Or, if it was my ideal world for purposes of making a point, there's no particular regulation regarding the robustness of firearms, and no firearm blows up because there's just no point in building firearms that blow up in the user's face. Contrast that with regulated manufacture, where a long standing and hard earned reputaion for quality is replaced by a government issued certificate of merit--a certificate that is issued by an agenct appointed by "honest" politicians. What might happen? Guns would be blowing up everywhere because a buddy of the politician lobbied (with underaged hookers, and over aged scotch) for his certificate that grants him equal standing (by regulatory fiat, rather than actual merit) with legit concerns. Your ideal world is much more ideal than I gave it credit for; in your ideal world, retards would continue to buy shitty guns from shabby manufacturers, despite the evidence around them of the consequences from using said shitty weapons. These shabby manufacturers, abbetted by their retarded clients, would be performing the valuable social service of cleaning up the gene pool--until, of course, this shabby manufacturer gets sued. In which case, his buddies in the regulatory agency, and on Capitol Hill, sheild their certified quality arms manufacuterer from liabilty--since proving that this shit-heel is a shabby manufacturer ony serves to indict the regulatory system that granted him equal standing (by regulatory fiat, rather than actual merit) with his peers. I'd be willing to bet that in your ideal world, these politicians would blame "our violent society" and then regulate who gets guns based on their ability to buy well made guns--discriminating against the poor while preserving the full rights of their wealthy campaign contributors. Yes? Yep. Dead and injured retards. Yes. No.