If you could press a button and all the guns in the world...

[HAL9000]

Not necessarily...could be the same amount only more "violently"...or maybe less would "die" and more would just be horribly maimed for the rest of their lives...

True, but I'd pick 10 maimed over 20 dead.

IF it can stop producing crappy FPS games

yes

It can!

But also the awesome ones would stop....

 

[gorcorps]

I would only press the button if it got rid of neck scarf.
Edit. How the fuck did neck t@rd get censored?

Because the mods set it that way... so now you have a count of using a banned word, circumventing the censor, and insulting folk.

And you wonder why a ban is incoming?

 

[zinfamous]

True, but it's more difficult to kill people with rocks compared to a nuclear missile.

with nuclear missiles, we have seen what we wrought.

It's a sticky issue--the presence and threat of nuclear warfare is a terrible thing; yet it truly is an effective deterrent.

Go back through the history of warfare--battles were bloody; you'd have tens and tens of thousands of dead per day.

I believe it was one of Sala ad-Din's battles during the Crusades that saw the largest casualty rate in history--roughly 500,000 dead in one day?

While it is true that the development of guns have made warfare less personal, and theoretically more bloody because of this, the opposite has proven true. We have become more efficient at killing, and while WW2 saw the largest total waste of human life the world has ever known, it was ended with a stark judgment with what we have done to ourselves, and what we can do to ourselves.

That potential in mind, and its threat very real, we have been given pause time and time again in very volatile regions--far more volatile than the great nations of the 19th and 20th centuries--with very little bloodshed, comparatively.

remove those nukes and you have very little restraint.

 

[HAL9000]

In a society without swords the strong can prey on the weak.

In a society with swords the weak can defend themselves.

In your sword free utopia, there'd be gangs of strong men running around killing and raping women and children.

I've changed the word guns to swords and your post still works....

 

[lord_emperor]

True, but it's more difficult to kill people with rocks compared to a nuclear missile.

I think with a few billion dollars and hundreds of scientists we could figure out how to kill people just as well with rocks.

Like, fly a big rock into space and drop it.

 

[gorcorps]

No, because those type of arms are what keep developed nations on top.

The entire world would be fucked if the developed nations' security is rendered useless. Why anybody would think this would end well is beyond me.

 

[zinfamous]

All true, but my point is that a society with rocks kills fewer than a society with bombs (quickly)

your point appears to reject the facts of recorded history.

this is not surprising.

 

[QuantumPion]

 

[Squisher]

A gun is a tool. The ability to make and use complex tools is something that separates us from lesser species. Why would I choose to de-evolve? Many use guns to obtain their food and protect themselves from wild animals. Why discriminate against humans in favor of lesser species?

 

[mvbighead]

No, guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Samurai sword, baseball bat, large stones, and a vast number of other things are all capable of causing death. What makes guns a special case?

I'd rather a shop owner shoot a dozen thugs attempting to rob his store, than to have to wonder every time I enter a store if a thug is going to attempt to rob the place because he is stronger/more powerful than the shop owner. At least in this day and age, most robbers at least suspect that some shop owners will carry a weapon... and that deters some (not all) who would otherwise rob the place.

 

[HAL9000]

What does this image have to do with this thread?

 

[mattpegher]

All true, but my point is that a society with rocks kills fewer than a society with bombs (quickly)

I guess it depends on your view of policing. Whether it be guns or bombs, as we establish societies that are governed by "the rule of law", groups that wish to establish security must be able to overwhelm their opponents with might. This is much more difficult to do when your weapons are bows and melee weapons. I think that the riots in GB show that a police force must be equiped with far superior weapons to quell the mob. This could be water cannons, tear gas, rubber bullets or other non-lethal options, but night-sticks and other melee weapons are not going to be effective without overwhelming man-power.

 

[QuantumPion]

What does this image have to do with this thread?

It would make more sense if it said "force" instead of guns I suppose.

What, you think if all weapons suddenly magically disappeared that there would be no more war?

 

[PimpJuice]

True, but I'd pick 10 maimed over 20 dead.

I would too, unless the 20 dead included you.

 

[HAL9000]

I guess it depends on your view of policing. Whether it be guns or bombs, as we establish societies that are governed by "the rule of law", groups that wish to establish security must be able to overwhelm their opponents with might. This is much more difficult to do when your weapons are bows and melee weapons. I think that the riots in GB show that a police force must be equiped with far superior weapons to quell the mob. This could be water cannons, tear gas, rubber bullets or other non-lethal options, but night-sticks and other melee weapons are not going to be effective without overwhelming man-power.

I think that's a bad idea personaly, if one side escalates then so does the other.

It would make more sense if it said "force" instead of guns I suppose.

What, you think if all weapons suddenly magically disappeared that there would be no more war?

Of course not, I just think that wars would be far more difficult and result in less deaths.

I would too, unless the 20 dead included you.

You love me really :web:

 

[schneiderguy]

I've changed the word guns to swords and your post still works....

No, it doesn't. Have you ever held a real sword before? Weak people can't effectively defend themselves with swords. Weak people CAN effectively defend themselves with guns.

 

[HAL9000]

No, it doesn't. Have you ever held a real sword before? Weak people can't effectively defend themselves with swords. Weak people CAN effectively defend themselves with guns.

Samurai swords? They are quite light. It's still doable if you are weak without a gun.

 

[BoberFett]

As much as I love guns, I had to say yes.

Of course the question is stupid. Now that the genie is out of the bottle there's no putting it back in.

But if we could create a make believe world where wars were more brutal, in-your-face and difficult to wage, I'd say sure, that's a good thing.

 

[zinfamous]

Of course not, I just think that wars would be far more difficult and result in less deaths.

again, why do you make such assumptions when history has shown the opposite to be true?

are all of your life decisions predicated by this inability to gather and analyze valid data?

 

[Genx87]

In a society without guns the strong can prey on the weak.

In a society with guns the weak can defend themselves.

In your gun free utopia, there'd be gangs of strong men running around killing and raping women and children.

Oh that sounds like Europe in the middle ages.

 

[schneiderguy]

Samurai swords? They are quite light. It's still doable if you are weak without a gun.

Let your fiance sword fight with a 300 pound male and see who wins D:

 

[gothamhunter]

Let your fiance sword fight with a 300 pound male and see who wins D:

The fiance - gets has a larger hitbox

 

[Firestorm007]

Only if you would disappear too!

 

[JTsyo]

In a society without guns the strong can prey on the weak.

In a society with guns the weak can defend themselves.

In your gun free utopia, there'd be gangs of strong men running around killing and raping women and children.

The Vikings would pillage England like in the days of old. The status quo has the west on top. Why would you pick an unknown change that might upset the world order and have us in a worse position. Without the force multiplier, sheer numbers would be able to overcome our forces.

Flamethrowers might become the new go to weapon and that would be a lot worse than guns. Swords are going to lose to flamethrowers every time and if you take away fire, well then...

 

[schneiderguy]

The Vikings would pillage England like in the days of old. The status quo has the west on top. Why would you pick an unknown change that might upset the world order and have us in a worse position. Without the force multiplier, sheer numbers would be able to overcome our forces.

Flamethrowers might become the new go to weapon and that would be a lot worse than guns. Swords are going to lose to flamethrowers every time and if you take away fire, well then...

Actually I'm changing my vote to YES, I've always wanted to be a Viking :awe: