No guns = Better world ?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



grey fox
M'kay , let's just say that some generic brand of Aliens have destroyed every gun upon the planet , and erased the knowledge of making them from our minds (we also have no way of re-discovering said knowledge) as well as turning all our nuclear weapons into lead.

Would the world become a better place ?

Mišt
No, cause then people will throw rocks at everyone, and rocks hurt like a ***** and leave bruises. Not nice at all.

Fishy
well I have to agree with that. Rocks hurt like hell, and a sword in your stomach doesn't feel real nice either.

doan_m
hmm. Probably not. War will descend down to rocks, sticks, and whatever other blunt object which would make any sort of war feel longer. Oh yes, and greater emphasis on missiles FTW.

Bardock42
Originally posted by grey fox
M'kay , let's just say that some generic brand of Aliens have destroyed every gun upon the planet , and erased the knowledge of making them from our minds (we also have no way of re-discovering said knowledge) as well as turning all our nuclear weapons into lead.

Would the world become a better place ?

I think probably yes, yes.

Deano
the elite wants to get rid of guns. they want you to be defenseless

Fishy
Originally posted by Deano
the elite wants to get rid of guns. they want you to be defenseless

That certainly proves that the US government isn't run by the elite then, now doesn't it?

Jim Reaper
Guns have never been the problem... Americans spent millions of dollars on golf balls last year; meanwhile, people are dying on the streets.

Funkadelic
Originally posted by Jim Reaper
Guns have never been the problem... Americans spent millions of dollars on golf balls last year; meanwhile, people are dying on the streets.

yeah, & we spendin' millions on streets whilst people are dying on the streets.

JacopeX
But shouldnt guns be in the same category as weaponds? So I say no Weaponds = Safer world.

Mindship
Eliminating weapons = eliminating the tools of aggression. Want a safer world? Eliminate the motivations for aggression, or we'll just keep inventing new weapons, even if it's just cleverer ways to bite and claw.

Fishy
Originally posted by JacopeX
But shouldnt guns be in the same category as weaponds? So I say no Weaponds = Safer world.

We'll just beat the shit out of each other and use natural resources like rocks and wood to kill others... Removing weapons will just make people die in a more painful way.

Pandemoniac
Thing is, when someone carries a weapon, especially a firearm, that person will likely use it in a confrontation, if only to force supremacy. While the same conflict could be solved with words or perhaps a less damaging fistfight.

History provides enough statistics on this. Before the common use of firearms in wars or public, the death-rate in wars and crime-releated events was significantly lower.

Fishy
Originally posted by Pandemoniac
Thing is, when someone carries a weapon, especially a firearm, that person will likely use it in a confrontation, if only to force supremacy. While the same conflict could be solved with words or perhaps a less damaging fistfight.

History provides enough statistics on this. Before the common use of firearms in wars or public, the death-rate in wars and crime-releated events was significantly lower.

The death rate in wars was lower? Do you honestly believe that? Look at how many US and Iraqi soldiers died in Iraq during the war, then compare that to an average battle fought in Medieval times...

Sure guns can keep on killing after the initial invasion is over, but the battles themselves are far less cruel. And if you honestly believe that crime has increased because of guns I sure as hell would like to see some statistics or any kind of proof really.

In Fate's Hands
no weapons= no meat due to we need to kill cattle with weapons in order to get meat

Pandemoniac
Originally posted by Fishy
The death rate in wars was lower? Do you honestly believe that? Look at how many US and Iraqi soldiers died in Iraq during the war, then compare that to an average battle fought in Medieval times...

Sure guns can keep on killing after the initial invasion is over, but the battles themselves are far less cruel. And if you honestly believe that crime has increased because of guns I sure as hell would like to see some statistics or any kind of proof really.

The death toll in medieval wars mostly concerned those directly involved with the battle at hand. No long-range warheads, nukes, poison gas or land mines killing bystanders.
Ancient battles took relatively less lives amough the involved parties, just because of the inefficiency of the applied weaponry.
What is more cruel anyhow, stabbing a person who is equally motivated to appear at the front, or just pushing a button and destroying a whole family that wants nothing to do with the mess their leaders gotten them into.
More so, a mere robbery in the old days consisted of getting clubbed across the head and having your gold stolen, waking up bruised but alive.
Today crooks shoot you in the face to take your phone.

The power of weaponry distorts one's judgement and actions, leading to disastrous results

quickshot
a gun on its own isnt dangerous give it a human different matter. . .

