Since we seem to be going in circles...

[Luciferous]

Simple question, Would the world be a better place if guns had not been invented? This includes all gun-based derivatives, and modern war equipment too.

Since we seem to be going in circles with the Pro-Gun Lobbyists... thread, I'm gonna try and get a point across here.

[drakkie]

no, cos when guns wouldnt have been invented , people would use swords to kill eachother and if these wouldnt have been invented, people would fight using their hands...

[Luciferous]

But you could argue that you need to be skilled to use a sword or hand weapon, plus the fact that guns were made to replace hands weapons as they could kill more people more safely and quickly, so there would be less deaths in relation to those which involve guns...

[Mustang]

no, cos when guns wouldnt have been invented , people would use swords to kill eachother and if these wouldnt have been invented, people would fight using their hands...


whats the matter with fighting using your hands ?

I like watching fights more than watching some guy just shoot another guy, where is the fun in that :confused:

[digitalcraft]

Us smart little critters would have invented some other tool to easily dispatch of other humans getting in our way.

[spi-ti-tout]

It really depends on what kind of people we got out there. Today the US are trying to assasinate almost every president who disagrees with them so a sniper comes very useful in that situation....

Guns should be used only for the right side of the law, but sadly thats not possible

So I say guns were better not invented. Atleast then people in Iraq could fight back...:p

[my porsche]

But you could argue that you need to be skilled to use a sword or hand weapon, plus the fact that guns were made to replace hands weapons as they could kill more people more safely and quickly, so there would be less deaths in relation to those which involve guns...

i could pick up a sword and stab it through someone, that doesnt take skill


there will always be disputes no matter what weapon is involved, people ARE strangled too you know

[my porsche]

whats the matter with fighting using your hands ?

I like watching fights more than watching some guy just shoot another guy, where is the fun in that :confused:

and do you look up murders on the internet?!!?! :p

[baddabang]

If guns were never invented then who knows were we would be today, Guns have helped to win world changing wars all over the place.

[Matra et Alpine]

i could pick up a sword and stab it through someone, that doesnt take skill
You're not grasping ( or avoiding ) the point m_p.

For a battle to be waged with swords it takes a high level of skill to be victorious. Guns just need more and bigger :(

The skill in gunmanship is aiming. No need to parry anothers blows while shooting :)

[bk4uyeah]

The gun is only a mere tool for killing. The act can be performed in many different ways - guns do not make a difference themselves

[QuattroMan]

Simple question, Would the world be a better place if guns had not been invented? This includes all gun-based derivatives, and modern war equipment too.

Since we seem to be going in circles with the Pro-Gun Lobbyists... thread, I'm gonna try and get a point across here.

better or not it is here to stay, i'm going for NO...

[SlickHolden]

Like me i shot a piss weak Slug gun 25meters into a can with a slight cross wind, And something I'm not proud of i shot a sparrow 30 meters away on a roof with it. I was never taught to use guns it was natural and i don't like it very much it's something I'm not proud of.
It's amazing how things can turn you away from guns, Your mate gets shot in the head and lives, Your brother was playing with a bullet he hit it on the ground it went off and it logged in his head.
Your brothers mate was riding a motorbike down the street and a car pulls next to him and shoots him in the leg with a 22 Mistaken identity. You see death on TV everyday on the news and you just turn away from it. I haven't sat down to watch the news regally In years.
But i do think if guns wern't made then there would be heaps less deaths, You can't do a hitler with a sword.

[my porsche]

Like me i shot a piss weak Slug gun 25meters into a can with a slight cross wind, And something I'm not proud of i shot a sparrow 30 meters away on a roof with it. I was never taught to use guns it was natural and i don't like it very much it's something I'm not proud of.
It's amazing how things can turn you away from guns, Your mate gets shot in the head and lives, Your brother was playing with a bullet he hit it on the ground it went off and it logged in his head.
Your brothers mate was riding a motorbike down the street and a car pulls next to him and shoots him in the leg with a 22 Mistaken identity. You see death on TV everyday on the news and you just turn away from it. I haven't sat down to watch the news regally In years.
But i do think if guns wern't made then there would be heaps less deaths, You can't do a hitler with a sword.

when my dad was is grade school some kid brought a bullet to school and hit it with a hammer...some people are born losers

[my porsche]

You're not grasping ( or avoiding ) the point m_p.

For a battle to be waged with swords it takes a high level of skill to be victorious. Guns just need more and bigger :(

The skill in gunmanship is aiming. No need to parry anothers blows while shooting :)

ohhh ok i got it, yeah that would be harder to win a war, i thought he meant mano y mano :p

your right in that case then

[SlickHolden]

when my dad was is grade school some kid brought a bullet to school and hit it with a hammer...some people are born losers
So are you saying my brother is a loser?

[Matra et Alpine]

So are you saying my brother is a loser?
Having you as a brother makes him half way there before the kid even had a chance :)

[fpv_gtho]

Im against them, theyre nothing but trouble in my eyes.

give someone a gun and theyve got a false sence of security, they'll think their invincible.

i could try pick up a sword right now and kill someone, but the fact is i wouldnt be able to weild it or anything, i'd be far too slow using it for it to be effective and i'd almost fall over trying to support is weight. in the odd chance i actually killed someone, you'd debate if they had it coming after ive said all of that.

