for a little excitement in their lives. I guess we owe it to them...
 
We can go back in time to point where there were no firearms. Back then there were still wars and crime, so there would be no substantial effect on the hearts and minds of humans.

The personal ownership of firearms allows smaller and/or weaker persons to defend themselves against larger/stronger or more numerous attackers. That ability for self defense would be lost if firearms somehow magically went away for good. We already have examples of that as well. Gun confiscation allowed tyrannical governments to slaughter their own countrymen with impunity.

And since there are FAR more defensive uses of guns each year than criminal uses, I can only imagine the criminals would continue their ways, while many people would become defenseless in their wake. Take a look at Mexico. Crime and corruption are rampant, and the general populace is mostly powerless absent any significant means of self defense.
 
Last Edited:
I was unaware that firearms exploded. I have always thought that explosives exploded. Firearms burn the powder in the cartridges. An explosion is more or less an uncontrolled release of energy. The burning of powder is a controlled release of the energy contained in the propellant's chemical composition.

Snipped...

Sorry, but your awareness seems to be askew as shown in the following state's statutes covering firearm definition as well as the ATF's USC so the following is submitted for your edification:

Nevada:
NRS 202.253 Definitions.
2. "Firearm" means any device designed to be used as a weapon from which a projectile may be expelled through the barrel by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion.

New Mexico:
30-7-16.
(3) "firearm" means any weapon that will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosion;

Utah:
UT Statutes 76-10-501
(10)
(a) "Firearm" means a pistol, revolver, shotgun, short barreled shotgun, rifle or short barreled rifle, or a device that could be used as a dangerous weapon from which is expelled a projectile by action of an explosive.

Arizona:
AZ Statutes: 13-1301
4. "Firearm" means any loaded or unloaded handgun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun or other weapon that will expel, is designed to expel or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.

ATF GCA 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(C). The GCA defines the term "firearm" as:
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily
be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
 
If the world didn't have fire arms the left would be trying to ban rocks, knives or bow and arrows. o_O My question is why ask this sort of question?
Ask the OP.
His post linked to a BBC article, where they fantasize about taking our guns. Somebody needs to remind those fools what happened the last time Brits tried to take our arms.
 
Ask the OP.
His post linked to a BBC article, where they fantasize about taking our guns. Somebody needs to remind those fools what happened the last time Brits tried to take our arms.

Sorry since you stated to ask the OP, and to correct the misinterpretation, not take but firearms do not exist period in the world.
 
Nevada:
NRS 202.253 Definitions.
2. "Firearm" means any device designed to be used as a weapon from which a projectile may be expelled through the barrel by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion.
We'll stick to Nevada because that's where I live. I suppose you could propel a projectile by virtue of an explosion, but the danger then becomes (to those who think about it a little) "Will the explosion I am about to perpetrate cause the weapon to disintegrate into pieces of steel, one or more of which might impact my face or body at a lethal velocity?" The words "of any explosion" in the statute are there to cast the largest net over any possible circumstances.

As I think about it, a cast-iron sphere with an internal explosive charge being present could be considered to be a "firearm" for the purposes of prosecution of he or those who either constructed it, transported it, placed it or detonated it. I'll bet my cancerous right kidney that the pressure cooker used in Boston a few years ago was considered to be an "explosive firearm" for prosecutorial purposes. Who could have ever imagined that a pair of terrs would someday use a pressure cooker to commit multiple murder? So the law is written to cover every possible scenario. Ask yourself, how many firearms that you have ever fired from your shoulder or from your hand have "exploded" when you squeezed the trigger?


Edit: Thought about it a bit. The primer explodes. The laws written may be so written to cover even that bit of minutiae. When you want to convict someone you find every possible avenue to do so, even if you have to create new definitions of commonly-used words...
 
Last Edited:
We'll stick to Nevada because that's where I live. I suppose you could propel a projectile by virtue of an explosion, but the danger then becomes (to those who think about it a little) "Will the explosion I am about to perpetrate cause the weapon to disintegrate into pieces of steel, one or more of which might impact my face or body at a lethal velocity?" The words "of any explosion" in the statute are there to cast the largest net over any possible circumstances.

