A world without guns

[0120012345]

I know this is an impossible thing but just get along with it.
Do you think it will be for better or for worse.
The police will probably have difficulties handling the criminals, might even take days to catch one. The criminals would probably have problems too, robbing stores with just a baseball bat is difficult and I think protecting yourself with just pepper spray is not enough. So I think it will be worse.

 

[Decisive]

Like Finn said, there are always other ways to go about things such as weapons. Just because you don't have a device that shoots bullets doesn't mean someone doesn't have a homemade crossbow out there lol.

 

[Rushie]

This is like asking about a world without cars or drugs. People will eventually find a way to kill each other, with guns or without.

 

[333]

If there weren't guns, there would be bombs or more deadlier weapons.

 

[Arya]

Eh, most of you are going off of a view of, "Oh, but people will still kill."

Of course people will still kill, but the situation as a whole has an opportunity for a different result if, let's say, there were no guns.

Generally, a situation involving a gun and the intent to kill goes one way. One result.

A world without guns means that there is that same situation, minus the gun. In this case, the situation has the option of many results, and therefore could ultimately decide things like life and death, injury or no injury, jail or no jail, ect.

Not to mention a world without guns, while still dangerous, would mean that one less type of dangerous weapon roams.

I'd, personally, rather live in a world with crossbows, bats, crowbars, impales, and multiple things that could kill you externally and internally than a world with guns, crossbows, bats, crowbars, impales, and multiple things that could kill you externally and internally. That's just me, though.

 

[SuF]

People would juts make swords and such.... Which would make huge ass armies and battles that would most likely kill more people than if they had guns...

 

[DropKick Murphys]

I'd, personally, rather live in a world with crossbows, bats, crowbars, impales, and multiple things that could kill you externally and internally than a world with guns, crossbows, bats, crowbars, impales, and multiple things that could kill you externally and internally. That's just me, though.

Well, if we look at it from a self defense point of view, guns are sort of an equalizer. Even an old woman could defend herself with a gun, whereas she likely couldn't with a bat or a crossbow.

 

[Arya]

Well, if we look at it from a self defense point of view, guns are sort of an equalizer. Even an old woman could defend herself with a gun, whereas she likely couldn't with a bat or a crossbow.

Depending on the old woman.

 

[The Riddler_]

People would juts make swords and such.... Which would make huge ass armies and battles that would most likely kill more people than if they had guns...

A sword would take skill to kill someone. A gun, is easy as fuck. Pull out, Point, Pull, Dead. It would make dying harder and a homicide harder to commit because they run the chance of dying themselves.

Well, if we look at it from a self defense point of view, guns are sort of an equalizer. Even an old woman could defend herself with a gun, whereas she likely couldn't with a bat or a crossbow.

Sucks to be old


Over all, the world would be good. Of course there would be alternatives to the more barbaric. But it would drastically cut down on it. But, if you die by beat down, it would be painful.

 

[Rahul]

If we did not have guns (and I assume that means bombs and any high tech weapons) then we'd have swords for protection! It'd be just like Runescape!!! Then I can PK IRL! OMG YES PERFECT WORLD

A sword would take skill to kill someone.

Neh, a stab wound is enough to kill someone.

 

[0120012345]

If we did not have guns (and I assume that means bombs and any high tech weapons) then we'd have swords for protection! It'd be just like Runescape!!! Then I can PK IRL! OMG YES PERFECT WORLD........

Get out of my thread.

 

[hashslinger]

If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns...

If someone is breaking the law.. or is intending murder... do you think they will care if they are breaking the law by using a gun?

Drugs are against the law but many people still have them.

 

[whoareyou47]

It wouldn't matter too much, other weapons such as Tasers would replace guns as law enforcement.

 

[owain jones]

It's not the guns, but the people behind them.

 

[Tgump]

Chaos will be anywhere that guns aren't. By banning guns, only those who laugh at the law will have guns, defeating the purpose of the ban and only hurting those attempting to defend themselves.

 

[uselesspoop]

more brutal. swords used will be stabbing in and out, ouch.

Pirates/criminals would be able to get hold of the "best" weapons ( swords easily ) which is really dangerous.

Criminals can also train by themselves and harm the civilians.

 

[The Riddler_]

Neh, a stab wound is enough to kill someone.

Of course, but if you see someone walking up to you with a sword, you'd hold your ground and fight back.

 

[killa13]

People can kill anyway.

 

[Schnell]

There was a time without guns. Guess what, murder was more common then than it is now.

 

[Rune Shadow]

Wow, I'm surprised 50% of people voted "No" as an answer...

It is true that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but most of killing involve gun in it...