[Matra et Alpine]

and it's easier to outrun a guy with a sword !! AND dodge any blows !!!

[SlickHolden]

Having you as a brother makes him half way there before the kid even had a chance :)
Oh yeah oh yeah oh yeah oh yeah oh yeah .................................................. ..................................... I have no comback to this one:p

[Luciferous]

Well looking at who voted for what, I can only say I'm disappointed in the same members who have been defending guns so vehemtly on the other thread. I can only think that you guys voted out of spite more than anything else.... seriously, wake up to yourselves.

[crisis]

The gun is only a mere tool for killing. The act can be performed in many different ways - guns do not make a difference themselves
Yeah? Well I wondered if the casualty count in both WW1 and WW2 would have been so high if they were only using swords. Interestingly as weapons improved (?) the death toll rose exponentially. Total WW1 = 10,947,000, WW2 = 58,508,000 .

[clutch-monkey]

Yeah? Well I wondered if the casualty count in both WW1 and WW2 would have been so high if they were only using swords. Interestingly as weapons improved (?) the death toll rose exponentially. Total WW1 = 10,947,000, WW2 = 58,508,000 .

thats actually a bad example. in both wars a lot of the firearms were the same/similar, whereas the biggest contributor to casualties (artillery and air power) underwent significant 'improvements' in efficiency and coordination.
for each casualty in WW2 55tonnes of ordnance was expended

[Coventrysucks]

Back in the day - when men were men - armies used to be a few thousand if you were lucky.

And if you were going to war, you'd be pretty close to the person you were physically hacking to bits. I can imagine that would be a bit harder to do than pulling a trigger.

And if you saw Mike Loades in such programmes as "Weapons that made Britain" you'd agree that wielding such weapons successfully takes a tremendous ammount of skill.

[clutch-monkey]

i'm sure that reclusive nerds would have much more difficulty going on a rampage with swords. but thats only a problem because of the proliferation of guns, particularly in america. other nations have already dealt with this: germany has magazine capacity retricted to two rounds, i think britain has outlawed guns full-stop (and strangely gets more gun crime than Australia), australia has restricted pistol ownership and magazine capacity, restricted semi-autos to farmers, improved and enforced storage laws, etc.
because america's gun lobby has considerable political weight, i think this is preventing a lot of the more sensible restrictions from coming into practice. hence they get a lot more gun related crime.

[Coventrysucks]

i think britain has outlawed guns full-stop

Only hand guns as well as machine guns etc are banned.

Shotguns/ hunting rifles and target pistols are allowed, but there are controls as to where you are allowed to wield them.

[clutch-monkey]

are there many places to go hunting etc in britain anyway?
i think this topic is pretty much pointless now. nobody can see the whole argument, not even me, although i like to think i see more of it than most :)
its like debating whether cars should be banned because they're involved in accidents. there's no point! both are here to stay.
i hope the more extreme anti-gun people don't get into politics....until then i'm going to continue competing.

[crisis]

thats actually a bad example. in both wars a lot of the firearms were the same/similar, whereas the biggest contributor to casualties (artillery and air power) underwent significant 'improvements' in efficiency and coordination.
for each casualty in WW2 55tonnes of ordnance was expended
Well the gun begat the cannon so its all related. Royal Enfield rifles compared to Thompsons sub machine guns, and German MP40s take a bit more work for mass annhilation.
According to this site
http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html
only a third of German casualties were a result of air attacks. I would envisage less for allied as they had air superiority.

[clutch-monkey]

fair enough. buts its pretty much irrelevant to civilian gun ownership.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

A sword involves some skill in dodging the other persons, and still managing to hurt them. You have to think about what your doing, and that can really sort the men from the boys.

plus, a sword lying around never hurt anyone.

A gun on the other hand, can be used from far distances, and in my mind is a bit cowardly. It makes the action of hurting someone/thing a little bit less personal which makes it easier to live with.

IMO someone who keeps a shotgun for shooting magpies defines overkill.

But you have to wonder what else would have been invented had guns not come about........

[crisis]

fair enough. buts its pretty much irrelevant to civilian gun ownership.
Totally. I was a response for this supposed vindication for them.
"The gun is only a mere tool for killing. The act can be performed in many different ways - guns do not make a difference themselves"
In the event of war they do. Similarly when many people need to be murdered at one time they make very efficient tools for killing.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

They aren't really needed for home protection. As much as i'd like to keep my family and possessions safe, i think a hockey stick or cricket bat would do, guns are a final solution of sorts, once started there actions can't be rearranged,

[clutch-monkey]

A sword involves some skill in dodging the other persons, and still managing to hurt them. You have to think about what your doing, and that can really sort the men from the boys.

plus, a sword lying around never hurt anyone.

A gun on the other hand, can be used from far distances, and in my mind is a bit cowardly. It makes the action of hurting someone/thing a little bit less personal which makes it easier to live with.

IMO someone who keeps a shotgun for shooting magpies defines overkill.

But you have to wonder what else would have been invented had guns not come about........

also shooting someone from a distance can remove the personal responsibilty of killing someone, because the conscience may define the person as a 'target', an insignificant shape in the distance. getting up close and personal with a sword is too much for most people to stomach.
but if it was so easy to kill someone with a gun, why do special forces get much better kill/casualty ratios? ;) the answer is easy
keeping a shotgun ONLY for magpies is overkill - but shotguns come in many shapes and sizes, and their popularity is derived from their versatility, in that you choose a pellet size for different targets (u can use small shot on quail). but essentially you are right - having a gun for one task which might not even require a gun is ridiculous. see australian firearms license application, page 1, 'reason for owning firearm'.