As I think about it, a cast-iron sphere with an internal explosive charge being present could be considered to be a "firearm" for the purposes of prosecution of he or those who either constructed it, transported it, placed it or detonated it. I'll bet my cancerous right kidney that the pressure cooker used in Boston a few years ago was considered to be an "explosive firearm" for prosecutorial purposes. Who could have ever imagined that a pair of terrs (sic) would someday use a pressure cooker to commit multiple murder? So the law is written to cover every possible scenario. Ask yourself, how many firearms that you have ever fired from your shoulder or from your hand have "exploded" when you squeezed the trigger?


Edit: Thought about it a bit. The primer explodes. The laws written may be so written to cover even that bit of minutiae. When you want to convict someone you find every possible avenue to do so, even if you have to create new definitions of commonly-used words...

Obtuse comes to mind, however, please kindly reread NV's statutory definition of a firearm and notice the complete sentence concept of the definition, projectile, expelled through the barrel, by the explosion!

The primer does not explode, it ignites.

The encapsulated powder in the cartridge, beneath the bullet, wait for it, explodes.

Your analogy regarding a press cooker fitting the definition of a firearm is ludicrous, at best!

E1B0F851-9F3B-429F-9ACE-EE5993AAE4BA.jpeg

82B11197-0F21-4A20-AC63-0E9983B2B4CE.jpeg
 
Sorry since you stated to ask the OP, and to correct the misinterpretation, not take but firearms do not exist period in the world.
I addressed the question you posed in a previous post. The BBC article you linked does indeed fantasize about taking guns away, since the article talks about gun confiscation, not just them magically going away.
 
And since the topic seems to be generating attention, I would like to add that guns vanishing would mean military and police would not longer have them either.
 
And since the topic seems to be generating attention, I would like to add that guns vanishing would mean military and police would not longer have them either.

Think of all those kind souls who wouldn't be shot by individuals who do so under the banner of "QI" and how much taxpayer money would be saved not having to pay the decedent's or injured family after such circumstances!

Chicago lad shot in the back ~ denied for two years by LE.
FL man shot in the back for a brake lite infraction.
Gentleman shot with cell phone in his hands

and the list goes on across the cities in this great union:
314 in 2018 already! more white then black have been killed.
987 in 2017!

if all nations on this earth had no firearms, our military and police wouldn't need them, now would they?
 
People were so passive and peaceful before guns were invented.....

Right after they were beaten to death by bigger and stronger opponents who raped their women and children and took all of their land and possessions - simply because they could.
 
People were so passive and peaceful before guns were invented.....

Right after they were beaten to death by bigger and stronger opponents who raped their women and children and took all of their land and possessions - simply because they could.

ah during the crusades...
 
First misstatement of facts, 2mm people did not march for gun control. The crowd consisted of anti-Trump supporters, Black Lives Matter, Move On supporters, abortion rights supporters and an amalgam of other splinter groups. The permits required and the preparations for such a march were in place long before the event in FL even occurred. The teenage marchers numbered less than 10%, hardly a majority. If you think guns disappearing would stop killing check what is happening in London. Guns are gone but replaced by knives and acid attacks at a rate greater than NYC. In Australia gun deaths have been replaced by other methods, the overall rate of violent homicides is on the same overall decline as well as the US rate, even as the rate of gun ownership is on the increase in both countries. Suicides will always be a significant portion of deaths, if someone wants to end it they will. A statement that the ones that survived went on to productive lives is preposterous. Many suicide attempts are simply to draw attention. As far as rates of violent crimes being 25% higher in the US, I also have to call BS, as a ratio of crimes per population we are not even in the top ten. As far as the portion of the article addressing animal control, how will we manage the fragile ecosystem that game animals live in? Proper game management ensures that species will not become extinct. And how will we contain vermin and invasive species? The worst part of the entire article is that lots of weak minded fools will read it and assume its all factual.
 

Upcoming Events

Crossroads of the West Gun Show
Las Vegas, NV

New Resource Reviews

Back Top