Fishy
Originally posted by Pandemoniac
The death toll in medieval wars mostly concerned those directly involved with the battle at hand. No long-range warheads, nukes, poison gas or land mines killing bystanders.
Ancient battles took relatively less lives amough the involved parties, just because of the inefficiency of the applied weaponry.
What is more cruel anyhow, stabbing a person who is equally motivated to appear at the front, or just pushing a button and destroying a whole family that wants nothing to do with the mess their leaders gotten them into.
More so, a mere robbery in the old days consisted of getting clubbed across the head and having your gold stolen, waking up bruised but alive.
Today crooks shoot you in the face to take your phone.

The power of weaponry distorts one's judgement and actions, leading to disastrous results

In the most recent wars advanced weaponry has been used to avoid civilian casualty's they happen sure, but precise weapons are becoming more and more popular.

In ancient times it wasn't uncommon to slaughter the population of the city you took in order to make sure the rest wouldn't resist. The casualty's of actions like that by far outweigh the casualty's in wars of today including the total amount of casualty's in Iraq. Modern weapons have the potential to do far more damage but recently it seems like they are doing less then ancient times would have.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Fishy
We'll just beat the shit out of each other and use natural resources like rocks and wood to kill others... Removing weapons will just make people die in a more painful way.

I don't think so. I think it would also decrease the amounts of death due to different factors. Though I am not for banning weapons.

Fishy
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think so. I think it would also decrease the amounts of death due to different factors. Though I am not for banning weapons.

Do you honestly believe that removing modern day weapons would stop us from fighting wars?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Fishy
Do you honestly believe that removing modern day weapons would stop us from fighting wars?

No. Not what I said though, is it?

Darth Godzilla
Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.

Get rid of all the people. Problem solved.



BTW, guns are needed for population control. Maybe some1 who was killed by a gun was going to get an alien disease that could have wiped out the planet, but because he was shot we were all saved.

Fishy
Originally posted by Bardock42
No. Not what I said though, is it?

No but you did say less people would die in wars and in less painful ways, or at the very least equally painful which I just don't see happening. Mass fighting with huge army's against another huge army would kill far more people then modern day conflicts.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Fishy
No but you did say less people would die in wars and in less painful ways, or at the very least equally painful which I just don't see happening. Mass fighting with huge army's against another huge army would kill far more people then modern day conflicts.

No, I would say it would decrease the total death rate. Which I am standing by.

I won't claim it will be less painful. I don't know.

But if we just have sticks less people will die.

End of le story.

Fishy
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I would say it would decrease the total death rate. Which I am standing by.

I won't claim it will be less painful. I don't know.

But if we just have sticks less people will die.

End of le story.

Sticks perhaps, but without guns we'd still have bows and swords... I'd rather be in a war with guns then in a war with those.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Fishy
Sticks perhaps, but without guns we'd still have bows and swords... I'd rather be in a war with guns then in a war with those.

I'd rather have an army with sticks marching at me than a nuclear warhead.

Fishy
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd rather have an army with sticks marching at me than a nuclear warhead.

The possibility of total destruction does of course exist with modern day army's. But the far more controlled destruction that happens most of the time with the incredibly small risk of total destruction is still preferable to me then a full out war with medieval or ancient technology....

Sticks might do, but they would still hurt like hell... Less casualty's though seeing as you probably wouldn't have the time to beat most people to dead because there are others you need to fight. And when the battle is over you probably don't have the energy to kill everybody that's still breathing.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Fishy
The possibility of total destruction does of course exist with modern day army's. But the far more controlled destruction that happens most of the time with the incredibly small risk of total destruction is still preferable to me then a full out war with medieval or ancient technology....

Sticks might do, but they would still hurt like hell... Less casualty's though seeing as you probably wouldn't have the time to beat most people to dead because there are others you need to fight. And when the battle is over you probably don't have the energy to kill everybody that's still breathing.

Point one. Also if your neighbour has a gun and hates you and can kill you easily he might do it sooner than beating you with a stick to death, seeing as you have better chances to protect yourself.

Fishy
Originally posted by Bardock42
Point one. Also if your neighbour has a gun and hates you and can kill you easily he might do it sooner than beating you with a stick to death, seeing as you have better chances to protect yourself.

This is true, on the other hand the chance of my neighbor having a gun is really small. And still even if he would and he would kill me that would still not relate to the total amount of deaths in an average medieval or ancient battle....

grey fox
My initial idea for this thread was that without the simplicity of 'Point click' that a gun gives crime rates would drop as it takes more skill to utilise a sword (Though the ideas of army's marching to war with sticks and stones got a good lol out of me) then it does to fire a pistol.