[SlickHolden]

i'm sure that reclusive nerds would have much more difficulty going on a rampage with swords. but thats only a problem because of the proliferation of guns, particularly in america. other nations have already dealt with this: germany has magazine capacity retricted to two rounds, i think britain has outlawed guns full-stop (and strangely gets more gun crime than Australia), australia has restricted pistol ownership and magazine capacity, restricted semi-autos to farmers, improved and enforced storage laws, etc.
because america's gun lobby has considerable political weight, i think this is preventing a lot of the more sensible restrictions from coming into practice. hence they get a lot more gun related crime.
And Dubya is from Texas and he don't wanna piss on his state:p
The gun capital of the world:)

[clutch-monkey]

They aren't really needed for home protection. As much as i'd like to keep my family and possessions safe, i think a hockey stick or cricket bat would do, guns are a final solution of sorts, once started there actions can't be rearranged,

so true :)
if you've read the other thread, i already explained the law in oz....personal defence is NOT a valid reason for a firearm. storage laws ensure guns are never 'readily accessible'. if u like i'll paste some of regulations from my safety booklet.

[fpv_gtho]

well these days if you injure someone whos broken into your house, you become liable even though THEYRE the ones breaking in, so whats the point in having a gun for home protection if you cant use it, and a solid object like the hockey stick IB4R suggested will scare them off just as easily

[crisis]

well these days if you injure someone whos broken into your house, you become liable even though THEYRE the ones breaking in, so whats the point in having a gun for home protection if you cant use it, and a solid object like the hockey stick IB4R suggested will scare them off just as easily
Not so in SA, the state of populist govenrment. You get to respond with "reasonable force". Essentially crack em and let the court sort it out.

[SlickHolden]

well these days if you injure someone whos broken into your house, you become liable even though THEYRE the ones breaking in, so whats the point in having a gun for home protection if you cant use it, and a solid object like the hockey stick IB4R suggested will scare them off just as easily
Yeah that law is so wrong i hate it and i hate saying hate to:p

But i got myself a gold club just a putter if anyone broke in a will belt them in the legs call the cops.

your going home in the back of a divi van [COLOR=DarkOrange]clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap

[fpv_gtho]

Well something like that is reasonable, your not allowed to kill them or anything of course, but at least prove to them your serious with that baseball bat! Im not 100% sure if what i said before is the case here, but alot of people around me always say you cant get away with it

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I'd be more scared of a hockey stick personally if i was a robber or general menace; i can see that the person wants to hurt me quite painfully.

With a gun, people just consider it a little bit of metal fired quickly. Perhaps if they had a rubber bullet gun that could be used for home security? Even if it's still dangerous.

In the end we have a different attitude to those who use guns more often. We are still worried, but we're also a little bit smarter in thinking it's not a good idea to have a gun in the house. Now children, be Alert, not Alarmed :P

[clutch-monkey]

well these days if you injure someone whos broken into your house, you become liable even though THEYRE the ones breaking in, so whats the point in having a gun for home protection if you cant use it, and a solid object like the hockey stick IB4R suggested will scare them off just as easily

actually i find it more than a little scary when a lawyer comments:
"If your going to injure someone who's breaking into your house, you're better off killing them, because then they cannot sue you."
besides which i rely on the police anyway, because law requires my ammunition and bolts to be securely stored separately.

[SlickHolden]

A gilr in the units next door come home one day and caught this druggie girl from down the road in her house, She had come in from the manhole, And was robbing her, So she did what anyone person would do call the cops, then bashed the crap out of her, She was charged with assult:eek: That's the law it sucks.

[fpv_gtho]

Well for me i guess the hockey stick or baseball bat, you can see whats coming for you and in the case of those 2, its not pretty. With a gun, cause theres so many damned guns out there, you really gotta know your stuff to be able to pick whats being held by the guy with the gun pointed at you, otherwise it could be some mega 44 Magnum about to blow a crater in your skull or some deringer wannabe thing that could be about as painful as a pea shooter

[IBrake4Rainbows]

When you can enter someones house, have them break your arm because your trying to steal their television, sue them and make THEM go to jail for assault, and you get a minor attempted robbery conviction. Something is very, very wrong with the world.

[crisis]

It has been known for cops to advise the home owner to "deal" with the intruder and them drag them outside. Then ring the cops.

[clutch-monkey]

Well. With a gun, cause theres so many damned guns out there,

i beleive you live in sydney. there aren't that many guns in australia. in america, yes, but in australia there simply are not that many guns, especially in suburban areas. i think the pro-gun control party qouted '1 in 10' houses have a firearm. except the retards took the number of guns in australia and divided them amongst the number of houses, disregarding the fact that several of thos guns might be in one house (i have about 4).

[fpv_gtho]

And whats the average response time for a burglary for the cops whilst we're at it? We're expected to wade it out for 10-20 minutes whilst someones robbing our houses until the cops get there and of course its too late

[fpv_gtho]

i beleive you live in sydney. there aren't that many guns in australia. in america, yes, but in australia there simply are not that many guns, especially in suburban areas. i think the pro-gun control party qouted '1 in 10' houses have a firearm. except the retards took the number of guns in australia and divided them amongst the number of houses, disregarding the fact that several of thos guns might be in one house (i have about 4).

