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

[zinfamous]

This fails to take into account, well, pretty much everything. You ignore the firming of national boundaries and end of empire. You ignore the improvement of food and other logistics problems which created that standard in the first place. You ignore the population explosion and subsequent globalization. You ignore technological advancements (like communication and transportation). You ignore the establishment of medicine and treatment. You basically ignore everything. Oh you give it one sentence at the end as a dismissal, but you effectively ignore it.

Also, I never said it would 'end warfare'...I said it would reduce the individual propensity for personal violence, crumble the MIC, and alleviate most 'mass destruction' options that threaten mankind as a whole.

Perhaps you missed all that in my final statement in the post.

No, I didn't ignore it. I didn't go into detail, sure, but I think you skimmed my comments.

edit:
Oh, I skimmed your comments, lol. No, I wouldn't call it a dismissal, just being lazy, the main point is that you simply can't ignore the impact of efficient, effective warfare.

especially with Nukes--we know we have that supreme destructive power. We have seen the potential to murder at the grandest scale possible (we thought we had seen that in WW1) and that alone, more or less, is what has completely changed the face of war. Nukes, for all their ills, are perhaps more important to keep around than would be a reality in which their threat does not exist.

 

[CZroe]

I believe what I said was all weapons between a handgun and a nuclear missile, I don't consider a bow and arrow between those two weapons.


I have to say I'm very surprised by this result, I thought it would be a landslide victory for the "Yes, I'd push the button" and a few gun nuts saying no.

Which tells you just how little people think before demonizing guns and "higher" militaristic weapons. They all have a purpose.

It also seems to me that you are blissfully unaware of the fact that LARGE-SCALE WARS have been fought without guns. Spears, bows, arrows, torches, knives, and swords with high casualties all around. The typical survivor is going to be worse-off in those types of wars as well.

 

[Sureshot324]

No. People would just find another weapon to kill each other. Knives, or baseball bats, or a shopping bag. I like the last one. It's my preferred method. Silent, innocent... I've said too much.

Other methods like melee weapons require much more effort and risk, therefore a lot less people would do that.

 

[HAL9000]

Other methods like melee weapons require much more effort and risk, therefore a lot less people would do that.

:thumbsup:

 

[CZroe]

Other methods like melee weapons require much more effort and risk, therefore a lot less people would do that.

Except that a lot MORE people DID do that before guns were made available to them. Also, there were projectile spears and arrows before bullets. Even without, a guy on a horse with a torch, sword, spear, etc can do a lot that the typical defender on foot could not defend against.

 

[Pia]

Voted no, but it's not such a cut-and-dried deal.

Civilized countries would be no longer threatened by nuclear proliferation, and the costs of war would make them extremely reluctant to attack anyone. Good, I guess, unless very good reasons to wage war emerge (maybe something threatening the whole environment?) and the better weapons would then spare human suffering.

Genocidal folk in Africa and elsewhere would keep butchering people with machetes. Guns and bombs would work to stop that but haven't been used. So no change there.

Civilian context where gun carry is not currently allowed: no change.

Civilian context where gun carry is currently allowed: civilians would be rendered mostly defenseless. Even though I'm decent at using other weapons and would thus appear to be in a stronger position than in an environment full of guns, I would expect getting into more confrontations because criminals would be encouraged to pray on people. My safety would plummet assuming the society was somewhat violent to begin with.

 

[tedrodai]

I didn't read past the first page, so this is just to answer the question in the OP.

I wouldn't press it.

I don't fully understand the impact of pressing the button, but there would still be weapons available...just different kinds of weapons. Biological weapons would likely become more prevalent, and personally I'd rather be disintegrated or shot.

 

[tedrodai]

Civilized countries would be no longer threatened by nuclear proliferation, and the costs of war would make them extremely reluctant to attack anyone.

I think it would promote war, rather. Remove much of the armed strength from these civilized countries, and suddenly the not-as-civilized countries have much greater comparative power than they did previously, and they can more easily force their will on others.

 

[Pia]

I think it would promote war, rather. Remove much of the armed strength from these civilized countries, and suddenly the not-as-civilized countries have much greater comparative power than they did previously, and they can more easily force their will on others.

Anyone will fight when it comes down to survival. The civilized countries would still have superior technology, logistics, doctrine, and defense treaties. The savings from development and maintenance of all high-tech weapon systems would easily pay for expanding the army, equipping and training the troops for cutting-edge low-tech warfare and there would be piles of money left over. Conscription and large reserves would become the go-to option for defense all over the world - an all-professional mass army is just not efficient. Wealthy countries would also use tons of mercenaries if they really needed to wage war abroad.