It would be an interesting conflict though , oh and no other tech is reduced. We still have current medical knowledge and all that Jazz .

Bardock42
Originally posted by Fishy
This is true, on the other hand the chance of my neighbor having a gun is really small. And still even if he would and he would kill me that would still not relate to the total amount of deaths in an average medieval or ancient battle....

You think? I dunno, I think modern Battles kinda top the medieval ones extremely.

Fishy
Originally posted by grey fox
My initial idea for this thread was that without the simplicity of 'Point click' that a gun gives crime rates would drop as it takes more skill to utilise a sword (Though the ideas of army's marching to war with sticks and stones got a good lol out of me) then it does to fire a pistol.

It would be an interesting conflict though , oh and no other tech is reduced. We still have current medical knowledge and all that Jazz .

Well it would as first, as well as the amount of wars and the amount of people that would die in them, but that will only last for a small period of time. Eventually we'll learn again.



Well look at the war in Afghanistan for instance, or the last Gulf War... Far more peaceful then conquests of Ghenghis Khan, Atilla the Hun, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or whatever... Battle's there killed thousands, no entire wars kill hundreds...

Then again the aftermath of the conflict kills a lot of people, I have no idea how it was in those days so perhaps the Iraqi war would have taken less lives if swords and bows would still have been the primary weapons.

Quiero Mota
No.

JacopeX
Originally posted by Fishy
We'll just beat the shit out of each other and use natural resources like rocks and wood to kill others... Removing weapons will just make people die in a more painful way. War is what causes us to go through pain and suffering in many ways. When I say no weaponds, I ment to give out to any citizen. That is why Gun safety is complete bullshit. You can buy guns anywhere and they can shoot anyone.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Fishy
Well it would as first, as well as the amount of wars and the amount of people that would die in them, but that will only last for a small period of time. Eventually we'll learn again.



Well look at the war in Afghanistan for instance, or the last Gulf War... Far more peaceful then conquests of Ghenghis Khan, Atilla the Hun, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or whatever... Battle's there killed thousands, no entire wars kill hundreds...

Then again the aftermath of the conflict kills a lot of people, I have no idea how it was in those days so perhaps the Iraqi war would have taken less lives if swords and bows would still have been the primary weapons.

Well, you are comparing this latest small one with the greatest ever though.

Fishy
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you are comparing this latest small one with the greatest ever though.

I don't really consider Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan Project Russia, WWII or WWI to be modern day conflicts... Although that would depend in how far in history you would be willing to call modern.

If you would look however from the start of gunpowder till now then you are definitely right. If you would look at like me from the fall of the wall till now then casualty's are a lot lower

Bardock42
Originally posted by Fishy
I don't really consider Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan Project Russia, WWII or WWI to be modern day conflicts... Although that would depend in how far in history you would be willing to call modern.

If you would look however from the start of gunpowder till now then you are definitely right. If you would look at like me from the fall of the wall till now then casualty's are a lot lower

Well, no major conflicts since then. And Iraqis lost a good amount of blood. Don't underestimate that.

Also, comparing 10 years to 1000 I dunno.

Fishy
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, no major conflicts since then. And Iraqis lost a good amount of blood. Don't underestimate that.

Also, comparing 10 years to 1000 I dunno.

Not to a thousand years but the way wars were fought back then, wars are fought differently now then they were 20, 30, 40, 50 & 60 years ago... Back then it was more mass destruction now it's more minimal damage and minimal loss of life. I guess it just looks at how you want to look at it.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Fishy
Not to a thousand years but the way wars were fought back then, wars are fought differently now then they were 20, 30, 40, 50 & 60 years ago... Back then it was more mass destruction now it's more minimal damage and minimal loss of life. I guess it just looks at how you want to look at it.

Not because of the weapons though. But because of the different state of mind.

You think if the weapins had been available to Hitler he wouldn't have used them? Also, you think if we all had sticks nowwe would go back to that mentality?

Rogue Jedi
ideally, in my opinion, the only people with guns should be cops and soldiers.

docb77
use a little common sense here.

War fought with Guns -

People hide in holes and shoot at each other. People die, but also anyone has a chance of living.

War fought with swords -

People run at each other and start hacking with swords. Once someone dies, the person that was fighting that person will go look for someone else to fight.

In "modern" wars (anything since the US civil war) We would be completely agast if casualties reached even 10 percent.

In ancient warfare it wouldn't be surprising for the winning army to have casualties approaching 30%. Losing armies could be close to completely wiped out.

The difference? In the ancient method the only way for you to survive was for you to kill. In modern warfare you have the option of killing or hiding with hiding being the more effective of the 2.

Of course ancient war was more bloody. And we really wouldn't have much choice in how we fought our wars if the technology level were returned to that level.

Rogue Jedi
as i said, only cops and soldiers should have guns.

docb77
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
as i said, only cops and soldiers should have guns.

And hunters

and anyone who wants to be able to protect their family.

Bardock42
Originally posted by docb77
And hunters

and anyone who wants to be able to protect their family.


Everyone sounds just about fair.

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by JacopeX
When I say no weaponds

Please never say weaponds again.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by docb77
And hunters

and anyone who wants to be able to protect their family.
hunters? you can buy meat at the supermarket. protecting your families? if the criminals have no guns, why do we need them?

Fishy
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
hunters? you can buy meat at the supermarket. protecting your families? if the criminals have no guns, why do we need them?

For the Illuminati and the secret world government come to take over the world smile

Otherwise no reason, hunters are good though we need them to stop animals from breeding to much, we don't want animals in our living area now do we?



This is true, but if the state of mind today would go from controlled damage to mass destruction it would ruin us all, so controlled damage is probably going to stay important for a very long time, besides I don't see wars where we blow up entire city's becoming more popular suddenly. And if we would go back to swords and whatnot we would go back to mass destruction techniques, seeing as controlled destruction with swords is kinda hard.

BackFire
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
hunters? you can buy meat at the supermarket. protecting your families? if the criminals have no guns, why do we need them?

Apparantly no hunters live near an Albertsons.

wuTa
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
hunters? you can buy meat at the supermarket. protecting your families? if the criminals have no guns, why do we need them?

Because they are still criminals, not having guns isnt't going to stop them from committing acts of violence.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Fishy
For the Illuminati and the secret world government come to take over the world smile

Otherwise no reason, hunters are good though we need them to stop animals from breeding to much, we don't want animals in our living area now do we?



This is true, but if the state of mind today would go from controlled damage to mass destruction it would ruin us all, so controlled damage is probably going to stay important for a very long time, besides I don't see wars where we blow up entire city's becoming more popular suddenly. And if we would go back to swords and whatnot we would go back to mass destruction techniques, seeing as controlled destruction with swords is kinda hard.
ah....the "overpopulation" factor. if you were a deer, and you were shot, gutted, strung up and quartered, then served up to a bunch of white trash rednecks, how would you feel abvout it?

Darth Godzilla
Guns= Equality.

No guns, small people get crushed by big people.
Guns, small people shoot big people.



Of course, I'm big for my age and good at swordfighting. Maybe I oughta shut up.

Then again, I belong to the NRA.

Bardock42
Small people shoot big people. Roight.

Rogue Jedi
last time i checked, any person, despite their stature, can shoot someone else.

Darth Godzilla
Originally posted by Bardock42
Small people shoot big people. Roight.

They have the opportunity. The Colt was reffered to as "The Great Equalizer" for good reason.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Darth Godzilla
Guns= Equality.

No guns, small people get crushed by big people.
Guns, small people shoot big people.



Of course, I'm big for my age and good at swordfighting. Maybe I oughta shut up.

Then again, I belong to the NRA.
so if i pull a beretta on you and empty the clip, you will block the bullets jedi style?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Darth Godzilla
They have the opportunity. The Colt was reffered to as "The Great Equalizer" for good reason. Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
last time i checked, any person, despite their stature, can shoot someone else.

My God. You actually meant stature.

Rogue Jedi
their physical stature. as in their size.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
their physical stature. as in their size.

Yes.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Bardock42
My God. You actually meant stature.
then why this?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
then why this?

Because it signaled my disbelieve.

Rogue Jedi
whatever you say, B.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
whatever you say, B.

Why are you asking if you aren't really that interested?

Rogue Jedi
more curious than interested.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
more curious than interested.

Though apparently that neither.

Rogue Jedi
yes, kinda curious. that and bored.