Yeah Sydney it is, but my point is how many people out there know gun A from gun B. How many burglars who are faced with the home owner wielding a gun at their face would think their too chickenshit too fire it or anything, or even then it wont kill them and they'll still escape

[clutch-monkey]

With a gun, people just consider it a little bit of metal fired quickly.
thats partly hollywoods fault. i mean think about all the movies you've seen where someone gets shot. are they really displaying the level of pain someone with a gunshot wound must be feeling?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

There all too busy driving thru Maccas and manning speed cameras.

And this is the future of law enforcement.....

[clutch-monkey]

How many burglars who are faced with the home owner wielding a gun at their face would think their too chickenshit too fire it or anything, or even then it wont kill them and they'll still escape

true. i don't think i could shoot an intruder, even if i could assemble my guns in time. especially because i've seen what they can do, whereas the intruder hasn't

[fpv_gtho]

Chances are the intruders got so much adrenaline pumping through their blood, that by the time youve figured out how to turn the safety off and put a bullet in the chamber, theyve already charged right into you and possibly even pulled the gun out of your hands

[SlickHolden]

One night here a car went past and we herd this masive crash and dragging sound, We went to inspect it out, What we found was a cash register in the middle of the road, So my mum called the cops, They came 35min later, And we found out that these guys robbed a shop about 50min away from my place.

Also one night our car was broken into, the cops got there in 20min,
But i think if someone is is your house they will get the nearest car or one from HQ to get there ASAP i hope:p

[fpv_gtho]

You'd hope thats the thing, theres no way to know until your unlucky enough for it to happen to you

[clutch-monkey]

Chances are the intruders got so much adrenaline pumping through their blood, that by the time youve figured out how to turn the safety off and put a bullet in the chamber, theyve already charged right into you and possibly even pulled the gun out of your hands

exactly right. most gun owners wouldn't even consider going for their guns, just the baseball bat :)
usually only the licensed gun owner has access to the safe. by opening it to confront an intruder with a gun, all you are doing is risking your gun being stolen from you. in any case, using a gun on an intruder is usually unnecessary.
on a side-note, never, ever trust a safety catch. they are mechanical backups and can fail. practice good muzzle control instead.

[SlickHolden]

But if you wanted your gun the law has made it hard for you to get that weapon and ammo together in enough time to use it, Which is good i guess.
So the bets home saftey is leave you blinds closed at night dont let anyone see in what you have, Keep all doors locked windows also, Save up for window shutters:D best saftey of all there:D

[clutch-monkey]

yeah my house looks really shit on the outside, but we've renovated the inside. so noone looks at it twice fom the street

[SlickHolden]

My mum once had the window open in another house that was easy to see from the street, I went off my tits:p
close that ****en window some dip shit will see what we got and come around when we go out and take it all, We got to be careful now a days:D

[clutch-monkey]

my house is about 70m from the road in the first place. robbers need binoculars to see my house past the lawn and garden beds.

[SlickHolden]

I'm in a block of 4 units and we are the only ones to have our car broken into, We have 3 massive lights that are very bright in the drive, but they walked all the way to us and broke in our car.

[clutch-monkey]

get a really vicious dog :)

[fpv_gtho]

Ive got a "vicious" dog, a damn purebred staffie with a 5kg head :p you wouldnt believe it but hes the biggest chickenshit in the world (once you know the dog of course). its his cross breed of a daughter thats the one barking at the smallest things in the middle of the night :p

[clutch-monkey]

my grandmas dog is so vicious it will piss on you when go through the front door. although it has recently learned how to drag people out of cars before they have unbuckled

[SlickHolden]

No dog for me i'll do all the barking now.
I caught him in the car but by the time i got to the front door he was around the bend, And i was in undies and t-shirt:p.
I almost gave it a gallip but didnt wanna hurt me mates;)

[clutch-monkey]

my other grandma has a cockatoo that barks :)

[Matra et Alpine]

are there many places to go hunting etc in britain anyway?
Can't say for Englandshire :)
In Scotland you need permission from the landowner to hunt on thier farm/forest/mountain.
The best shooting areas charge for access and limit quantity.
Stag are culled but there are restriction on who can do this to ensure the animals go down on the first shot - so it takes a good marksman to get a 'ticket'.
Pheasant and grouse are common to hunt when the season opens on Agust 12 each year ( the "glorioius 12th" )
Wood pigeon can be shot all year round.
Ducks and geese I'm not sure of the limits/controls, but some are open-season and some aren't. Theese are too close to "pets" for me :)
Farmers LOVE you to come on the land to shoot hares, rabbit, foxes and (oddly) seaguls.
My grandfather used to breed gun dogs !!

[cls12vg30]

I had an interesting thought on this. Can you imagine if a war the scale of WWII were fought with swords, spears, etc? See nowadays typically a very high percentage of soldiers who are wounded survive. But back in the days when two groups of people just ran at each other and started hacking away with swords, there weren't all that many "walking wounded". You were either still standing when it was over, or more likely, you were dead.

