Would the world be a safer place is guns no longer existed?

Would the world be a safer place is guns no longer existed?

There are still blunt/bladed weapons.
If a man has the intent to kill, he will find a way to do so. Guns simply made killing easier.

He is asking if may it become SAFER not a SAFE place

It would since guns' manufacturers actually rid their business through wars to fill their pockets. The pressure they exert to governments is goddamn huge.

Then yes- people would most likely rather not kill since it would be harder.

well it would certainly be easier for a warrior elite to dominate you in the name of making you safer.

Likely. Bleeding type injuries are one of the few things doctors seems to have actually gotten pretty good at dealing with, at least to the degree of keeping people from dying, take that whole Boston incident for example. And what sorts of challenges do you hear about doctors facing? It tends to be incidents of people having parts of their body needing to be reatached, or getting half their body mangled that end up making the news. If doctors are becoming adept at handling that, then the types of injuries that can be inflicted by human force should be not a huge ordeal to deal with.

>get rid of all the guns through the laws
>criminals ignore the new laws, keep or obtain guns in some other fashion
>assuming Americans don't ass-fuck another tyrannical gov for like the fourth time in 250 years if this happens
or if you're talking about some hypothetical situation in which all the guns magically disappear
>implying people decide to stop being violent just because the means of commiting a crime are slightly more difficult
>implying crime won't stay the same or rise because instead of one dude getting shot two dudes go at each other with knives
also this is politics, go back to that nazi shithole where they want to give up their assholes to an authoritative force, you'd fit righ in

The US would be a safer place if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist.

>the US would be a safer place if we didn't allow people to defend themselves

I'd rather get shot than cleaved in fucking two by a Daneaxe.

>>criminals ignore the new laws, keep or obtain guns in some other fashion
That is not a valid point! You need to learn to shut the hell up, you damn touchy ammosexual. Clearly, you just can't cope with the topic beaing what it is. Your efforts to dream up all sorts of bullshit, and stick these wishes on to OP are pitiful.

Define "safer" gun ownership has skyrockted since the 90's while violent crime has continued to decrease in general.

That's just like, your opinion man. You're sidestepping the question of how bad swordfights would be.

And of course, since America is excellent hunting country, bows would have to be all over.

So you have to face the uncertainty of whether more people would be killed with axes, swords and spears or with bows and crossbows.

Oh, and do not forget... because it's not half as easy to ovehunt without guns, hunting would probably end up being even more widespread, thus you'd presumably have bows, crossbows and ballistas all over.

Only if ALL of them didn´t exist, which is different from taking the guns from law-abiding citizens and giving them to the government and criminals.

I hold to the view that guns shouldn´t exist but I´m pro gun rights for as long as they do.

>sounds exactly like a typical /pol/ack down to the letter
>still says gbck2pol to fit in

People would still have violent intent, but it's a lot harder to kill without a gun. The only effect guns have in reducing violent crime is A) a deterrent and B) when they give a weak defender a chance against an attacker that they'd otherwise be outmatched by. I think the greater ease of killing with guns outweighs either of those factors. I mean, it wasn't until the invention of firearms that we were able to have entire armies carrying no hand-to-hand weapons heavier than a knife.

But they do exist, and this is a mental exercise in futility.

War was actually bloodier before guns. WW2 had a staggeringly high number of casualties, but the ratio of casualties to non-casualties is far lower than in pre-gunpowder wars.

SHALL

This doesn't mean anything you fucking retard
>if you even slightly agree with /pol/ you are /pol/
Hey idiot, in case you haven't realized that entire board is edgy fascist teens who don't even understand their fucking ideology to the point where they think their führer 2.0 will somehow give guns to whites only or some other hogwash

I can be a libertarian and hate nazis, just like, I don't know, every fucking libertarian ever

Off yourself

NOT

BE

For about 24 hours. Then everybody with a decent machine shop would start shitting out M3 grease guns.

The vast majority of gunshot injuries are survived. Something like 98%.

You can make shitty slamfire shotguns with about an hour of work and ~$30 in parts from any Home Depot. They're literally just two pieces of pipe, one sliding in the other.

What you said could work in Europe but it could never work in the US, we're just in too deep to just place some laws into effect and pat ourselves in the back. There's an ass load of guns and ammo in the US and I can personally attest that strict gun laws (like California's laws) do not work at all.

INFRINGED

>What you said could work in Europe
Evidently not, considering their recent troubles.

Well there you have it, I was just saying that there are way too many guns and ammo in the US for strict gun laws to ever work.

Yup, guns are just so simple to manufacture that even nations that are severely antigun (such as Australia) still have trouble with biker gangs manufacturing simple blowback operated handguns and open bolt submachine guns.

I do not entertain hypotheticals. The world itself is vexing enough.

Regardless, it's a pointless thought exercise since it disarms individuals and infantry of small arms while leaving the most destructive weapons in the hands of militaries the world over. Your mugger might not have a Jennings anymore, but Assad still has sarin gas and cluster bombs, and now your mugger probably has a knife. Pointless to debate, really.

It means plenty! It means you are completely out of line WHINING about how certain you are that a world without guns would be more or even comparably violent. Or even whining just about the fact that there still would be violence in a world without guns - that you're implicitly slamming the possibility of what if it would be half as reprehensible.

So, bringing in your standard issue pro-gun-rights hysteria is what objectively constitutes being a fucktard here.

The topic clearly dictates discussing EXACTLY HOW MUCH SWORD VIOLENCE there would be. Value judgements about gun violence versus other violence are nothing but an admission have no place in such, they do nothing except reveal someone who stoops to them as too much of mindless nutcase, obsesses by ulterior motives, to be able to think about what fascinating sword violence there would be in a world without guns!

It could work, if you restricted everyone to revolvers, they could eventually flood the market enough to be the only reasonable game in town.

So you're saying that if gunpowder somehow just stopped working, americans are so accustommed to guns, they'd immediately just invent a new mechanism for guns?

>if you restricted everyone to revolvers

Ok, what are you gonna do about all the gas operated weapons already in the US? Do you think gun owning Americans are just going to go with it?

You'd be surprised but since we live in reality gunpowder will always work and people will find ways to get it or make it

Knights with their fancy armor would have an advantage over all the filthy peasants and yeomen again

>swordfags

It would collapse civilisation as the government would loose its ability to enforce the law

Would the forest be a safer place if wolves didn't exist?

Lmao fag

You can still use bombs.

Stupid question. Of course, it would. English forests are incredibly safe because there are no wolfs in them.

Your presumptions about where you live and also where you would be living in this kind of scenario are irrelavant, what we're supposed to be talking about is a world where, for example, the air becomes becomes viscous enough to inhibit bullets and prone to seeping into cartridges and randomly setting of gunpowder, where lead becomes valuble and a problematic to have distributed all throughout society and where bulletproof robes are dirt cheap.

No it wouldn't, the government would use armed drones, knockout gas, mega-tasers, horses and elephants.

no, it would be easier to commit crimes I would imagine. the only way someone could stop you is face to face with a melee weapon, so you can easily prey on weaker people. More robberies and rape

>Veeky Forums talks about modern gun laws

This is like when /pol/ talks about genetics.

Your presumptions about where you live and also about where you would be living in this kind of scenario are irrelavant, what we're supposed to be talking about is a world where, for example, the air becomes viscous enough to inhibit bullets and prone to seeping into cartridges and randomly setting off gunpowder, where lead becomes valuble and a problematic to have idly distributed all throughout society and where bulletproof robes are dirt cheap.

>the air becomes viscous enough to inhibit bullets and prone to seeping into cartridges and randomly setting off gunpowder

Boy if that happens we have bigger problems then a citizenry having guns

You're retarded.

People seem to be able to tollerate fluid breathing okay, and atmospheric storms that send out barely adequate energy jolts would not have to be so strong that a gun would in principle be useless, they'd just have to be frequent enough to wreck stockpiles in due time and make guns impractical to develop and amass.

Banning guns in the UK just led to waves of stabbings.
Banning knives has just led them to a new trend of flinging acid in each others faces.

Nein, you liberal cuck.

Guns aren't going anywhere in the US, deal with it

No, not really, the homicide rate has been pretty steady in Australia before and after we regulated our firearms. Besides Port Arthur there haven't been any massive spikes in it ever

it would be incredibly less safe, as it was before firearms.

God made man, and Samuel Colt made man equal.

Modern firearms are a tool for equality of violence. They allow any woman, child, disabled person, or elderly person the ability to attempt to be equal in violence with a young able bodied male.To strip them of modern firearms. You revert inequality of violence back to a pre industrial condition.

Yes. The entire world should revert back to pre-gunpowder weaponry. Every citizen should be required to train how to use a longbow and be legally allowed to carry a one-handed sword or blunt weapon in public for self defense. Conscription would be mandatory during any conflict involving your nation and the government would only have to provide you with adequate pay, food, armor (gamebeson, mail, helmet, shield -- plate would need to be bought yourself) and as well as arrows and pikes/spears. Officers would be reimbursed for horses and provided lances and sabres.

Anyone found with an illegal firearm to be drawn and quartered in public.

>Anyone found with an illegal firearm to be drawn and quartered in public.
*shoots you*

Good luck shooting an entire group of mounted and armored gendarmes coming at you with lance and mace and shields if bulletproof glass. You might get a few, but you're still fucked.

Big talk from people who can't deal with thoughts about what would be happening without guns.

>bulletproof glass shield
meme, stop playing calladooty. there are a ton of widely available cartridges that can punch through your shittly little riot shield.
>mounted
wow, thanks for exposing more of yourself for me to shoot I guess
>armored
level 3A armor won't even stand up to 3-4 rounds of 5.56x45/.223 lmao
>entire group
there's this little invention called the 30 round magazine, you may have heard of it?