Badabing
Originally posted by Pandemoniac
The death toll in medieval wars mostly concerned those directly involved with the battle at hand. No long-range warheads, nukes, poison gas or land mines killing bystanders.
Ancient battles took relatively less lives amough the involved parties, just because of the inefficiency of the applied weaponry.
What is more cruel anyhow, stabbing a person who is equally motivated to appear at the front, or just pushing a button and destroying a whole family that wants nothing to do with the mess their leaders gotten them into.
More so, a mere robbery in the old days consisted of getting clubbed across the head and having your gold stolen, waking up bruised but alive.
Today crooks shoot you in the face to take your phone.

The power of weaponry distorts one's judgement and actions, leading to disastrous results
Check the stats on the Crusades and the Conquests of Rome. In medieval times and earlier collateral damage WAS part of war. Villages were burned, civilian men slaughtered, civilian woman raped and so on. Brutality, oppression, maliciousness and war were part of life well before firearms.

Robbery in the old days consisted of a slit throat, a sword run through or an arrow in the back. People were robbed of their lives, livestock and land.

Rogue Jedi
thats why i am glad i was not a gladiator, or a conquistador, or....whatever.

Funkadelic
Originally posted by Badabing
Check the stats on the Crusades and the Conquests of Rome. In medieval times and earlier collateral damage WAS part of war. Villages were burned, civilian men slaughtered, civilian woman raped and so on. Brutality, oppression, maliciousness and war were part of life well before firearms.

Robbery in the old days consisted of a slit throat, a sword run through or an arrow in the back. People were robbed of their lives, livestock and land.

Yes, and still more innocents die now than in the past in numbers and percentage.

Fishy
Originally posted by Funkadelic
Yes, and still more innocents die now than in the past in numbers and percentage.

Innocents? Like when Jerusalem was conquered during the First crusade and all Muslims were killed? Like when Alexander burned city's to get them to stay nice, like Ghenghis Khan executing entire villages just so he wouldn't have to fight the next one?

then again we could consider wars like World War 2 modern wars, in which case nukes, napalm and just bombing of city's could be considered really bad but even then I would have to wonder which wars caused more deaths. Modern day wars however do not even begin to compare

§noopy
Originally posted by Mindship
Eliminating weapons = eliminating the tools of aggression. Want a safer world? Eliminate the motivations for aggression, or we'll just keep inventing new weapons, even if it's just cleverer ways to bite and claw.

§noopy
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
hunters? you can buy meat at the supermarket. protecting your families? if the criminals have no guns, why do we need them? Because the criminals are already criminals, so what's to stop them from getting guns if they're not afraid to break the law?

Symmetric Chaos
the best way to really make a better world is to convince everyone to get rid of guns

then when they're defenseless you kill them all (or if you consider that morally wrong crush their wills under you ironfisted gun toting dictatorship)

Badabing
Originally posted by Funkadelic
Yes, and still more innocents die now than in the past in numbers and percentage.
No doubt. It seems people have more time to worry about petty differences now.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Badabing
It seems people have more time to worry about petty differences now.

I think its more that now its much easier to kill people (thx guns)

for example Columbine

Kids like that have ALWAYS wanted to kill bullies
before guns they didn't stand a chance but with them such revenge is possible

Badabing
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think its more that now its much easier to kill people (thx guns)

for example Columbine

Kids like that have ALWAYS wanted to kill bullies
before guns they didn't stand a chance but with them such revenge is possible
Yeah, it seems like these school shootings are becoming more prevalent.

Rogue Jedi

Fishy
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i KNOW its not really feasible, that there would be a black market for guns.

Bullshit.

Of course some people could and would still get guns, but it would be far less and most people would not go through the problems of acquiring a gun, but the way it is now, it's easier to just take one with you. Seeing as you can buy one at your local toy store anyway.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Fishy
Bullshit.

Of course some people could and would still get guns, but it would be far less and most people would not go through the problems of acquiring a gun, but the way it is now, it's easier to just take one with you. Seeing as you can buy one at your local toy store anyway.
I was referring to an impossible scenario in which there would be no possible to get a gun, lest you were a cop or soldier.
of course there would be a black market for guns.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Fishy
Seeing as you can buy one at your local toy store anyway.

Oh god I've been hit by NERF bullets!

Fishy
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oh god I've been hit by NERF bullets!

Matter of speaking, that wasn't meant to be taken literally.

ThePittman
People will still kill even if you take away the nukes and guns, they will be more hands on. You will take away some of the easier killing like drive-bys and the like but people have been killing without guns for centuries and even in modern times.

Bardock42
Originally posted by ThePittman
People will still kill even if you take away the nukes and guns, they will be more hands on. You will take away some of the easier killing like drive-bys and the like but people have been killing without guns for centuries and even in modern times.