Now we can extrapolate and say that if guns weren't invented maybe airplanes and bombs weren't either, so in that case there would be fewer civilian casualties in a large war like WWII where the two sides bomb each other's cities. But as for soldiers, if the numbers involved were the same, I think you would have seen a lot fewer people survive to the end.

[Coventrysucks]

I had an interesting thought on this. Can you imagine if a war the scale of WWII were fought with swords, spears, etc? See nowadays typically a very high percentage of soldiers who are wounded survive. But back in the days when two groups of people just ran at each other and started hacking away with swords, there weren't all that many "walking wounded". You were either still standing when it was over, or more likely, you were dead.

The fact that medicine was hardly more than rubbing herbs on someone may have had a small role to play in that.

[crisis]

I had an interesting thought on this. Can you imagine if a war the scale of WWII were fought with swords, spears, etc? See nowadays typically a very high percentage of soldiers who are wounded survive. But back in the days when two groups of people just ran at each other and started hacking away with swords, there weren't all that many "walking wounded". You were either still standing when it was over, or more likely, you were dead.

Now we can extrapolate and say that if guns weren't invented maybe airplanes and bombs weren't either, so in that case there would be fewer civilian casualties in a large war like WWII where the two sides bomb each other's cities. But as for soldiers, if the numbers involved were the same, I think you would have seen a lot fewer people survive to the end.
Kind of hard to extrapolate the theory as you have to indeed take into account medical advances, mobility ie jeeps truck etc. I rekon a war without guns would definately drag on longer so it is hard to say what the loss of life would be. Essentially guns, cannons and bombs enable the destruction of life to proceed and a much quicker rate.

[clutch-monkey]

, mobility ie jeeps truck etc. I rekon a war without guns would definately drag on longer so it is hard to say what the loss of life would be. Essentially guns, cannons and bombs enable the destruction of life to proceed and a much quicker rate.

very true. tactics and mobility count for alot. also, modern military weapons make each individual soldier more effective: with swords you have to get as amny people together as possible to increase effectiveness.

[SlickHolden]

WW2 with swords would be like a marathon that didn't stop, They both sides would retreat cause they wouldn't have anything left to give by the end of a week they would die of stress exhaustion.
It would be the never ending war, So they give up in the end and say WTF I'm stuffed lets go home chief.
Who would want to fight with swords againts 500,000 people, So hey lets make a gun and make the killing easy so we can go home for supper:D:p

[crisis]

WW2 with swords would be like a marathon that didn't stop, They both sides would retreat cause they wouldn't have anything left to give by the end of a week they would die of stress exhaustion.
It would be the never ending war, So they give up in the end and say WTF I'm stuffed lets go home chief.
Who would want to fight with swords againts 500,000 people, So hey lets make a gun and make the killing easy so we can go home for supper:D:p
Pragmatism at it most human.

[clutch-monkey]

unfortunately thats what war does. it spurs each side to try and gain a technological upper hand on the other to minimise the losses required for victory. ask yourself this: if Iraq was at the same technological level as america, would an invasion have been as likely?

[Fowler]

But you could argue that you need to be skilled to use a sword or hand weapon, plus the fact that guns were made to replace hands weapons as they could kill more people more safely and quickly, so there would be less deaths in relation to those which involve guns...

Actually, the most vicious weapons of the age didn't require much training. The German Guttentag was an oversized bat with a spiked chunk of wood at the end. A small village of revolting peasants stopped a whole army of sword armoured knights. And there is the halbred, the lance, the morning star, the ax, the dagger and countless others (Including farming implements). All of them much more brutal than just a little piece of lead that only made a small amount of localized damage. While the Gun requires training (And maintenance), it's not that hard to bash someone's skull in with a hammer.

And who's to say these weapons didn't kill more people than guns do now? Wheres the ancient statistics to back this up with? I never heard of any records speaking of how many murders there were back then.

Besides, I'd pick the Bullet over the blade, spike, head & arrow any given day. It's cleaner, it only causes very localized damage, and doesn't hurt nowhere near as much as the others when it comes to execution. If I'm gonna get killed, I'd prefer a quick round to the head rather than still being conscious when my head gets chopped off.


So, as usual, I throughly own yet another anti-gun thread. *dances a victory jig*

[crisis]

Besides, I'd pick the Bullet over the blade, spike, head & arrow any given day. It's cleaner, it only causes very localized damage, and doesn't hurt nowhere near as much as the others when it comes to execution. If I'm gonna get killed, I'd prefer a quick round to the head rather than still being conscious when my head gets chopped off.


So, as usual, I throughly own yet another anti-gun thread. *dances a victory jig*
So how many blade, gunshot and arrow injuries have you sustained then?

[Fowler]

Actually, the most vicious weapons of the age didn't require much training. The German Guttentag was an oversized bat with a spiked chunk of wood at the end. A small village of revolting peasants stopped a whole army of sword armoured knights. And there is the halbred, the lance, the morning star, the ax, the dagger and countless others (Including farming implements). All of them much more brutal than just a little piece of lead that only made a small amount of localized damage. While the Gun requires training (And maintenance), it's not that hard to bash someone's skull in with a hammer.

And who's to say these weapons didn't kill more people than guns do now? Wheres the ancient statistics to back this up with? I never heard of any records speaking of how many murders there were back then.

Besides, I'd pick the Bullet over the blade, spike, head & arrow any given day. It's cleaner, it only causes very localized damage, and doesn't hurt nowhere near as much as the others when it comes to execution. If I'm gonna get killed, I'd prefer a quick round to the head rather than still being conscious when my head gets chopped off.


