alternatehistory.com

Much of the debate associated with gun control revolves around civilian ownership of military-style small arms like the AK-47, M-16, etc. There are few who advocate legal civilian ownership of things like Stinger missiles, Abrams tanks, etc.

Two things, however.

1. Many of the Founders intended for the general public to be able to match the government in terms of firepower, should the government become tyrannical. In an age of muskets and rifles, that's not a problem, but in an age of tanks, that's something else.

2. Civilian ownership of much heavier ordinance was actually common prior to the 20th Century. Civilian merchant ships carried cannon to deal with pirates and the like, cannon that (I assume) were the equal of any military ship's weaponry.

Not sure why that changed, exactly.

So, how can we make it so civilian ownership of much heavier weaponry is legal and common in the developed world? And what would the consequences be?

One consequence I can think of is that it would be easier for people in the less-peaceful regions of the world to arm themselves independently--all they'd need is a plane ticket and some cash. That might have positive consequences (better-armed Bosniaks--the arms embargo merely kept them from getting guns and didn't hurt the already-armed Serbs) or negative consequences (warlords less easy to deal with).
Top