Yeah, but it wouldn't be as easy.

BobbyD
Originally posted by grey fox
Would the world become a better place ?

Probably, but there's no way of really knowing for sure.

ThePittman

BobbyD
I think there would be a decrease in violent crimes committed with a gun. shifty

ThePittman
Originally posted by BobbyD
I think there would be a decrease in violent crimes committed with a gun. shifty thumb up laughing

BobbyD
laughing out loud

BobbyD
Wasn't it great, Pittman?


rolling on floor laughing

ThePittman
Originally posted by BobbyD
Wasn't it great, Pittman?


rolling on floor laughing hum

BobbyD
laughing out loud

Awww, c'mon.

Actually, I'm surprised you didn't come up with it first.

Bardock42
Yes, yes, guys, what about you do not take up a whole page for a slightly funny yet generally mediocre joke?

BobbyD
Bardock! How've you been?

This is right up your....alley.

ThePittman
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, yes, guys, what about you do not take up a whole page for a slightly funny yet generally mediocre joke? stick out tongue

Bardock42
Originally posted by BobbyD
Bardock! How've you been?

This is right up your....alley.

I have been well.

BobbyD
That's good to hear, bud. smile

Robtard
Originally posted by Deano
the elite wants to get rid of guns. they want you to be defenseless
Originally posted by Fishy
That certainly proves that the US government isn't run by the elite then, now doesn't it?

That was funny... smile

The Black Ghost
At the very least the scale of destruction would go down and less people would have a chance of doing harm too easily... but the problem of inner feelings of hatred would still remain, and therefore still leave us in the same situation.

So it would make a safer world, but not a better one (phsycologically)

ThePittman
However you must also take into account the crimes that were stopped or prevented crimes by the presence of a gun. Such as a female using a gun on a much stronger attacker or just the fact that she has a gun, or guns that are used to stop a crime such as a sniper taking out a person holding people hostage or a bomber that is shot before they can hit the button. Hell this could also create a new boom on taser, just taser you victim and then kill them at your leisure.

Kinneary
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/27/223955.shtml
http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.pdf

Guns in the hands of citizens deter crime.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Kinneary
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/27/223955.shtml
http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.pdf

Guns in the hands of citizens deter crime.

yes, of course

more weapons = less crime

that makes perfect sense time to get my five year old his first AK

ThePittman

Symmetric Chaos
You said weapons in the hands of civilians reduces crime not in the hands of police or military

I couldn't call the cops if I was a hostage

ThePittman
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You said weapons in the hands of civilians reduces crime not in the hands of police or military

I couldn't call the cops if I was a hostage Do you have anything to back up your statement or you just talking out your butt? It has been shown over and over again that if the common citizen is armed that criminals think twice before robbing someone though on the flip side it also increases the chances of accidental shooting as well. There is a good and bad side to this argument, there is no right answer. Until the mindset of people change one is good as the other.

Oh and I never said that, if you read my previous posts.

Symmetric Chaos
my mistake

I was responding to such a statement however

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by grey fox
M'kay , let's just say that some generic brand of Aliens have destroyed every gun upon the planet , and erased the knowledge of making them from our minds (we also have no way of re-discovering said knowledge) as well as turning all our nuclear weapons into lead.

Would the world become a better place ?

No, we've been killing each other since our inception, a lack of guns is not going to stop it.

Originally posted by Pandemoniac
The death toll in medieval wars mostly concerned those directly involved with the battle at hand. No long-range warheads, nukes, poison gas or land mines killing bystanders.
Ancient battles took relatively less lives amough the involved parties, just because of the inefficiency of the applied weaponry.
What is more cruel anyhow, stabbing a person who is equally motivated to appear at the front, or just pushing a button and destroying a whole family that wants nothing to do with the mess their leaders gotten them into.
More so, a mere robbery in the old days consisted of getting clubbed across the head and having your gold stolen, waking up bruised but alive.
Today crooks shoot you in the face to take your phone.

The power of weaponry distorts one's judgement and actions, leading to disastrous results

You actually believe this!?

WHAT!?

The winners of a battle would rape and pillage towns and villages on a REGULAR BASIS. On top of that, they took the men they didn't kill as slaves.



This is especially hilarious. Clubbed across the head in the old days? When the hell was this? Neanderthal times? People have been getting stabbed and killed in robberies since man figured out how to sharpen flint rocks!

