Worldbuilding without the post-WW/WWII/Cold War glasses (TL, CR etc.)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by fredtheobviouspseudonym

There had to be a large, vocal, and well-organized anti-gun movement to gain much headway.

Not really. The primary mover behind gun control is generally increased urbanization, and before the 20th century the US was under 50%.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by fredtheobviouspseudonym

Remember two American presidents, both Garfield and McKinley, were killed by small handguns, only about 20 years apart. Despite this there was no giant roar for handgun elimination until the mid-20th century (say, 1930s) and it accelerated in the 1960s.

Not the 30s. The Sullivan act dates to 1911. The Act of 34 had virtually nothing to do with handguns. It was all about autoweapons and saweed off longarms. I am not aware of any noise about banning handguns from that period.

With the Act of 68 you get bans on importing small handguns and pressure for gun control at least tries to acclerate from their but if you look at concealed carry states in the US (46?) it was probably never "a giant roar".

[Ronin Rabbit]

No cold war means no Vietnam, it also ends up meaning no war on drugs. That makes big changes to Timothy Leary and his crew, who may not have ended up being "anti-establishment" poster children but instead been legitimized to some degree which would change a lot as far as both our attitudes towards incarceration/rehabilitation and psychiatry.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by Ronin Rabbit

No cold war means no Vietnam, it also ends up meaning no war on drugs.

I wouldn't want to end up in an accident in that world. Whole lot of medical advances out of Vietnam.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

I wouldn't want to end up in an accident in that world. Whole lot of medical advances out of Vietnam.

Note: I'm not talking about Earth With No WWI/II/CW. I'm talking about the preconceptions that we need to abandon when designing worlds with no events that can be compared to WW/WWII/CW. Notably, no Cold Wars might mean not only no nukes, but also less 'government secret' treatment of Space and Computer technologies, and no superpowers can mean some other stuff that I am not an expert on in regards of naval situations.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Ronin Rabbit

No cold war means no Vietnam, it also ends up meaning no war on drugs. That makes big changes to Timothy Leary and his crew, who may not have ended up being "anti-establishment" poster children but instead been legitimized to some degree which would change a lot as far as both our attitudes towards incarceration/rehabilitation and psychiatry.

the war on drugs would still happen without the could war. the origin of the war on drugs was minority suppression by targeting a vice more practiced by that minority group but not by the dominate group.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Neither gun control nor passports are really a feature of WW/WWII/Cold War influences; gun control is primarily a function of an increasingly urbanized society (with little personal attachment to firearms, since they don't hunt) and increasingly deadly weapons, passports and the like are a function of increased mobility and an increasingly bureaucratic society (also a function of urbanization/population density).

On passports: to the contrary, increased mobility were the reason behind the passports not being strictly enforced before WWI.

Originally Posted by History of passports

The rapid expansion of rail travel and wealth in Europe from the mid-nineteenth century led to a unique dissolution of the passport system for thirty odd years before WWI. The speed of trains, as well as the numbers of passengers that crossed many borders, made enforcement of passport laws difficult. The general reaction was the relaxation of passport requirements. In the later part of the nineteenth century and up to World War I, passports were not required, on the whole, for travel within Europe, and crossing a border was straightforward. Consequently, comparatively few people had passports. Most countries issued passports but countries that demanded travelers have a passport were considered backwards.
Early passports included a description of the passport holder. Photographs began to be attached to passports in the early decades of the twentieth century, when photography became widespread.
During World War I, European governments introduced border passport requirements for security reasons (to keep out spies) and to control the emigration of citizens with useful skills, retaining potential manpower. These controls remained in place after the war, and became standard procedure, though not without controversy. British tourists of the 1920s complained, especially about attached photographs and physical descriptions, which they considered led to a "nasty dehumanisation".

The discussion of gun laws in the other threat seems to indicate that many firearms became restricted roughly with the start of WWII. Whether it was linked or a coincidence I'm not as sure as you are that it is the latter.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The discussion of gun laws in the other threat seems to indicate that many firearms became restricted roughly with the start of WWII. Whether it was linked or a coincidence I'm not as sure as you are that it is the latter.

Here in the US, my understanding is that it was combined with high exposure of them being used for villainy, and there coincidentally being politicians in office who were willing to enact those sorts of measures. Alcohol prohibition hit, creating the gangsters, and then the depression hit, which led to the election of politicians who didn't like gun rights very much.

Just a weird coincidence.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

On passports: to the contrary, increased mobility were the reason behind the passports not being strictly enforced before WWI.

The discussion of gun laws in the other threat seems to indicate that many firearms became restricted roughly with the start of WWII. Whether it was linked or a coincidence I'm not as sure as you are that it is the latter.

Al Capone and his ilk were the cause of the restriction on submachine guns in the United States in 1934, but Britain of course started on it much earlier. In 1870 it became illegal to carry a gun off of one's property without a license.

[Lamech]

MAD. There's no MAD. No one in there right mind would use a nuke today because of the well known existence of MAD, and sufficient quantities for Armageddon. Divided two world earth. If Russia used nukes to get its away America follows and visa versa. You risk setting off a nuclear war. If everyone builds up nuclear weapons before the first use in anger... nukes might just be sort of a thing.

Still a powerful tool, but the same degree of paranoia about using them is gone.