So, as usual, I throughly own yet another anti-gun thread. *dances a victory jig*



So how many blade, gunshot and arrow injuries have you sustained then?




None. But it doesn't take first hand experiences to realize certain things.

For example, the blade is quite devastating when using a slashing technique. First, it can span a good amount of the body. Second, it can penetrate almost of the span of the slash. Third, instead of pushing organs around, it cuts them.

So, where only a bullet can span only what it's size is and push things around inside (Provided it's not designed to do something else), A blade can cover a massive amount of real estate, dig into it and cut up what's under it. Now when a bullet does injure an organ, it's usually just one major organ. The blade cuts through everything in it's path.

And this is just the blade when used for slashing. I won't get into when it's used to stab. Nor will I get into cuncussion devices.

[Fowler]

I do believe I've crushed what few little sheltered lives I didn't already ruin in my first post.

*Does another victory jig*

[crisis]

I do believe I've crushed what few little sheltered lives I didn't already ruin in my first post.

*Does another victory jig*
Yep, you da man. I want to be shot NOW! You make it sound like such fun.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Obviously you don't understand how some bullets are able to rebound off things like bone when slowed by an organ. It's quite possible, if from the correct angle, to hit nearly every major organ when shot.

A blade has a habit of making a clean cut, and does cover a lot of surface area. but at the same time the cutting can be stopped if the person wielding the blade wishes it to be, when shot the person holding the gun can do nothing to prevent the aftermath of their poor decision making.

[crisis]

Obviously you don't understand how some bullets are able to rebound off things like bone when slowed by an organ. It's quite possible, if from the correct angle, to hit nearly every major organ when shot.

A blade has a habit of making a clean cut, and does cover a lot of surface area. but at the same time the cutting can be stopped if the person wielding the blade wishes it to be, when shot the person holding the gun can do nothing to prevent the aftermath of their poor decision making.
Im certain there have been the occasional gunshot victim who has bled to death slowly when his assailant has not shown the appropraite consideration of executing the perfect head shot.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Quite true, any organ ruptured is a bad thing. however it is possible to survive a gunshot as it is possible to survive a knife or sword attack.

And what does the Assailants kindness (Or Skill) matter anyway? :P

[crisis]

Quite true, any organ ruptured is a bad thing. however it is possible to survive a gunshot as it is possible to survive a knife or sword attack.

And what does the Assailants kindness (Or Skill) matter anyway? :P
My sarcasm knows no bounds. Generally a gun shot victime would die from either loss of blood or a hit to the brain. Bleeding to death can take varying times. A good shot to the liver , heart or any vital organ will make this relativey quick . An artery a little slower. Other parts even longer. My comment on the assailants accuracy is in relation to where you are hit and as I said supposed to be sarcastic. :rolleyes:

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Well excuse me!

I am not good at recognising sarcasm, I should be because i use it so often, but obviously something for me got lost in the translation from screen to head.

[clutch-monkey]

you can't really say that a blade wound is cleaner than a bullet wound. it depends on what bullet or what blade.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

true, but as a general rule......

[clutch-monkey]

ok....being hit by a military bullet is far cleaner than being hacked with a blade. unless your a british soldier circa 1900 using dum-dums.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

If we're talking Shotgun Pellets or indeed a Dum Dum, Blade wins.

If we're talking modern weaponry, Gun Wins. I suppose.

[clutch-monkey]

i think its weird that the current military cartridge isn't considered by hunters to be powerful enough to humanely kill anything larger than a fox or feral dog. i suppose a wounded soldier uses more resources than a dead one.

[Coventrysucks]

Actually, the most vicious weapons of the age didn't require much training. The German Guttentag was an oversized bat with a spiked chunk of wood at the end. A small village of revolting peasants stopped a whole army of sword armoured knights. And there is the halbred, the lance, the morning star, the ax, the dagger and countless others (Including farming implements). All of them much more brutal than just a little piece of lead that only made a small amount of localized damage. While the Gun requires training (And maintenance), it's not that hard to bash someone's skull in with a hammer.

While it is quite easy to clobber someone with a hammer, it isn't so easy if they are similarly armed, and well versed in how to dodge your blows and put in an effective counter attack.

Put two well trained gunmen in a room together and it would be over in seconds.

Put two well trained swordsmen in a room together and it could go on for hours.


Besides, I'd pick the Bullet over the blade, spike, head & arrow any given day. It's cleaner, it only causes very localized damage, and doesn't hurt nowhere near as much as the others when it comes to execution. If I'm gonna get killed, I'd prefer a quick round to the head rather than still being conscious when my head gets chopped off.

You know when you cut yourself with a scalpel, and you first notice it when you wonder were that trail of blood came from...


For example, the blade is quite devastating when using a slashing technique. First, it can span a good amount of the body. Second, it can penetrate almost of the span of the slash. Third, instead of pushing organs around, it cuts them.

For that to occur, you first need to assume that the "victim" is within about 6ft of the attacker, rather than the thousands you can get away with when dealing with firearms.

Furthermore you can defend the slash, with your own sword, or shield. Or you can move back, out of the way of the blow.

Not really achievable with bullets.


And this is just the blade when used for slashing. I won't get into when it's used to stab. Nor will I get into cuncussion devices.

Similarly, stabs, thrusts and etc can all be deflected and countered.

[Luciferous]

Its funny how many pro-gun people have dodged the question completely. Why would the world possibly be better off with guns?

Next person to use the "Guns don't kill people People kill people" excuse should shut up. Same goes for anyone who uses the cars/guns comparison. We've heard it way too much. Here's the crucial point you guys seem to be missing: Guns are soley designed to kill or injure. Cars are not. People are not. When a person has a gun, they have a much greater capacity to kill someone. ITS THAT SIMPLE.

[Matra et Alpine]

Scottish claymore, 6-7 feet long, 2 handed sword.
A man strong enough to weild it was lethal in battle.
And when finally enough bodies wre running at him that he coudl no longer swing it he stiuck it in the ground behind him and used it to sheld from slashing blows from the rear and then got laid in with short swords and axes.

The Scots were VERY adept at coming up with some very innovative weapons especially axes. Nasty folks we were/are :)

[Luciferous]

Well its not really very clever when you go into big numbers now is it? If each guy hasd a sword that big they can't really stand next to each other and start swingin' away can they?

[Matra et Alpine]

The Claymore was wielded by few. It is a BIG sword and needs strength and skill to use properly. They were like the "knights on horseback" of their day. Few of them needed to do lots of damage !

There are some tales of great battles between the clans - of claymore fights going on for many many minutes and both men unable to lift the weapon again. The problem was if you gave it up early and switched to axe or shortsword and your opopnent could STILL wield the Claymore you were dead !!

One of oru "innovative" axes is already on UCP at http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=49409 :) Then you'll see why the Romans built a wall and the English had to get us to fight each other while they watched on !!!!

PS: sneaking a bit os spam in :) Anyone interested in owning a traditional hand-crafted Claymore or other Scottish fighting weapons give me a shout. Mate makes them :)

[SlickHolden]

Pragmatism at it most human.
Had to look that word up:D

A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems:D

[Matra et Alpine]

How can pragmatism NOT be human ?
:)

[SlickHolden]

If someone was to attack with a knife you could have 30+ cuts and stab wounds by then you will more then likely be still standing fighting them off, There are people i have seen in prison get stabbed in the back 5 times before they could turn to try and fight them off, The blade tip gets stuck in the heart but the tip getting stuck and braking off will stop any loss of blood there, That person can then walk away to be treated. Take 5 shots from a gun in the back and more then likely your time is numbered. A knife is used up close and some don't have it in them to go one on one face to face it's hard it's brutal,
That's why a gun is easier to kill get some distance and keep yourself away from any up close action.

[SlickHolden]

How can pragmatism NOT be human ?
:)
I dont understand it still even after reading it in the dictionary lol:p

[Matra et Alpine]

If someone was to attack with a knife you could have 30+ cuts and stab wounds by then you will more then likely be still standing fighting them off, .
This was the point we were making about the skill of a swordsman, knife weilder or other sharp pointy thingy :)
There's a program on TV just now with a British martial arts expert going round the world and looking at local fighting techniques and they were at some oriental knife street fighting 'thing' and this guy was calmly going through how having been attacked he can in 3 moves disarm the attacker - by cutting the tendons in the arms, collapse their lung - by penetrating between 2 specific ribs and bleed them to death - by the artery under the arm or in the neck dependant if it was frontal or rear attack. It was scary stuff and all over in less than a second !! IIRC their police are trained in these techniques !!!

[Matra et Alpine]

and one definate big YES on the world being better ( and apologies to those who live in these countries by ours was as bad as the rest )

Without the gun the native may still have their land, Americans, Australian Aborigines and pacific island maoris along with antive Africans, Indians et al

A rather sobering thought :(

[SlickHolden]

This was the point we were making about the skill of a swordsman, knife weilder or other sharp pointy thingy :)
There's a program on TV just now with a British martial arts expert going round the world and looking at local fighting techniques and they were at some oriental knife street fighting 'thing' and this guy was calmly going through how having been attacked he can in 3 moves disarm the attacker - by cutting the tendons in the arms, collapse their lung - by penetrating between 2 specific ribs and bleed them to death - by the artery under the arm or in the neck dependant if it was frontal or rear attack. It was scary stuff and all over in less than a second !! IIRC their police are trained in these techniques !!!
did he do the slash of the back heal that can make a 150kg 6.9 guy drop like a spud:D

A pro knife user can be as dangerous as a pro gunman just the gun has distance on it's side.

[Matra et Alpine]

yeah that was one of the crazy moves -- if being attacked by a gang the guy drops down and basically stands up 10 second later having slashed everyones achilles tendon and left them unable to stand !! It was scary !!!!

[clutch-monkey]

Its funny how many pro-gun people have dodged the question completely. Why would the world possibly be better off with guns?

Next person to use the "Guns don't kill people People kill people" excuse should shut up. Same goes for anyone who uses the cars/guns comparison. We've heard it way too much. Here's the crucial point you guys seem to be missing: Guns are soley designed to kill or injure. Cars are not. People are not. When a person has a gun, they have a much greater capacity to kill someone. ITS THAT SIMPLE.

you're not accounting for human nature on this one. we will always develop more efficient ways of killing each other....but of we still had swords, then yes, we would be better off.
its also a matter of training. its really quite easy to kill someone with a biro. its just that guns can be easier to use.

[SlickHolden]

yeah that was one of the crazy moves -- if being attacked by a gang the guy drops down and basically stands up 10 second later having slashed everyones achilles tendon and left them unable to stand !! It was scary !!!!
A guy i know told me that, He might have seen the same program.
The only way i'm good with knifes is cooking:D

you're not accounting for human nature on this one. we will always develop more efficient ways of killing each other....but of we still had swords, then yes, we would be better off.
its also a matter of training. its really quite easy to kill someone with a biro. its just that guns can be easier to use.
A punch can kill as easy you just got to know where to land it;)

[clutch-monkey]

when i did my first aid course they were showing us how vulnerable our arteries/nerves/airways were to outside forces....its really scary, you can get a bit paranoid. when doing CPR you have to be careful because apparently its easy to accidently break off the tip of the sternum and drive the bone splinter into their heart.

[fpv_gtho]

A punch can kill as easy you just got to know where to land it;)

Why do you think they come down so hard on you when you get charged with assault or anything and they find out youve got the black belt in Karate :p

A trained fighter has their body as a weapon

[ZeTurbo]

Th answer you lft out is the "NO DIFFERENCE".
because without guns ppl would just find other ways to hurt eachother and control others.
We are born with guns, our fists, and as soon as u pick up a twig with purpuse of smaking one in the head with it , it becomes a weapon. guns are just quicker to kill.

i voted no nonetheless, i can only imagine that MAYBE there would be less suffering.. and that is a thought worth ahving.

[fpv_gtho]

What we're trying to point out though is with a gun you can kill someone standing maybe 500m away from you, try doing that with any primitive hand held weapon. that alone makes the act of killing alot easier as theres no need for one on one combat

[Luciferous]

and one definate big YES on the world being better ( and apologies to those who live in these countries by ours was as bad as the rest )

Without the gun the native may still have their land, Americans, Australian Aborigines and pacific island maoris along with antive Africans, Indians et al

A rather sobering thought :(

Well I'm not too sure about the Aboriginal Australians, as there weren't all that many to begin with, but I bet the big bad Maoris would still have their land. Those are some seriously big people.

[Luciferous]

its just that guns can be easier to use.

And yet you still voted No??

[fpv_gtho]

Well I'm not too sure about the Aboriginal Australians, as there weren't all that many to begin with, but I bet the big bad Maoris would still have their land. Those are some seriously big people.

I think theyre population around 1788 was about 300,000 which even given the times wasnt much for such a large country, but there were also 600 different language groups so maybe thats a better indication.

[SlickHolden]

Why do you think they come down so hard on you when you get charged with assault or anything and they find out youve got the black belt in Karate :p

A trained fighter has their body as a weapon
I do remember this one man who knocked out a bloke and the blow killed him, He was charged with murder not manslaughter only because he was a pro fighter, And the guy he hit couldnt fight his way out of a wet paper towel.
If he got found guilty or not i dont know havent herd anything?

[SlickHolden]

What we're trying to point out though is with a gun you can kill someone standing maybe 500m away from you, try doing that with any primitive hand held weapon. that alone makes the act of killing alot easier as theres no need for one on one combat
That's right hand to hand combat or with sticks knifes bats, It's going to take it's toll on your body after 2 or 3 fights unless you gab them and it's over,

Guns shoot someone 500 meters away and you might keep going how hard is it to lay there and shoot someone, It's mental tiredness not physical.
Say someone like me that hasn't touched a gun in 15 years. Back then i was a crack shot, Even today i might be good?? But what damage could i do with a gun AK-47?? Sniper rifle??
Then what damage could i do with a sword get one and they all go running before you know it someone had tackled me from behind and king hit me out cops come I'm goooooooooooone.
So that's why if guns weren't made it killing would be just to dam hard.
That's why i can't understand people that vote if guns weren't made life would be the same, It just can't be the same without guns the hole world would be very different.

[clutch-monkey]

And yet you still voted No??

yep, because i didn't really read the question. it was only when i went back that i saw the thread was pretty much set for one answer. - even if it is irrelevant.

[clutch-monkey]

Then what damage could i do with a sword get one and they all go running before you know it someone had tackled me from behind and king hit me out cops come I'm goooooooooooone.


you could say the same for a bolt-action or a double barrel. once you've fired whatever's in the chamber your screwed. unless fear of a gun keeps people away long enough so you can reload. i know i'd fear a gun more than sword.
but a cop with a glock has a massive firepower advantage over a bolt-action or a side-by-side.

[crisis]

How can pragmatism NOT be human ?
:)
I was reffereing to how us murderous humans are very clever at finding more efficient ways to kill.

[clutch-monkey]

I was reffereing to how us murderous humans are very clever at finding more efficient ways to kill.

yes, and we put so much effort into it :(
the cost of one nuclear submarine is enough to feed ethopia for a year or something

[SlickHolden]

you could say the same for a bolt-action or a double barrel. once you've fired whatever's in the chamber your screwed. unless fear of a gun keeps people away long enough so you can reload. i know i'd fear a gun more than sword.
but a cop with a glock has a massive firepower advantage over a bolt-action or a side-by-side.
I would have more of a chance with a gun.

[SlickHolden]

Like i was saying how much the US spend on overseas wars and shit, but they cant stick some money into home saftey guns being my big point.