You're either very naive or very stupid, I can't decide which. I hope to God it's naive, for your sake.

Symmetric Chaos
But would fewer guns reduce the amount of killing?

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But would fewer guns reduce the amount of killing?

It's possible, but not likely.

It'd definitely make it harder to kill, but just as many people died back when swords and arrows were the weapon of choice as are dying today.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
It's possible, but not likely.

It'd definitely make it harder to kill, but just as many people died back when swords and arrows were the weapon of choice as are dying today.

fortunately people today are just too stupid to make a working bow and arrow or sword

ThePittman
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
fortunately people today are just too stupid to make a working bow and arrow or sword No they just make complex explosives that they can learn of the Internet, read in books how to kill people or what ever you want. All you need is a taser gun and a knife and you can lay waste to people. Why would you need a bow when a M-80 and a bottle or propane works wonders or Molotov cocktails just to name a few. Why would you need to make any weapons when you just go out and buy them, a golf club works just as well.

debbiejo
Doing away with guns would not give any peace. Before guns was there peace?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by ThePittman
No they just make complex explosives that they can learn of the Internet, read in books how to kill people or what ever you want. All you need is a taser gun and a knife and you can lay waste to people. Why would you need a bow when a M-80 and a bottle or propane works wonders or Molotov cocktails just to name a few. Why would you need to make any weapons when you just go out and buy them, a golf club works just as well.

awsome! thx for the advice

but if aliens wiped our memories of guns, destroyed all the guns and got rid of nukes do you think they'd leave behind information like that?

docb77
So I guess we couldn't really make a determination of if more or less people would die, but we could definitely say that taking out firearms would change which people died.

Instead of an equal playing field it would be only the strong that would survive again.

ThePittman

Fishy
Originally posted by ThePittman
Do you have anything to back up your statement or you just talking out your butt? It has been shown over and over again that if the common citizen is armed that criminals think twice before robbing someone though on the flip side it also increases the chances of accidental shooting as well. There is a good and bad side to this argument, there is no right answer. Until the mindset of people change one is good as the other.

Oh and I never said that, if you read my previous posts.

Do you have anything to back that up?

Show me some research and then I might believe you, until that moment I am still going to say that criminals are more likely to buy guns legally then law abiding citizens.

The fact that everybody can buy a gun doesn't mean everybody does ad the criminal will still have the advantage of surprise, at least if he or she is any good at what they are doing.

ThePittman
Originally posted by Fishy
Do you have anything to back that up?

Show me some research and then I might believe you, until that moment I am still going to say that criminals are more likely to buy guns legally then law abiding citizens.

The fact that everybody can buy a gun doesn't mean everybody does ad the criminal will still have the advantage of surprise, at least if he or she is any good at what they are doing. There have already been two posting of research, what do you have?

Bardock42
Well..there is of course the gun related death figures in different countries, which, I do not recall quite, you may help me, are what, like:

10000 USA - under 300 every other First World Country?

Rogue Jedi
some could say no guns=one less way of killing. others could say no guns=other ways of killing will become more popular.

ThePittman

debbiejo
Now if people don't have guns, how would one protect themselves? Especially against someone who has a gun.

ThePittman
Originally posted by debbiejo
Now if people don't have guns, how would one protect themselves? Especially against someone who has a gun. With pixie sticks and gum drop wishes wink

Rogue Jedi
deb, this has already been discussed here.

Bardock42
Originally posted by debbiejo
Now if people don't have guns, how would one protect themselves? Especially against someone who has a gun.

Call the police?

Rogue Jedi
or run away like a schoolgirl.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
or run away like a schoolgirl.

Yeah, or try to give up as to not risk yourself and anyone else.

ThePittman
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, or try to give up as to not risk yourself and anyone else. laughing funny pic wink

Rogue Jedi
i just noticed that... laughing out loud

2-D
Originally posted by grey fox
M'kay , let's just say that some generic brand of Aliens have destroyed every gun upon the planet , and erased the knowledge of making them from our minds (we also have no way of re-discovering said knowledge) as well as turning all our nuclear weapons into lead.

Would the world become a better place ?

Nah ow wud we shoot things if we didn't av guns.

Ur livin in the past man...quit livin in the past2guns Happy Dance

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by 2-D
Nah ow wud we shoot things if we didn't av guns.

Ur livin in the past man...quit livin in the past2guns Happy Dance
wow. finally, someone besides myself for the GDF posse to bash.

Fishy
Originally posted by ThePittman
There have already been two posting of research, what do you have?

To the first article, one banned guns from people living there it didn't ban guns all together so it's not even close to conclusive and the second town in which the crime rate dropped forced every citizen to have a gun.

Seeing as not every citizen carries a gun, nor will they ever that entire article is just a piece of crap.

as for the PDF File, I find it funny. It's obviously biased as it shows a clear opinion, it shows little facts but the statistics they do show mean nothing. In all cases we can see a drop going on before the law was passed after that we see a drop and a rise again, it mentions nothing about how many people died.

The fact is a criminal with a gun can do as much as one without it, because somebody can't reach for a gun if another one already has one aimed at them... Crime is dropping like mad here in Holland and we don't allow guns. Should I post statistics about that as to proof that not allowing guns reduces crime?

lord xyz
Originally posted by grey fox
M'kay , let's just say that some generic brand of Aliens have destroyed every gun upon the planet , and erased the knowledge of making them from our minds (we also have no way of re-discovering said knowledge) as well as turning all our nuclear weapons into lead.

Would the world become a better place ? If we don't have guns we'll finds an alternative, possibly one more violent.

ThePittman

Fishy
Originally posted by ThePittman
I am not disagreeing with you that banning guns will reduce the crime rate in general, however I would like to see some figures that showing banning guns have reduced violent crimes, not violent crimes with a gun but crimes in general.

In this country every crime that is committed with a gun is counted as a violent crime, so yes. But that would then again depend on what you consider as violent crimes



If this is true, then the article saying that crime rate was reduced when people all had to carry guns makes no sense.



The thing here is, the street thugs can more easily get guns in the US then in a country like the Netherlands, of course they can get guns here but it takes some work to actually get one. So of course criminals can easily get it, it's not even all that hard, but the fact remains that most don't... And that's what makes the difference. A country that has fewer guns will have fewer gun related deaths, it can have more assaults that is true, but like you said relating them to guns is almost impossible. So the easiest thing to say here is simply, less guns is less gun related deaths. Forcing everybody to carry guns at all times makes the crime rate drop like hell. But would very likely increase the murder rate

docb77
Anyone see the Penn and Teller BS episode about gun control. It has a few relevant points.

lord xyz
Originally posted by docb77
Anyone see the Penn and Teller BS episode about gun control. It has a few relevant points. Yes, but it's saying that we should all have guns and trust eachother.

docb77
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes, but it's saying that we should all have guns and trust eachother.

Actually, I think it was saying that we should all have guns and distrust the govt.

cain marko
it would be quiter!

PVS
no weapons = better world
few weapons = tyranny

BobbyD
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
yes, of course

more weapons = less crime

that makes perfect sense time to get my five year old his first AK

laughing out loud

snoochyboochies
You americans are obviously in favour of guns as would I if I lived in a country where they are so easily accessable. If you own a gun in your home for protection, you're probably doing it to give yourself a chance against a would be burglar because you know how easy it is to get hold of guns(therefore Mr.burglar might well have one).

In the UK, you don't need one really and in any case you can't legally own one unless its a shotgun or an airgun(with a license) and you cant carry anything remotely like a gun in a public place. You can get locked up here for waving a BB gun around in public(and I mean that). Despite the fact that more guns are coming into the UK, only organised criminals/gangsters and armed robbers have real guns in this country and the gangsters just shoot eachother anyway (and who the f*ck cares about that).

In the UK, only the complete fools will open fire in public and hardly anyone is dumb enough to even hold a gun/imitation gun/water pistol at the Police (meaning that the Police can help you against a gunman -whether they are armed or not).

I guess what I am saying is that real, proper guns with real fire power should not be accessable to the public at all in any civilised country, only to the Governent. Of course some of you (from the US) will say that that takes away your freedom and the potential to fight back against your goverment (as if you would ever need to and as if you would stand a chance anyway).

Thats the way it is in the UK and i would venture to say that we live more freely than most.

botankus
Originally posted by snoochyboochies
Despite the fact that more guns are coming into the UK, only organised criminals/gangsters and armed robbers have real guns in this country and the gangsters just shoot eachother anyway (and who the f*ck cares about that).

In the UK, only the complete fools will open fire in public and hardly anyone is dumb enough to even hold a gun/imitation gun/water pistol at the Police (meaning that the Police can help you against a gunman -whether they are armed or not).

Okay, but I question how the behavior of someone carrying a loaded gun (for reasons other than occupation) can be so predictable.

ThePittman

snoochyboochies

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.