Decent 3rd world countries with more numerous assholes for neighbors would be in trouble. If they went to major military powers for protection, they'd have to pay for a whole different level of commitment. It's not very risky to park an AEGIS cruiser outside the sight range of a shore, compared to permanently stationing two brigades of your highly trained infantry on that shore.

 

[Scotteq]

No

The reason why is we are something like 9 meals away from anarchy, and our food supply *is* vulnerable to disaster (Natural or man made).

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Other methods like melee weapons require much more effort and risk, therefore a lot less people would do that.

Risk for who? In a situation with a big, strong rapist/murderer and an average sized woman or young adult, would there be a greater balance of risk if both were carrying or neither were?

 

[illusion88]

My friend in Montana would be pretty pissed when his wife and child starve to death because he can't hunt anymore.

 

[HAL9000]

My friend in Montana would be pretty pissed when his wife and child starve to death because he can't hunt anymore.

Ahh he hunts those animals that can only be killed with firearms... Like the errm Arrow Proof Elephant etc.

 

[bfdd]

removing guns would be good if you want all the physically bigger and stronger of us ruling everything. i guess it'd be a good way to go back to "survival of the fittest"

 

[Taejin]

I would press a button that caused all guns to fire on full auto

 

[HAL9000]

I would press a button that caused all guns to fire on full auto

Why?

 

[schneiderguy]

Why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4smSRz8BYk&feature=channel_video_title

Because it makes grown men giggle like little girls.

 

[illusion88]

Ahh he hunts those animals that can only be killed with firearms... Like the errm Arrow Proof Elephant etc.

It's difficult enough to kill your own food, and you want to make him do it with a bow and arrow? It's not like he can just go in his backyard and find an elk.

This is his way of life, his sustenance. You got to the store to buy your meats, he goes into the wild. He runs a small farm that is enough to bring in some income and feed his family, he isn't living in luxury. The livestock he raises helps, but isn't enough, nor are they sustainable. If he raises a pig and eats it, he isn't going to have a pig next year.

He needs to hunt to keep eating. He needs guns to do it. If all the sudden his guns were gone his family would struggle though the upcoming years.

On an off note, how difficult do you think it would be to hit a rabbit with an arrow? Or a bird? How many arrows would it take to bring down larger game like a moose or elk? Are you born with those skills? I'm not, and I'm sure my friend isn't either.

Furthermore, he lives in grizzly territory. While his child and wife are well versed on bears and are as safe as you can be in such area, if an angry one was threatening my family I would want the 30-06, not a bow and arrow to protect my family.

 

[corwin]

I would press a button that caused all guns to fire on full auto

Sweet Jesus THAT is the button I want!

 

[Fox5]

This would be such a stupid idea. Civilization's borders are enforced by the gun, without superior weapons, suddenly every nation is capable of attacking every other. There would be no reason for disadvantaged nations NOT to attack their wealthier neighbors in land and resource grabs, and the only determiner of strength would be the size of one's army.

You would see war like never before, where every country is equally able to hurt its neighbor, and fully aware of what they can gain by doing so.

 

[Rifter]

Hell no, i target shoot pellet guns not on a professional level but in a league and am working on getting my license to own real guns so i can get into target shooting them. Im specifically interested in long distance shooting it has always intrested me. I love target shooting to much to give it up and people would kill themselves with anything available even eithout guns.

If you look back in history the bloodiest wars were fought without guns and way way more people died before there were guns than after.

 

[Pia]

removing guns would be good if you want all the physically bigger and stronger of us ruling everything. i guess it'd be a good way to go back to "survival of the fittest"

It's not that simple. If the society is peaceful and guns aren't allowed for civilians to begin with, it makes no difference to the civilian. Armies and war politics, OTOH, have always been about "survival of the fittest".

 

[Pia]

This would be such a stupid idea. Civilization's borders are enforced by the gun, without superior weapons, suddenly every nation is capable of attacking every other. There would be no reason for disadvantaged nations NOT to attack their wealthier neighbors in land and resource grabs, and the only determiner of strength would be the size of one's army.

Absolutely not true. Strategy, logistics, doctrine, training, equipment, discipline crush significantly superior numbers. Even if you can't win 1:100 fights on a regular basis like you can with high-tech weapons against sticks and spears, low-tech solid army vs low-tech rabble is a slaughter. Plenty of historical examples. These days we also have a much more accurate understanding of strategy, and much less pretense of "honor", so we can use that understanding to the fullest.

 

[mcurphy]

Yet another Necktroll thread/poll to boost his post count.

 

[eits]

man, that's a tough one...

if someone put a gun to my head and made me choose, i'd push it.