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

[CZroe]

World War III fought with knives and germs? No thanks.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

OK that's arguable, but I see your point.

How is it arguable that people will kill with other weapons? Are you telling me that nobody has ever been killed by a sword or a catapult?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

No.

For self defense purposes it is always preferable to be better armed than your assailant.
For hunting purposes it is always better to have the ability to kill quickly from a distance.
For target shooting purposes it is always better to have a functioning firearm over a rock.

 

[dank69]

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

If you could just use your brain a little bit you could inflict much less pain on the rest of the world.

 

[sourceninja]

I vote no. Why? Because i'm not a "alpha male". The guy is the equalizer. It makes the geek just as powerful as the god.

 

[zinfamous]

World War III fought with knives and germs? No thanks.

this.

so much this.

 

[zinfamous]

I vote no. Why? Because i'm not a "alpha male". The guy is the equalizer. It makes the geek just as powerful as the god.

I thought the geeks killed God a long time ago?

 

[xanis]

No. Guns are such a large part of the national security of so many nations and individual security of many persons that instantly rendering them all useless would be a disaster of epic proportions.

 

[dud]

This is how you hit over 16,000 posts in only 10 months ... you start a thread and then respond to almost each and every post within the thread.

Damn Neckbard ... you have almost 25 posts just in this one thread alone. Think about it ... you could start 10 or more of these inane threads every day, post 25 times in each of your threads and add over 7,000 to your post count every month.

The possibilities ... you could hit a 100,000 in about a year and be king of the Lifers.

 

[BudAshes]

You don't need guns to break the peace. See the London riots that happened last week.

Those people wouldn't have been breaking the peace if every shop owner had a gun.

*Remembers the LA Riots*

hmmmm

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

This is how you hit over 16,000 posts in only 10 months ... you start a thread and then respond to almost each and every post within the thread.

Damn Neckbard ... you have almost 25 posts just in this one thread alone. Think about it ... you could start 10 or more of these inane threads every day, post 25 times in each of your threads and add over 7,000 to your post count every month.

The possibilities ... you could hit a 100,000 in about a year and be king of the Lifers.

It's not quantity that determines your value... case in point.

 

[waggy]

no never. it wouldn't stop murders or war.

IT would cause those that can't defend themselves to be totally defenseless.

 

[dud]

It's not quantity that determines your value... case in point.

... and the pot calls the kettle black.

 

[edro]

China would instantly zerg rush everyone.

 

[Jadow]

that would suck for the guy in the woods with a grizzly bear bearing down on him and his gun fails to work.

 

[dud]

that would suck for the guy in the woods with a grizzly bear bearing down on him and his gun fails to work.

... or the guy trying to protect his wife and kids from a knife wielding intruder bent on getting his way.

 

[Jadow]

They'd be armed and a hell of a lot of people would be dead.

And deservedly so if they try to mess with a person's property. The shopkeeper who works 15 hours a day to keep a small business running so he can feed, clothe, and shelter his family deserve the right to protect what is his from marauders.

We'd have a much more civil society if carrying of firearms was more accepted.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I would press it for several reasons.

1. In most cases guns are the weapons of cowards. They are about making killing easy and safe. They require little investment in skill building, and therefore teach little of use. They allow the taking of life impersonally. Once you make it more personal once again, and more about skill, you will likely reduce willingness to engage in such activities.

2. Everything a gun does, something else can do. You hunt? Use a bow. You want defense? Carry a knife/sword, learn martial arts, etc. You target shoot? Learn to throw knives. It wouldn't stop any practice, just make it more of a skill based exercise.

3. It would essentially remove the MIC from existence. I cannot imagine a better action.

4. It would reduce the power imbalance between citizen and government.

5. It removes the likelihood of global extinction through escalation of conflicts somewhat (though chemical/biologicals are still a threat). At the very least it removes the 'terrorist nuke' possibility.

That all being said, it has two MAJOR drawbacks that give me pause.

1. It opens the weak, aged, disabled, etc to exploitation and abuse by removing a great equalizer. While it's fine to sing the benefits of training yourself for martial defense without firearms, the bottom line is that millions would suffer because of not being able to. Even able bodied and trained persons would become 'just a man' rather than a potential force, which opens them to abuse by mobs, riots, etc.

2. It removes a great equalizer of power with the wealthy. The wealthy can obtain security or force by spending their money to buy it (through guards, mercenaries, secure buildings, etc). Right now it's largely moot because anyone with a rifle can snipe them, anyone with a brain can make explosives to defeat their measures, etc. Removing that power from the common man elevates the position of strength held by the wealthy already.


Overall I think the benefits would outweigh the negatives, but it's a close call. Mind you, I carry a gun 16/7/365, target shoot, and keep weapons in case of insurrection, so I'm not remotely anti-gun.

 

[manlymatt83]

No way.

 

[gevorg]

We need guns to deal with crazy UK looters... and trolls.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I would put it to a worldwide vote.

 

[artikk]

So now we know HAL is an alien sympathizer.

 

[zinfamous]

I would press it for several reasons.

1. In most cases guns are the weapons of cowards. They are about making killing easy and safe. They require little investment in skill building, and therefore teach little of use. They allow the taking of life impersonally. Once you make it more personal once again, and more about skill, you will likely reduce willingness to engage in such activities.

2. Everything a gun does, something else can do. You hunt? Use a bow. You want defense? Carry a knife/sword, learn martial arts, etc. You target shoot? Learn to throw knives. It wouldn't stop any practice, just make it more of a skill based exercise.

3. It would essentially remove the MIC from existence. I cannot imagine a better action.

4. It would reduce the power imbalance between citizen and government.

5. It removes the likelihood of global extinction through escalation of conflicts somewhat (though chemical/biologicals are still a threat). At the very least it removes the 'terrorist nuke' possibility.

That all being said, it has two MAJOR drawbacks that give me pause.

1. It opens the weak, aged, disabled, etc to exploitation and abuse by removing a great equalizer. While it's fine to sing the benefits of training yourself for martial defense without firearms, the bottom line is that millions would suffer because of not being able to. Even able bodied and trained persons would become 'just a man' rather than a potential force, which opens them to abuse by mobs, riots, etc.

2. It removes a great equalizer of power with the wealthy. The wealthy can obtain security or force by spending their money to buy it (through guards, mercenaries, secure buildings, etc). Right now it's largely moot because anyone with a rifle can snipe them, anyone with a brain can make explosives to defeat their measures, etc. Removing that power from the common man elevates the position of strength held by the wealthy already.


Overall I think the benefits would outweigh the negatives, but it's a close call. Mind you, I carry a gun 16/7/365, target shoot, and keep weapons in case of insurrection, so I'm not remotely anti-gun.

Before guns were used in warfare, the concept of war was, effectively, a season of the year, no less so than summer or winter.

If anything, the advent of guns and ordinance--more efficient, more effective killing, has seen a drastic reduction in willingness to kill and engage in long, drawn-out warfare.

despite such assumptions, historical precedence shows that the advent of modern warfare technology has managed to reduce total casualties, as well as the tendency towards engagement.

Now, there are many social and cultural advents that have evolved along with these technologies, but it remains that one can't fully implicate guns/bombs in the overall reduction of warfare, nor can their presence and use be ignored in such a discussion.

 

[Jaepheth]

I would not press it.

Balance of power would shift too much in the wrong direction.

Fighting wars would literally get medieval; basically, the largest population now wins wars. China could invade almost any country of its choosing.

 

[Ichinisan]

I don't want to get stabbed. Would knives and axes stop working?